Comparative constructions analyzed

13
Comparative
constructions
Rodney Huddleston
1 Preliminaries 1099
1.1 Two cross-cutting distinctions: scalar vs non-scalar, equality vs inequality 1099
1.2 Term and set comparison 1101
1.3 Comparative complements, comparative governors, and comparative phrases 1103
2 Comparative clauses 1106
2.1 Reduction of comparative clauses 1107
2.2 Than/as + single element (Bob is as generous as Sue ) 1113
2.3 Likeness and contrast between comparative clause and matrix 1118
2.4 The comparative phrase 1119
3 Metalinguistic comparison (more apparent than real ) 1121
4 Scalar term comparison 1122
4.1 The major governors in comparisons of inequality 1122
4.1.1 More and less : analytic markers vs inflectional forms 1122
4.1.2 Comparative forms of the degree determinatives 1126
4.2 Less central governors in scalar inequality (rather, prefer, superior ) 1128
4.3 Scalar comparisons of equality: as, so, such 1130
4.4 Modification 1131
4.4.1 Degree modification 1131
4.4.2 Modification by the 1131
4.5 Comparative idioms and reanalysis 1132
4.6 The correlative comparative construction 1135
5 Non-scalar comparison 1137
5.1 Same 1138
5.2 Similar 1141
5.3 Such 1142
5.4 Different, other, else 1143
5.5 As 1146
5.6 Like 1154
5.6.1 Like + NP complement 1154
5.6.2 Like + finite clause 1158
5.6.3 Other constructions 1158
5.6.4 Unlike 1160
6 Scalar set comparison 1161
6.1 Plain, comparative, and superlative grade 1161
6.2 Comparative grade in set comparison 1162
1097
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Boston University Theology Library, on 04 Jun 2017 at 01:31:16, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.014
1098
6.3 Superlatives 1164

6.3.1 Inflectional and analytic superlatives 1164
6.3.2 Non-superlative uses of most 1165
6.3.3 Absolute and relative superlatives 1166
6.3.4 The structure of superlative phrases 1167
1099
1 Preliminaries
English has a rich system of specialised syntax and morphology for the expression of
comparisons of various types. The two inflectionally marked terms in the system of
grade, exemplified in such forms as bigger and biggest, have the expression of comparison
as virtually their only use, and one of the three major kinds of finite subordinate clause –
the type of clause underlined in She is much bigger than she was then or She went to the
same school as I went to – is reserved for the expression of comparison.
We use the traditional terms comparative form and superlative form for the inflec-
tional categories bigger and biggest, and comparative clause for subordinate clauses like
she was then and I went to.1 This chapter is concerned with constructions containing
these categories and others bearing significant syntactic resemblances to them. In this
preliminary section we introduce the main subtypes of comparative construction and a
number of syntactic categories needed for their description.
1.1 Two cross-cutting distinctions: scalar vs non-scalar,

equality vs inequality
Two intersecting dimensions of contrast yield the four types of comparative construction
shown in [1]:
[1] equality inequality
scalar Kim is as old as Pat. Kim is older than Pat.
non-scalar I took the same bus as last time. I took a different bus from last time.
Scalar vs non-scalar
Scalar comparisons are concerned with relative position on some scale, such as that
denoted by old in [1]; old is a gradable adjective and scalar comparison is one type of
grading, potentially more complex than grading by means of such degree adverbs as
very, quite, rather, etc., but of the same general kind.
Non-scalar comparisons, by contrast, are concerned not with grading but with such
issues as identity and likeness. Bus, for example, is not gradable, and the non-scalar
1
Recall that on our analysis (see Ch. 11, §8.1) than is a preposition taking the comparative clause as its complement,
not part of the subordinate clause as in traditional grammar.
1100 Chapter 13 Comparative constructions
comparisons in [1] compare the two buses (the one I took and the one I had taken last
time) for identity.
Scalar comparison can be regarded as the more central type: inflectionally marked
comparatives are scalar and, within the inequality category, comparative clauses are rare
in the non-scalar constructions.
Equality vs inequality
These terms apply reasonably transparently to scalar comparison. If Kim is as old as Pat,
then Kim’s age is (at least) equal to Pat’s, and if Kim is older than Pat, their ages are not
equal.
We do not so readily invoke these terms in describing the meaning of non-scalar
comparisons (for example, I took the same bus as last time does not mean “The bus I took
equals the bus I took last time”). Non-scalar comparison is concerned with identity vs
non-identity or likeness vs unlikeness. Grammatically, however, there are grounds for
recognising a single contrast applying to scalar and non-scalar comparisons alike: as is
the main marker of equality comparison, whether scalar (as old as Pat) or non-scalar
(the same bus as last time), while than marks both scalar inequality (older than Pat) and
certain types of non-scalar inequality (other than Pat or, in some varieties of English,
%
different than last time).
Subtypes of inequality: superiority and inferiority
Within certain kinds of scalar comparison we need to distinguish two different kinds of
inequality, giving in all a contrast between three categories, not just two:
[2] equality as heavy as as careful as

superiority heavier than more careful than
inequality
inferiority less heavy than less careful than
Superiority may be marked inflectionally (heavier) or analytically, by more, while the
other categories are marked just analytically: inferiority is marked by less, and equality
by as. What is standardly called the comparative inflection, therefore, is the marker of
just one type of comparative relation, scalar superiority.2
Scalar orientation
Superiority and inferiority are to be interpreted relative to the particular scale at issue:
younger than is just as much a comparison of superiority as older than. Scales have an
orientation, or direction, which depends on the lexical meaning of the compared item.
Old and young both denote scales concerned with age but have opposite orientations:
the older something is, the further it is from age zero, whereas the younger it is the closer
it is to that zero point. Superiority and inferiority are grammatical categories, marked
as indicated above, whereas orientation is a matter of lexical meaning.
Scalar comparison of equality indicates “at least equal”
In the absence of indications to the contrary, a scalar comparison of equality is interpreted
as “at least equal”, not “exactly equal”:
2
The term ‘equative’ is often used in contrast to ‘comparative’ for what we are calling scalar comparison of
equality. The view taken here is that X is as heavy as Y involves comparison just as much as X is heavier than
Y, and syntactically they are alike in that the Y element can in both cases be realised by a comparative clause.
§ 1.2 Term and set comparison 1101
[3] i Jill is as clever as Liz. [Jill may be cleverer]

ii Jill isn’t as clever as Liz. [Jill must be less clever]
Example [i] is consistent with Jill being cleverer than Liz: we can say Jill’s as clever as Liz,
somewhat more so in fact.3 Scalar equality therefore normally excludes only the relation of
inferiority: it gives a lower bound. And the negative in [ii] accordingly entails inferiority,
ruling out both the case where Jill and Liz are equally clever and that where Jill is cleverer.4
This is just as well for the practical use of the language, for while some scales (such as
those involving physical size) allow precise measurement, most do not. It would normally
be nonsensical to ask whether Jill is exactly as clever as Liz, for example.
The extent to which a comparison of equality is compatible with superiority will
vary with the content and context: He made as many as eighteen mistakes carries a much
stronger suggestion that perhaps exact equality holds, for example, than He made as
many mistakes as I did.
Sanctioning of non-affirmative items

Non-affirmative items such as any, ever, etc., are permitted in three of the four subtypes
of comparison given in [1]:
[4] i She ran faster than anyone had expected. [scalar inequality]
ii She ran as fast as she had ever run before. [scalar equality]
iii It was different from anything I’d ever seen before. [non-scalar inequality]
∗
iv It was the same as anything I’d ever seen before. [non-scalar equality]
There is an evident connection in [i–iii] with negation (the prototypical context for such
items). These sentences entail, respectively, that no one had expected her to run as fast
as she did, that she had never run faster before, that it was not the same as, or not like,
anything I’d ever seen before.
1.2 Term and set comparison

A further distinction within comparative constructions is between term comparison
and set comparison:

[5] i a. Ed is more tolerant than he used to be.
[term comparison]
b. Kim’s version is much superior to Pat’s.

ii a. Ed made the most mistakes of them all.
[set comparison]
b. It sold for the highest price ever paid for a Cézanne.
The examples in [i] express comparison between a primary term and a secondary term,
labels which reflect the fact that the secondary term is syntactically subordinate relative to
the primary one. In [ia] the comparison is between how tolerant Ed is now, the primary
term, and how tolerant he used to be, the secondary term: the primary term is expressed
in the matrix clause, the secondary term in a subordinate clause (he used to be). In [ib]
3
This can indeed apply also to equal itself, as in Kim is the equal of Pat when it comes to solving crossword puzzles
(which is consistent with Kim being better) or We hope to equal last year’s profit (consistent with bettering it).
4
This applies to ordinary negation. With metalinguistic negation (Ch. 9, §1.2) it is possible to say Jill isn’t as
clever as Pat, she’s a good deal cleverer: this rejects Jill is as clever as Pat not because it is false, but because it
doesn’t say enough.
the comparison is between Kim’s version (primary) and Pat’s version (secondary); in
this case there is no immediate syntactic relation between the NPs expressing the two
terms, but Pat’s is lower in the constituent structure, and in that sense can be regarded
as subordinate relative to the primary term.
The examples in [5ii] express comparison between the members of some set: in the
type of set comparison illustrated here, one member of the set is picked out as being at
the top of the scale. In [iia] the set is identified by the NP them all: the comparison is
between the members of this set with respect to how many mistakes they each made,
with Ed ranked at the top of the scale. It is possible to omit the PP of them all, in which
case the set being compared is identified contextually. In [iib] the comparison is between
the prices paid for paintings by Cézanne, and again one is picked out as being at the top
of the scale.
Omission of secondary term in term comparison

The secondary term is commonly left implicit when it is recoverable from the context:
[6] i Ed was pretty difficult in those days, but now he’s more tolerant.
ii Pat’s version is rather pedestrian: Kim’s is far superior.
iii They have moved house four times in as many years.
We understand “more tolerant than he was in those days”, “far superior to Pat’s version”,
“as many as four years”,5 with the missing material recovered from the preceding text.
Alternatively, the secondary term may be simply recovered from the situation – as, for
example, when you open the window in a stuffy room and I say That’s better!
Equivalence between set and term comparisons

In general, set comparisons can be reformulated as equivalent term comparisons. For
example, [5iia–b] are equivalent to:
[7] i Ed made more mistakes than all the others.
ii It sold for a higher price than had ever been paid for a Cézanne before.
In [5iia] them all identifies a set that includes Ed, whereas in [7i] all the others excludes
Ed and expresses the secondary term in the comparison. Similarly, in [5iib] one price is
ranked at the top of the scale for the set of all prices ever paid, while in [7ii] one price is
compared with all the others as primary term vs secondary term.
The scalar vs non-scalar and equality vs inequality contrasts apply to both types
The two dimensions of contrast introduced in §1.1 apply to set comparisons as well as to
term comparisons, as illustrated in [8–9]:
[8] set comparison
Equality Inequality
Scalar Sue and Ed are equally good. Sue is the best of the three.
Non-scalar Sue and Ed are in the same class. Sue and Ed go to different schools.
5
This is one place where scalar equality is interpreted as exact equality rather than as giving a lower bound: we
understand “in four years”. Compare, similarly, This is their sixth victory in as many matches (“in six matches”).
§ 1.3 Comparative complements, governors, and phrases 1103
[9] term comparison

Equality Inequality
Scalar Sue is as good as Ed. Sue is better than the other two.
Non-scalar Sue is in the same class as Ed. Sue goes to a different school from Ed.
Syntactic differences
The two most important syntactic differences between term and set comparisons are the
following:
[10] i Comparative clauses occur only in term comparisons, where they are associated
with the secondary term.
ii Superlative and comparative grades are used in comparisons of inequality; the
superlative is restricted to set comparisons, while comparative grade is used
predominantly in term comparison, but occurs also in set comparisons where
the set has just two members.
The two uses of comparative grade are illustrated in:
[11] i Jill is taller than her twin sister. [term comparison]
ii Jill is the taller of the twins. [set comparison]
In this chapter we devote §2 to the description of comparative clauses, and §3 is concerned
with a special type of comparison known as metalinguistic comparison (as in I was more
worried than angry). We then deal in §§4–6 respectively with scalar term comparison,
non-scalar comparison, and scalar set comparison.
1.3 Comparative complements, comparative governors,

and comparative phrases
The secondary term in a term comparison may be expressed by a comparative clause or
some other form of expression, typically a phrase:
[12] i We performed better than we did last year. [comparative clause]
ii This year’s performance was superior to last year’s. [other form (NP)]
While the comparative clause is a syntactically distinct construction appearing only
in term comparisons, other forms of secondary term are not specialised to comparative
constructions but occur readily elsewhere (cf. It is too early to judge this year’s performance,
but last year’s was excellent).
Comparative complement – bare and expanded

Whether a comparative clause or not, the form expressing the secondary term has the
syntactic function of complement. In the most central cases, as illustrated in [12], it
is complement of a preposition which is itself governed, or selected, by some other
item, as than in [12i] is governed by the comparative form better and to in [12ii] is
governed by superior.6 We will generalise to this construction the distinction between
‘bare’ and ‘expanded’, with bare comparative complement excluding the preposition
6
In a few cases the secondary term is expressed in a genitive subject-determiner in NP structure, as in my betters,
“those who are better than me”.
and expanded comparative complement including it. As applied to the examples in

[12], this gives:
[13] i bare comparative complement we did last year last year’s
ii expanded comparative complement than we did last year to last year’s
The main prepositions that occur in the expanded complement vary to some extent
according to the type of comparison:
[14] equality inequality
scalar as than, to
non-scalar as, to, with than, to, from
Comparative governors
The items which license comparative complements we call comparative governors. The
following table shows the main governors (underlined) together with the prepositions
they take in expanded complements; the governors are classified according to the four
types of comparison, with the pluses indicating scalar and equality, the minuses non-
scalar and inequality:
[15] scalar equality
i + + as . . . as, so . . . as, such . . . as
ii – + same as, such as, similar to, equal to/with,
identical to/with
iii + – ·er than, more than, less than, rather than,
prefer . . . to/than, superior to, inferior to
iv – – other than, else than, differ from,
different from/to/than, dissimilar to/from
The ·er in [iii] represents the comparative inflection (whether realised as the suffix ·er
or irregularly, as in worse, etc.). We include such in both scalar and non-scalar categories:
scalar such expresses likeness of degree (It isn’t such a good idea as he would have us
believe), while non-scalar such expresses likeness of kind or identity (I did such things as
only one woman can do for another). In addition we will see that comparison with same
may have affinities with the scalar type when same modifies a gradable noun.
Governors taking bare complements
There are also items which take the secondary term as complement without any me-
diating preposition. These include like and unlike (which belong to both adjective and
preposition categories), as and certain other prepositions such as before and after, a few
verbs such as equal, exceed, resemble (it is the adjective equal that is listed in [15ii]), and
so on. Thus we have Ed is like his father, not ∗Ed is like to his father, etc. For as we need
to distinguish the three occurrences shown in:
[16] i It wasn’t as expensive as she had expected.
ii It was reasonably cheap, as she had expected.
The first as in [i], an adverb, is the governor, and it licenses a complement expanded
by the second as, a preposition. In [ii] we have just one as, a preposition, which is the
governor and takes a bare complement (just as like does). In both cases the comparative
clause she had expected is complement of the preposition as, but in [i] this as is selected
§ 1.3 Comparative complements, governors, and phrases 1105
by the adverb as which introduces the comparison. In [ii] it is the preposition as itself
that introduces the comparison.
Comparative phrase
We apply the term comparative phrase to a phrase containing a comparative governor.
In [12], for example, the comparative phrases are more satisfactorily than we did last year
and superior to last year’s. In other cases it may be a larger phrase:
[17] This may be a more serious problem than you think.
Although more modifies serious, it is the phrase headed by problem that is the comparative
phrase. This is another place where we can invoke the metaphor of upward percolation:
the comparative feature percolates up from more to more serious and thence to the whole
NP. We take up in §2.4 below the issue of how far such upward percolation can go, i.e.
how much is encompassed by a comparative phrase.
Position of the comparative complement

The complement is found in a variety of positions relative to the head of the comparative
phrase. They are illustrated in [18], where the comparative phrase is enclosed in square
brackets, double underlining marks its head, and single underlining marks the expanded
comparative complement.
[18] i He took out [a bigger loan than was necessary]. [post-head]
ii She’s [more experienced in these matters than I am]. [postposed in phrase]
iii [More people] attended the meeting than ever before. [postposed in clause]
iv He chose Kim, than whom no one could be [more suitable]. [preposed]
v They’ve achieved [a better than expected result]. [pre-head]
vi [More people] oppose than support the
proposed office reorganisation. [before delayed right constituent]
In more detail, the possibilities shown in [18] are as follows:
i The complement immediately follows the head, the noun loan.
ii The than phrase is separated from the head but is still within the comparative phrase.
In these matters is also a dependent (another complement) of experienced.
iii The complement than ever before is separated from the head by the predicator and
its object, and hence is not part of the same phrase as its governor more – not part of
the comparative phrase.
iv The comparative complement occupies initial position in the clause, because whom
is a relative pronoun and hence occupies prenuclear position (along with the prepo-
sition than) in the relative clause. This is a relatively rare construction, found only in
formal style.7
v Here the comparative complement occurs in pre-head position within the compar-
ative phrase. This pattern is largely restricted to inflectional comparatives with than
followed by one of a handful of short expressions such as anticipated, expected, hoped
for, necessary, usual.
7
It is marginally possible also in open interrogatives (Than whom is he less tolerant?) and with complement
preposing (Than such a slogan, nothing could be more negative). It is not found with comparisons of equality:
∗Kim, as whom no-one could be as suitable.
vi This illustrates the delayed right constituent construction, which is more often found
with coordination than with subordination (and hence is described in Ch. 15, §4.4).
A typical coordinate example would be Three-quarters of them oppose and only 15%
actually support the proposed office reorganisation. The final NP, the proposed office
reorganisation, is understood as object of both oppose and support. If the comparative
complement were in final position, it would need a separately realised object: More
people oppose the proposed office reorganisation than support it.
The most usual position for the comparative complement is at the end of the clause
containing the comparative phrase, as in [18i–iii]. This means that if the clause con-
tains material (other than the comparative complement itself) following the head, the
complement will characteristically be postposed, very often to a position outside the
comparative phrase. In [18ii–iii] postposing is optional: we can also have She’s more
experienced than I am in these matters; More people than ever before attended the meeting.
The longer, or heavier, the complement is, relative to the other material, the more likely
it is to be postposed. There are also cases where postposing is grammatically obligatory:
[19] i He knew more about Paris than any of his friends. [postposing preferred]
ii It is better to tell her now than to wait till after the exam. [postposing required]
Example [i] is more natural than the version without postposing because the than phrase
is significantly heavier than about Paris. In [ii] postposing is obligatory because the main
contrast is between to tell her now and to wait till after the exam, and as the former belongs
to the primary term it must precede the latter, which belongs to the secondary term.
It will be clear, then, that expanded comparative complements are very often indirect
complements, in the sense explained in Ch. 2, §5: in these cases they are licensed not by
the head of the construction in which they occur, but by some dependent of the head.
In [18i], for example, than was necessary is complement of the bracketed NP, but it is not
licensed by the head of that NP, loan.
2 Comparative clauses
Comparativeclauses form a subcategory of subordinate clauses, contrasting with relative

and content clauses. They are found in the four types of term comparison, though the
non-scalar inequality type is subject to dialect restrictions described in §5.4:
[1] i It was better than I had expected. [scalar inequality]
ii It wasn’t as good as I had expected. [scalar equality]
iii It was excellent, as/%like I had expected. [non-scalar equality]
%
iv It wasn’t much different than I had expected. [non-scalar inequality]
In all cases, the comparative clause (I had expected ) is complement of one of the prepo-
sitions than, as, and like.
Note that it is not the matrix clause expressing the whole comparison that is tradition-
ally called a comparative clause, but the subordinate clause that expresses the secondary
term. The major distinctive feature of comparative clauses is that they are structurally
reduced relative to full main clauses: in varying degrees, material is left understood that
would be overtly present in comparable full main clauses. I had expected, for example, is
not grammatical as a sentence in its own right.
§ 2.1 Reduction of comparative clauses 1107
Variables vs constants
The comparison in [1i] is between how good it was and how good I had expected it to
be – but the sentence doesn’t say how good it actually was or how good I had expected it
to be. To describe the meaning we therefore need to invoke variables: we will informally
represent the primary term as “It was x good” and the secondary one as “I had expected
it to be y good”. The governor, the comparative inflection, then indicates that x exceeds y:
“x > y”. This kind of comparison is thus to be distinguished from that where one or both
of the terms is a constant. Compare, for example:
[2] i It was better [than I had expected]. [variable–variable comparison]
ii I stayed longer [than six weeks]. [variable–constant comparison]
iii Sue is just like her mother. [constant–constant comparison]
In [ii] the primary term again contains a variable “I stayed x long”, but the secondary
term this time is simply “six weeks”. Six weeks here is an NP, not a clause: comparative
clauses always express secondary terms involving a variable. Example [iii] illustrates the
case where both terms are constants: this is simply a comparison between Sue and her
mother.
Inversion
While a particular kind of structural reduction is the chief syntactic factor distinguishing
comparative clauses from other clauses, there is also a difference with respect to the
position of the subject, which can occur after the verb under conditions illustrated in:
[3] i Spain’s financial problems were less acute than were those of Portugal.
∗
ii The water seems significantly colder today than was it yesterday.
iii It is no more expensive than would be the system you are proposing.
∗
iv It is no more expensive than would the system you are proposing be.
∗
v He works harder than works his father.
The effect of the inversion is almost invariably to place a contrastive subject in end
position: in [i], for example, those of Portugal contrasts with Spain’s financial problems.
In [ii], then, where the contrast is between the non-subjects today and yesterday the
inversion is out of place: we need than it was yesterday. Note, moreover, that in [iii]
the subject follows the sequence would be: it cannot invert with would alone, as we see
from [iv]. The construction therefore has strong affinities with postposing (cf. Ch. 16,
§4) – yet it also resembles subject–auxiliary inversion in that the verb normally has
to be an auxiliary: we can have He works harder than his father works but not [v].
The construction therefore has something of the character of a blend between subject
postposing and subject–auxiliary inversion, and this mix of properties is found only in
comparative clauses.
2.1 Reduction of comparative clauses

We confine our attention in this section to the central case where the comparative clause
occurs in an expanded complement headed by than or as. We look first at two cases of
obligatory reduction, (a)–(b), and then move on to optional reduction, (c)–(g).
(a) Obligatory absence of counterpart to the comparative governor

The minimum reduction is seen in such examples as:
[4] i The swimming-pool is as deep as [it is wide].
ii ∗The swimming pool is as deep as [it is very / quite / two metres wide].
The comparative governor, the underlined as, is a degree modifier of deep in the ma-
trix clause, and the corresponding position in the bracketed comparative clause must
be empty. This requirement is satisfied in [i], where the position of degree modifier
(modifying wide) is empty, while [ii] is ungrammatical by virtue of this position being
filled. The inflectional suffix ·er counts as equivalent to the analytic marker more, so that
the position indicated by ‘ ’ , which we will refer to as the gap, must likewise remain
empty in The swimming-pool is deeper than [it is wide].
Although this position of the gap must remain syntactically empty, it is not seman-
tically empty. The notation ‘ ’ is intended to suggest that some element is understood.
What is understood is the value for the variable that we have already suggested is involved
in the meaning of comparisons whose secondary term is expressed by a comparative
clause.
Because of the missing but understood material, the comparative clause in [4i] does
not have the same meaning as the main clause It is wide. The latter says that the pool is
wide (relative to the norms for pools), but [4i] doesn’t say this. Rather, we understand
something like “The pool is x units deep; the pool is y units wide; and x is (at least)
equal to y”. In other words, there is an implicit degree modifier, and since this consists
of a variable (y) whose value is unspecified, [4i] is consistent with the pool being wide,
narrow, or in-between, depending on what the value turns out to be.
This implicit variable degree modifier explains the impossibility of filling the gap
position with an explicit degree modifier, as in [4ii]: it can’t be implicitly and explicitly
filled at the same time. In the matrix clause the x variable is also implicit rather than
actually expressed, but syntactically its position is taken by the comparative governor,
expressing the relation between x and y.
(b) Counterpart of comparative phrase normally omitted unless distinct

Consider next:
[5] i She is older than [I am ].
ii She went to the same school as [I went to ].
The comparative phrases are older than I am and the same school as I went to, and counter-
parts to these, corresponding phrases minus the comparative governor and complement,
i.e. old and the school, are understood but unexpressed in the comparative clause. We
understand “I am y old”, “I went to y school”, but old and school must be left implicit as
well as the y variables. The syntax thus excludes:
[6] i ∗She is older than [I am old ].
ii ∗She went to the same school as [I went to the school ].
The comparative clause can contain a counterpart to the comparative phrase when
there is a contrast between them. This was the case in [4i], which has a contrast be-
tween the deep of the matrix clause and the wide of the comparative clause. Further
examples are:
[7] i She wrote more plays than [her husband wrote novels].
ii You couldn’t be a worse polo-player than [you are a singer].
iii He is more afraid of her than [she is of him].
iv There is no more reason to invite him than [there was to invite her].
In [i] novels contrasts with plays and hence we have an overt counterpart to the com-
parative phrase: both the comparative phrase and its counterpart are NPs functioning
as object of their clause, the former headed by plays, the latter by novels. Example [ii]
is similar, except that the comparative governor is here within an attributive adjective
(worse) rather than a determinative (more). In [iii–iv] the contrast lies not in the heads of
the comparative phrases (afraid and reason) but in the post-head dependents: ‘ of him’
is therefore an AdjP with a missing head (and missing degree modifier), and analogously
for ‘ to invite her’. It is possible to repeat the head in such circumstances; thus [iii] can
be expressed as He is more afraid of her than [she is afraid of him].8
(c) Stranding and do

The comparative clause is commonly further reduced by elliptical stranding of auxiliary
verbs or infinitival to:
[8] i She is right more often than [the others are ].
ii I didn’t enjoy the concert as much as [Kim had ].
iii I don’t hear from my brother as often as [I used to ].
iv She can get through more work in an hour than [I can in a day].
Again the bracketing here identifies the comparative clause, while the underlining in-
dicates matrix material that is ellipted. The ellipsis here is optional: the gaps could be
filled out as right, enjoyed it, hear from him, get through, i.e. repetitions or variants of
the matrix material. The elliptical versions are more frequent than those with repeated
material. The gap comes at the end of the clause, as in [i–iii], or else is followed by
contrastive material, as in [iv], where in a day contrasts with in an hour in the primary
term. The resultant structures are like those found with stranding in non-comparative
constructions (Ch. 17, §7) – compare [i] and [iv], for example, with the coordinations:
[9] i She is right and the others are too.
ii I can’t get through that much work in an hour, but I can in a day.
What distinguishes the comparative construction is that any filling in of the gaps is
subject to the restrictions covered in (a) and (b) above, so while we could expand the
coordinative [9ii] to I can get through that much work in a day the maximum expansion
of the comparative clause in [8iv] is than I can get through in a day.
The expressions that can be stranded are the same as in non-comparatives. Thus
a lexical verb such as enjoy cannot be stranded in comparatives any more than in
8
An exceptional case where a head is retained even though it is neither distinct nor accompanied by a distinct
dependent is that where the head is contrastively stressed in a correction of what has just been said, as in A:
She writes as many books as you write articles. B: No, that’s an exaggeration; but she writes as many books as I
write BOOKS.
non-comparatives:
[10] i ∗I didn’t enjoy the concert as much as [Kim had enjoyed ].
ii ∗Kim enjoyed the concert and I enjoyed too.
The reduced VP is commonly headed by the verb do, which in some varieties of
English is best considered as an auxiliary verb that can be stranded like those in [8] and
in other varieties as a pro-form (see Ch. 17, §7.2):
[11] i I get it wrong more often than [she does].
ii We treat our apprentices better than [they do their career employees].
Here too the reduced comparative clauses are formally identical to non-comparative
clauses found in other anaphoric constructions: I often get it wrong and she does (too); We
treat our apprentices well and they do their employees. And again the possible replacements
for the do forms are subject to the restrictions given in (a)–(b), so while we can have I
often get it wrong and she often gets it wrong too, we can’t have ∗I get it wrong more often
than [she often gets it wrong].
In varieties (especially BrE) where do is a pro-form, it can occur after auxiliaries or
infinitival to, and this yields the possibility of a choice between the stranding and pro-
form constructions. Compare, for example, [8ii] on the one hand and %I didn’t enjoy the
concert as much as [Kim had done] on the other.
Examples are occasionally found where the do clause is passivised in such a way that
no simple replacement for the pro-form is possible. Compare:
%
[12] i We must attend to it more closely than [people have usually done].
%
ii We must attend to it more closely than [has usually been done].
We can expand [i] to people have usually attended to it. However, if we replace do in [ii]
by a version of its antecedent the it will appear as subject, and attended to in place of
done: it has usually been attended to. The subjectless passive that we have in [ii] bears
some resemblance to the construction with an understood embedded clause, to which
we now turn.
(d) Omission of embedded clauses

Another common type of reduction is seen in:
[13] i The matter was more serious than [we had expected ].
ii More faults had been detected than [he was willing to admit ].
iii They finished the job earlier than [ (had been) expected].
iv The difficulties are even greater than [ appears at first sight].
Here an entire subordinate clause is understood. We could make the meaning of [i]
explicit by replacing the gap by than we had expected that it would be, or than we had
expected it to be. It is much more usual, though, to omit the subordinate clause, as in the
examples given.
In [13iii–iv] the missing clause is understood as subject. Expansion to make the
meaning explicit would require extraposition (They finished the job earlier than it had
been expected that they would finish it) – but note that extraposition it cannot be inserted
if the clause is not added: ∗They finished the job earlier than it had been expected.
In the passive construction, as in [13iii], some verbs, such as expect, allow the omission
of auxiliaries (as indicated by the parentheses in [iii]), reducing the comparative clause
to just a past participle (than expected). In [14] we give a sample of verbs figuring in
this construction, with the annotation ‘–aux’ indicating the possibility of omitting the
auxiliaries.
[14] acknowledge admit –aux allow anticipate –aux appear
assume –aux believe dream expect –aux hope
imagine imply indicate –aux intend –aux justify
like plan –aux predict –aux realise –aux recognise
remember require –aux schedule –aux show –aux suggest
suppose suspect think –aux warrant wish
Dream takes the preposition of: The Ariadne was going to be much hotter than our space
people had ever dreamt of.
The verbs in [14] are predominantly non-factive (in the sense explained in Ch. 11, §7.4), but
it is worth noting that the class does include factive realise. Consider, then:
[15] i The draft had more mistakes in it than I had realised.
ii I had realised that the draft had five mistakes in it.
iii “The draft had five mistakes in it”
Example [ii] entails [iii]: if [ii] is true, [iii] must be true too. This property of realise might
at first seem problematic for [i]. The secondary term in the comparison is “I had realised the
draft had x many mistakes in it”, which entails “the draft had x many mistakes in it” – yet
the sentence says it had more than x mistakes in it. There is, however, no contradiction here:
[ii] does not say that there were exactly five mistakes, only that there were at least five. If the
draft contained seven mistakes it follows that it contained five, though one generally wouldn’t
say that it contained five if one knew that it contained seven (cf. Ch. 5, §5.2). This is why
[i] makes perfect sense. It says that there were more mistakes in the draft than I had been
aware of: contrast #The draft didn’t have as many mistakes in it as I had realised.
In addition to the verbs listed in [14], we also find adjectives and other predicative
expressions in these missing-clause comparatives:
[16] i Don’t spend any longer on it than [ (is) necessary].
ii The score is higher than [ would have been the case if no one had cheated].
iii The danger may be greater than [any of us is aware (of ) ].
The understood missing parts are something like “spending that long on it” in [i], “the
score being that high” in [ii], and “the danger being that great” in [iii]. The lexical items
allowing this sort of construction include:
[17] acceptable aware justifiable necessary –v normal –v
polite possible –v usual –v the case one’s habit
With necessary and others marked ‘ –v’, the verb be can be omitted, so that the clause
may consist simply of the adjective: than [ necessary].
(e) Verbless clauses: reduction to two (or more) elements

We turn now to constructions where the verb is omitted (beyond the special case men-
tioned in (d) above), beginning with those where at least two elements remain:
[18] i Max didn’t love Jill as much as [she him].
ii He didn’t send as many postcards to his friends as [ letters to his mother].
In [i] just the verb is optionally omitted (we could insert loved or did ), whereas in [ii]
the subject is omitted as well as the verb (we could supply he sent or he did ).
The resultant structures are again like ones found in various types of coordination:
[19] i Max loved Jill and she him.
ii He sent postcards to his friends and letters to his mother.
As before, the permitted expansions are different: in [19], for example, we could expand
to and she loved him even more or and he sent many letters to his mother, but the even
more and many cannot be added in [18] by virtue of conditions (a)–(b). There are also
differences with respect to negation. In [18] the comparative clause is interpreted as
positive (“as she loved him”, “as he sent letters to his mother”), even though the matrix
clause is negative – and changing the matrix to positive has no effect on the polarity of
the comparative clause (cf. Max loved Jill as much as she him and Max sent as many
postcards to his friends as letters to his mother). But to get a positive interpretation of the
second coordinates in [19] we had to make the first coordinate positive too: Max didn’t
love Jill and she him, for example, doesn’t allow the interpretation “and she loved him”.
(f) Verbless clauses: reduction to a single element

The extreme case of reduction is where only a single element remains:
[20] i We spend more time in France than [ in Germany]. [PP]
ii He seems to play better drunk than [ sober]. [AdjP]
iii More believed that it was genuine than [ that it was a hoax]. [content clause]
iv It is better to try and fail than [ not to try at all]. [infinitival clause]
v Sue phoned Angela more often than [( ) Liz ( )]. [NP]
vi He has more enemies than [ friends]. [nominal]
In all of these it would be possible to add material in the position of the gap: for [i] we
could have We spend more time in France than [we spend in Germany], and so on.
Reduction to an AdjP, as in [ii], is restricted to cases where the AdjP is adjunct: we cannot
omit the it is in [4i] (The swimming-pool is as deep as it is wide) where the AdjP is
predicative complement.9
In [20iii], that it was a hoax is a content clause in terms of its internal structure: as a
comparative clause it is reduced to just a complement with the form of a content clause,
but permits expansion by the addition of believed, giving than [ believed that it was a
hoax]. Analogously for [iv].
The most common type of single-element construction has an NP standing on its
own, as in [20v]. This example illustrates an obvious type of ambiguity resulting from
reduction: it can be filled out as either than [she phoned Liz ] or as than [Liz phoned
her ] (and such fuller versions are likely to be preferred where the context doesn’t make
clear which meaning is intended).
In [20vi] the complement of than is an NP, but the part following the gap is a nominal
and cannot be replaced by a full NP such as these friends.
Pronoun case
Where the single element is a personal pronoun, the choice between nominative and
accusative follows the general rules given in Ch. 5, §16.2. Compare:
9
Examples like He was more shy than rude involve metalinguistic comparison (§3).
§ 2.2 Than/as + single element 1113
[21] subject non-subject

i a. She is older than [I ]. b. ∗The decision affected Kim more than [ I ].
ii a. She is older than [me ]. b. The decision affected Kim more than [ me].
If the pronoun is understood as object or complement of a preposition it is accusative, as
in unreduced clauses: The decision affected Kim more than it affected me/∗I. If it is subject,
the choice of case depends on the style. In formal style it appears as nominative, again as
in unreduced clauses: She is older than I am; but informal style has accusative, as in [iia],
where the missing verb cannot be inserted. Some speakers find I obtrusively formal and
me obtrusively informal, and therefore avoid both constructions by retaining the verb:
She is older than I am.
(g) Restrictions on omission of subject

In clauses where the verb is retained, the subject can be omitted only when it is the
counterpart to the comparative phrase or is understood as an embedded clause, as in
(d) above:
[22] i More people came than [ were invited ]. [counterpart to comparative phrase]
ii He spent longer on it than [ seemed necessary]. [embedded clause]
iii ∗Liz works harder than [ worked/did last year].
To remedy [iii] we must either insert a subject (she) or else omit the verb too, giving than
last year.
2.2 Than/as + single element (Bob is as generous as Liz )

The most frequent type of scalar comparison has a single element as complement to
than or as, but the analysis of this element is problematic:
[23] Bob is as generous as Liz. [reduced clause or immediate complement?]
We have been assuming that in examples like this the complement to than/as is a clause
reduced to a single element – that in this particular case Liz is subject, so that the structure
is like that of Bob is as generous as Liz is, except that the reduction has been taken one step
further. An alternative analysis is to say that Liz is here not a clause but simply an NP,
that it functions directly, immediately, as complement of as. The two possible structures
are as follows:
[24] a. PP b. PP
Head: Comp: Head: Comp:

Preposition Clause Preposition NP
Subject:
NP
as Liz as Liz
We refer to [a] as the reduced clause analysis and to [b] as the immediate comple-
ment analysis. On this immediate complement analysis, Bob is as generous as Liz will
be syntactically like Bob is similar to Liz, where there is no question of Liz being a
clause.
One initial point to make is that there are unquestionably some constructions where
a single element following than/as is an immediate complement, not a reduced clause:
[25] I saw him as recently as Monday. It is longer than a foot. He’s inviting more
people than just us. He’s poorer than poor. Sue deals with matters such as
sales. I saw no one other than Bob.
The underlined expressions here can’t be reduced clauses, because they can’t be expanded
into clauses: cf. ∗I saw him as recently as I saw him Monday; ∗I saw him as recently as Monday
is; and so on.
The question then is whether all single element constructions should be treated alike
or whether a distinction should be drawn such that some, like [25], are immediate com-
plements while others, including [23], are reduced clauses. We review below a number
of factors relevant to the choice between these analyses. They do not provide conclusive
evidence in favour of one over the other. We have to allow, therefore, for co-existing
alternative analyses.
Evidence for a reduced clause analysis

The immediate complement analysis is obviously the simpler of the two and hence initially the
more viable. We therefore begin by dealing with three arguments that must be acknowledged
as favouring a reduced clause analysis. We will point out, however, that each of the arguments
is weakened by certain countervailing considerations.
(a) Potential for nominative case
The first is that in formal style the complement of as/than can be a nominative pronoun:
Bob is as generous as she. A reduced clause analysis obviously accounts for this very simply:
the pronoun is subject of the reduced clause and hence takes the same case as it would
if the verb were included (as she is). The comparative clause construction will then differ
structurally from the one with after or before : Bob left after Liz. Unlike [23], this does not
allow a nominative: Bob left after her/∗she. The nominative is impossible here because the
pronoun is not subject of a clause but the immediate complement of a preposition.
The fact that less formal style allows an accusative in the comparative construction (Bob
is as generous as her) is irrelevant because it is consistent with the pronoun being either an
immediate complement or a reduced clause. This is because informal style has nominatives
only when a primary form of the verb is present, allowing accusative subjects when the verb
is omitted (Kim will be giving the first lecture, me the second ), or is in a secondary form (What,
me wear a kilt? ).
The possibility of a nominative certainly supports a clausal analysis, but we do not regard it
as conclusive, because nominatives are found (again in formal style) in certain constructions
that we would not want to regard as clausal: Everyone other than she had signed the petition.
This is like the examples in [25] in not allowing expansion by the addition of a verb; it differs
in that other than falls within the subject, and it is this association with the subject that
motivates the nominative case.
(b) Range of phrase types
A second factor favouring a clausal analysis is that the range of expression types following
than and as in this construction is much wider than is normally found as complement to a
preposition. Compare, for example:

[26] i a. I’m more confident that Kim will support us than that Pat will.
b. ∗I’d prefer that Kim supported us to that Pat did.
ii a. It is more important to do it well than to do it quickly.
b. ∗To do it well is different from to do it quickly.
Than is followed by a declarative content clause in [ia] and an infinitival clause in [iia], but
these cannot function as complement to such prepositions as to and from. It’s not just a
matter of than/as allowing a large range of expression types, however: the important point
is that the content clause in [ia] is not licensed by than but by confident, and similarly the
infinitival clause in [iia] is licensed by important. On a reduced clause analysis than in [i]
doesn’t have a content clause but a comparative clause as its immediate complement: that
Pat will, considered as a content clause, is complement of the understood confident, the item
which licenses it.
The range of expression types that can occur with than/as is similar to that found with
the coordinators: cf. I’m confident that Kim will support us and [that Pat will]; It is important
to do it well and [to do it quickly]. There are indeed significant similarities between coordina-
tion and comparison. Coordinated elements are normally required to be syntactically alike
(Ch. 15, §3), and this likeness is seen too in the comparative construction we are concerned
with here – between that Pat will and that Kim will support us, between to do it quickly and to
do it well, and so on.10
Nevertheless, than is a preposition here, not a coordinator: the comparative is a subordi-
native construction, not a coordinative one. The crucial difference between than and and is
that than is dependent for its occurrence on a comparative governor, here more. Within the
AdjP more confident that Kim will support us than that Pat will, the complements that Kim
will support us and than that Pat will are not coordinate, not of equal syntactic status, because
the former is licensed by confident, the latter by more confident.
The force of this argument is reduced, however, by the fact that there is a small set
of prepositions which do take a similarly wide range of complement types. These are the
prepositions of inclusion and exclusion/exception: including, excluding, except, save (see
Ch. 7, §5.1). Compare, for example: I’m not confident of anything except that Pat will support us.
There is no plausible analysis of this in which that Pat will support us is an elliptically reduced
version of a larger clause, but the licensing of it still involves confident.
Nevertheless, even these prepositions do not behave entirely like than/as :
[27] i He has more enemies than friends. (=[20vi])
ii He’ll have no one voting for him except friends.
We have seen that it is impossible to add a determiner to friends in [i], but in [ii] we could
have, for example, except his friends. On a reduced clause analysis the restriction applying to
[i] follows from the general rule given in §2.1 above that the counterpart to the comparative
governor must be omitted, but on the immediate complement analysis we need an extra
restriction, unique to the comparative construction.
10
The connection between comparison and coordination is reflected in the fact that certain comparative expres-
sions have uses in which they have been reanalysed as marginal coordinators (Ch. 15, §2.8), e.g. as well as in
We have a cat as well as a dog.
(c) Potential for expansion

A third factor is already implicit from the discussion above. Examples like [23] (Bob is as
generous as Liz) can be expanded into obvious clausal structures:
[28] i a. Bob is as generous as Liz. b. Bob is as generous as Liz is.
ii a. I enjoyed it more than the film. b. I enjoyed it more than I enjoyed the film.
It is not just that such expansion is possible; it is an important advantage of the reduced clause
analysis that it brings out the difference between such examples and those like [25], where
no expansion is possible. At the same time, it ties in with the semantics. Bob is as generous
as Liz is interpreted as a variable comparison (“Bob is x generous, Liz is y generous, and x is
(at least) equal to y”), whereas this kind of interpretation does not apply in [25] (recall the
contrast between variable–variable and variable–constant comparisons illustrated in [2] of
§2). Moreover, the reduced clause analysis offers a straightforward account of the ambiguity
of examples like [20v] (Sue phoned Angela more often than Liz ), with Liz subject of the reduced
clause in one interpretation, object in the other. And given that a clause can be reduced to a
sequence of two elements, as in [18], there would seem to be no principled reason for saying
that it can’t be reduced to a single element.
A problem emerges, however. It is not in fact a straightforward matter to determine
whether or not a verb can be added. Consider such examples as the following:
[29] i In a country as rich as Australia there should be no poverty.
ii He won’t waste his hard-earned dollars on something as frivolous as exercise.
iii Criticism is as old as literary art.
iv Your guess is as good as mine.
v The field was as flat as a pancake.
vi He looks as fit as a fiddle.
The relevant verb in all cases is be. It can be added readily enough in [i] (as Australia is), but
for [ii–iv] it would be very unusual, for [v] it would be almost impossible, and for [vi] it is
unthinkable.
The reason we can’t add is in [29vi] is that as fit as a fiddle is an idiom meaning “very fit”.
It would be nonsensical to ask how fit a fiddle is (violins do not have states of health), and
hence it is impossible to insert is. In the case of [v] it would not be nonsensical to insert is
because pancakes are in fact flat; it is just highly unidiomatic, because as flat as a pancake
is a familar established phrase. In this phrase it is possible to omit the first as (was flat as a
pancake), and insertion of the is then becomes syntactically impossible. Example [iv] is also
a familiar expression, one that this time includes the subject, not just the predicative AdjP.
And this familiarity of the expression disfavours the addition of is, though not so strongly as
in [v–vi].
In general, the more familiar the expression, the less readily will it accommodate the ad-
dition of a verb. But this does not provide a dichotomy between cases where the verb can
be added and those where it can’t. Moreover, it is not a matter of syntax as such. It is not
clear, therefore, that we have grounds for making any structural distinction among the com-
parative complements in [29], or between them and [28].
We have been tacitly assuming here that potential expansion is a sufficient condition for
a reduced clause analysis: that if you can expand to make a clause, the clausal analysis is the
right one. But there is one context in which this would yield the wrong results, namely in the
complement of the prepositions before and after. Compare:
[30] i Sue phoned Angela before Liz.

ii Sue phoned Angela more often than Liz. (=[20v])
Here [i] exhibits the same ambiguity as [ii], being expandable to either (a) before Liz phoned
her, or (b) before she phoned Liz. But it would be wrong to say that Liz is a reduced clause
in [i], because (as noted above) a pronoun in this position cannot appear in nominative
case: ∗Sue phoned Angela before she is ungrammatical. It would therefore be wrong to treat
expandability as sufficient to establish that a reduced clause analysis is valid.
Evidence for an immediate complement analysis

We now present two arguments against treating every phrasal complement to as or than
as some kind of reduced clause. Again, though, we note that there are complicating and
weakening considerations; the arguments are not conclusive.
(a)Fronting and preposition stranding
Consider, first, the following constructions:
[31] i It was decided by Judge Darwin, than whom no one could be more impartial.
ii ? How many of them do you regard yourself as better than?
Example [31i] is a further example of the construction illustrated in [18iv] of §1. Than has
a relative pronoun as complement, so that than + NP occupies prenuclear position in the
relative clause, rather than the final position seen in the main clause no one could be more
impartial than Judge Darwin. It would be quite impossible to have a clause as complement to
than here, e.g. ∗than [who is ] no one could be more impartial.
Whereas [31i] belongs to formal style, [ii] is informal, and indeed perhaps of only marginal
acceptability. Structurally, it differs from [i] in that only the complement how many of them
is fronted, with the preposition than left stranded in its basic position. And again the fronted
element can only be a phrase, not a clause: ∗How many of them are do you regard yourself as
better than?
In these two constructions, then, whom and how many of them do behave syntactically as
immediate complements of than rather than as clauses.
The force of this argument is limited, however, by the fact that these are very rare con-
structions: they don’t provide a secure foundation for building an analysis of the much more
central type seen in our Bob is as generous as Liz example.
(b)Reflexives
A second point concerns the optional occurrence of reflexive pronouns, as in:
[32] He married a woman fifteen years younger than him/himself.
It is not possible to add a verb here (∗than himself was), which suggests that the pronoun is
an immediate complement.
Once again, the evidence is far from conclusive, because the reflexive form could be
attributable to the omission of the verb, as in I suggest that you give the first three lectures and
myself the remaining two.
Fused relative as complement: than what . . .

Where the complement of than/as is a single element with the form of a fused relative
introduced by what, a distinction is to be made between the following constructions:
[33] i She apparently liked it more than what we gave her.
%
ii She apparently liked it more than what we did.
There is nothing special about [i]: what we gave her is not significantly different from
any other NP, such as the book we gave her, for example. Note, in particular, that [i]
could be expanded to She apparently liked it more than she liked what we gave her. The
meaning of [ii] (at least in the salient and intended interpretation) is “She apparently
liked it more than we liked it”. Here what we did can’t be expanded: on the contrary,
what can be dropped to give She apparently liked it more than we did. It is therefore
using a fused relative NP instead of a comparative clause. This second construction is
commonly encountered in speech, but it is not normally found in published writing: it is
very doubtful whether it can be regarded as belonging to the standard variety of English.
2.3 Likeness and contrast between comparative clause and matrix

Maximum and minimum likeness
The terms in a variable comparison are partly alike and partly different. The extremes
on the scale of likeness are illustrated in these two examples, where underlining indicates
material shared between the comparative clause and the matrix:
[34] i She’s as fit as [she is ] because she does so much swimming.
(“she is x fit”, “she is y fit”)
ii More people came to the show than [we could find seats for ].
(“x many people came to the show”, “we could find seats for y many people”)
In [i] the terms differ only in the implicit variables (which are asserted to be equal).
Syntactically, the comparative clause differs from the matrix only in the absence of a
counterpart to the comparative phrase.11 The minimum likeness required is that the
comparative clause include, semantically, a counterpart to the comparative phrase. This
is the case with [ii], where the likeness to the matrix is confined to the understood “many
people”.
Most variable comparisons fall between these extremes, having some overt contrast
but also varying amounts of shared material, repeated (typically by pro-forms) or left
understood:
[35] i There were more boys in the class than [(there were) girls].
ii Jill spends more time in London than [(she does) at home].
Multiple contrasts
Each of the examples in [35] involves a single contrast (apart from that between the
implicit variables), but one commonly finds more, e.g. two in [36i] and four in [36ii]:
[36] i There were more boys in IB than [(there were) girls in IC ].
ii Kim lost more at the races in one day than [I earned at my job in a year].
Implicit point of contrast in the matrix
There may be a contrast between an overt element in the comparative clause and one
which is merely understood in the matrix:
11
In this type of comparison there is generally an implicature that the value of the variables is relatively high –
she’s quite high on the scale of fitness. Similarly : With the weather being as hot as it is, the weeds should dry out
quickly enough.
§ 2.4 The comparative phrase 1119
[37] i The trains arrive on time more often than [they do in England ].
ii It tastes better than [it does with sugar in].
The implicit elements are recoverable deictically (i.e. from the time, place, or other
circumstances of the speech act) or anaphorically (from previous mention). In [i] the
contrast is between England and the country we are in or have been talking about; in
[ii] we understand “like this/that, i.e. without sugar in”.
Temporal contrasts
The main contrast may be a matter of time, expressed by tense:
[38] i It is better than [it was].
ii It wasn’t as good as [it is now].
Note, however, that where contrastive present time is associated with the comparative
clause the present tense normally needs reinforcing with a temporal modifier: it would
be unusual to drop now from [ii].
Contrasts involving embedding

When the comparative phrase is contained within a content clause, the scope of the
comparison may or may not extend upwards into the superordinate clause. Compare:
[39] i Jill thinks Max is better off than [she is]. [narrow scope]
ii Jill thinks Max is better off than [he is]. [wide scope]
The salient interpretation of [i] attributes to Jill the thought “Max is better off than I
am”, where the terms in the comparison are “Max is x well off ” and “I (Jill) am y well
off ”: here Jill thinks is outside the scope of the comparison. But the salient interpretation
of [ii] does not attribute to Jill the nonsensical thought “Max is better off than he (Max)
is”. Rather, Jill thinks is within the scope of the comparison, whose terms are “Jill thinks
Max is x well off ” and “He (Max) is y well off ”. As will be evident from these examples,
this distinction is not encoded grammatically, and strictly speaking both examples are
ambiguous as to the scope of the comparison.12
2.4 The comparative phrase

We have so far been talking of the comparative phrase quite loosely as the one ‘containing’
the comparative governor: we need now to consider the concept rather more carefully.
Predicative vs attributive AdjP

Note first the following data:
[40] i His motor-bike was more powerful than my car had been .
ii ∗He had a more powerful motor-bike than my car had been .
iii He had a more powerful motor-bike than I had had / than mine had been .
12
One respect in which there is a grammatical difference is that the comparative clause in examples like [39ii]
can’t be reduced to a pronoun in the ‘sensible’ reading, but allows a reflexive in the nonsensical one: #Jill thinks
Max is better off than himself.
In [i] the comparative phrase is more powerful (than my car had been):13 we understand the
secondary term as “my car had been y powerful”. In [ii], however, the comparative phrase
is not more powerful but the larger sequence a more powerful motor-bike: this is why the
example is anomalous, for we have to interpret the secondary term as “my car had been a
y powerful motor-bike”. Instead of this we need examples like [iii], where the secondary
terms “I had had a y powerful motor-bike” and “mine had been a y powerful motor-bike”
make sense. As suggested in §1.3, we can think of the comparative feature as ‘percolating’
upwards from the AdjP to the NP in which it functions as attributive modifier.
AdvP
Compare similarly:
[41] i She spoke more persuasively than her father had .
ii He was more conspicuously shy than Max was .
∗
iii He was more conspicuously shy than Max leered at Jill.
iv This is a more carefully researched article than I have read this semester.
∗
v This is a more carefully researched article than his book was .
In [i] the comparative phrase is the AdvP more persuasively. In [ii–iii] it is the AdjP
more conspicuously shy : [iii] is unacceptable because there is no place in the comparative
clause for an understood “shy”. And in [iv–v] the comparative phrase is a more carefully
researched article, with [v] being anomalous because it requires the interpretation “his
book was a y carefully researched article”. Again, then, we have upward percolation of
the comparative feature from the AdvP to the AdjP in [ii–iii], and to the NP in [iv–v].
Postpositive AdjP
Where an AdjP modifier is postpositive (after the noun) rather than attributive (before
the noun) there is normally no such upward percolation:
[42] i ∗He had a more powerful motor-bike than my car had been . [attributive]
ii He had a motor-bike more powerful than my car had been . [postpositive]
In [i] (discussed above as [40ii]) the comparative phrase is a more powerful motor-bike,
whereas in [ii] it is just more powerful: the difference in acceptability reflects the fact that
while a car can be powerful, a car cannot be a powerful motor-bike. The postpositive
AdjP here behaves in the same way as a relative clause: He had a motor-bike which was
more powerful than my car had been. It also behaves like a clause in that the comparative
complement cannot be postposed out of it: Anyone less thick-skinned than Kim would
have resigned long ago, but not ∗Anyone less thick-skinned would have resigned long ago
than Kim.
PP
In general upward percolation does not extend from an NP to a PP containing it, but
there are nevertheless some constructions where it does:
[43] i He lectured on more topics than were included in the syllabus.
ii He lectured on more topics than I had lectured on / ∗than I had lectured .
iii He returned to us in a far less buoyant frame of mind than he had left us .
13
Henceforth in this section we simplify by omitting the than or as phrase (the comparative complement) when
citing comparative phrases.
§ 3 Metalinguistic comparison 1121
In [i–ii] the comparative phrase is the NP more topics, not the PP on more topics: in [i] the
missing subject is understood as “y many topics”, not prepositional “on y many topics”,
and in [ii] on cannot be omitted from the comparative clause, as would be possible (and
indeed required) if it were part of the counterpart to the comparative phrase.14 In [iii],
however, the comparative phrase is the PP in a far less buoyant frame of mind: we interpret
the comparative clause as “he had left us in a y buoyant frame of mind” and it is not
possible to add in after us.
Unexpected cases of upwards percolation

One finds occasional examples where the upwards percolation goes beyond what is allowed
for on the above account. In the following it applies with postpositive AdjPs:
[44] i They would have us face risks greater than President Kennedy’s most influential advisers
seem disposed to face .
ii He made tables of veins, nerves, and arteries five times more exact than are described
by any contemporary author.
The gaps here require understood NPs, not AdjPs, since their functions are respectively
object and subject: the comparative phrases must include risks and tables of veins, nerves, and
arteries. Consider also the following, where the AdjP in the matrix is predicative rather than
postpositive:
[45] i This result is better than would probably be achieved by a vaccination policy.
ii The price was higher than he wished to pay .
iii When children start school they tend to get books that aren’t as rewarding as they’ve
had .
iv The eastward movement of the Atlantic thermal ridge was forecast to be a little less
than actually occurred.
Again, the missing element from the comparative clause must be understood as an NP, not
an AdjP: they are equivalent to ‘ . . . than the result that would probably be achieved . . . ’ ,
‘ . . . than the price that he wished to pay ’, ‘ . . . as the books they’ve had ’, ‘ . . . than the movement
that actually occurred’. It is questionable whether such examples are frequent and systematic
enough to qualify as grammatical; certainly the construction illustrated here is not generally
permissible, as is evident from the clear ungrammaticality of ∗This candidate was much better
qualified than they appointed (“than the one whom”), and the like.
3 Metalinguistic comparison (more apparent than real )
Examples like The problem was more apparent than real differ both syntactically and
semantically from the ordinary comparisons discussed so far. These differences are seen
in:

[1] i Ed is older than his brother.
[ordinary comparison]
ii Ed is older than middle-aged.
iii Ed is more old than middle-aged. [metalinguistic comparison]
In [i] we have a variable comparison between the degree to which Ed is old and the
14
On can be omitted if lectured is too (than I had ), but that results in the stranding construction where more
than the counterpart to the comparative element is omitted.
degree to which his brother is old. In [ii] we have a variable–constant comparison (like
Kim is taller than six foot): middle-aged denotes a segment on the scale expressed by
old and [ii] puts his age beyond that part of the scale. What [iii] says, however, is that
Ed is more properly described as old than as middle-aged: we call this metalinguistic
comparison because it is concerned not with segments on the age scale but with the
relative applicability of the linguistic expressions old and middle-aged.
Syntactically, metalinguistic comparison differs from ordinary comparison in that it
allows only analytic comparative forms: older in [ii], for example, excludes this met-
alinguistic interpretation. The construction here also excludes a comparative clause as
complement to than/as : ∗Ed is more old than he is middle-aged.
Other examples of metalinguistic comparison are:
[2] i The office of Lord High Commissioner is now more ornamental than functional.
ii The buds were more red than pink.
iii He was more dead than alive.
iv It was more an error of judgement than a case of negligence.
v She had spoken more in sorrow than in anger.
The commonly used expression illustrated in [iii] brings out the point that this kind of
comparison can be used with non-gradable adjectives (contrast the ordinary comparison
#
He was more dead than we’d expected). The most obvious examples of metalinguistic
comparison involve adjectives, where – at least with shorter ones – we can contrast the
permitted analytic form (more red) with the excluded inflectional one (redder). But the
category certainly applies more generally, as evident from [iv] (NPs) and [v] (PPs).
Note, however, that this construction does not apply to verbs: ∗We more expect than
require you to make a contribution.
Semantically similar to the above core cases of metalinguistic comparison are:
[3] i He’s old rather than middle-aged.
ii He’s not so much stupid as lazy.
These may be contrasted with the ordinary comparisons I intend to do it my way rather
than yours or I haven’t got so much patience as you.
4 Scalar term comparison
4.1 The major governors in comparisons of inequality

Scalar comparison of inequality is for the most part governed by the comparative inflec-
tion or the degree adverbs more and less. As well as being degree adverbs, however, more
and less can themselves be inflectional forms of determinatives, so we need to begin by
clarifying the two uses of these words.
4.1.1 More and less: analytic markers vs inflectional forms

More as an analytic marker corresponding to the comparative inflection
The inflectional system of grade applies to a large set of adjectives and a few adverbs,
determinatives, and prepositions (see Ch. 6, §2.2). We illustrate here with adjectives and
adverbs:
§ 4.1.1 More and less 1123
[1] plain comparative superlative

i adjective tall taller tallest
ii adverb soon sooner soonest
Grade differs from other inflectional systems in English in that only a subset of adjectives
and adverbs inflect: with others the comparative and superlative categories are marked
analytically (i.e. by means of a separate word), rather than inflectionally (i.e. by mor-
phological modification). For the comparative category, analytic marking is by means
of the adverb more, which we will represent as more a (with subscript ‘a’ mnemonic for
‘analytic’). Consider, then:
[2] inflectional comparative analytic comparative
i a. This is shorter than that. b. ∗This is more a short than that.
ii a. ∗This is porouser than that. b. This is more a porous than that.
iii a. This is commoner than that. b. This is more a common than that.
Some lexemes, like short, inflect and exclude more a (except in metalinguistic compar-
ison); others, like porous, allow only the analytic form; and some, like common, allow
both patterns – see Ch. 18, §3.2. More a thus provides an alternative means of expressing
the meaning elsewhere expressed by the comparative inflection.
More as an inflectional form

In addition, more can be itself an inflectional comparative form of the determinatives
much and many. This more, which we represent as morei , contrasts with the plain forms,
as illustrated in:
[3] plain form inflectional comparative
i a. Did it cause much trouble? b. Did it cause more i trouble than last time?
ii a. Many people complained. b. More i people complained than last time.
We use interrogative examples in [i] because the plain form much is polarity-sensitive,
occurring most readily in non-affirmative contexts (see Ch. 9, §4.1.2). More i is of course
an irregular form, standing in, as it were, for regular ∗mucher and ∗manier. Note that
morea does not enter into any such contrast with much: we can say This is more porous
than that, but not ∗Is this much porous?
The corresponding superlative form is most, so the set of forms matching those given
in [1] above is:
[4] plain comparative superlative
determinative much/many more i most i
The distinction applied to less: lessa vs lessi
The case with less is similar, though with some differences of detail, and we again make a
distinction between less a and less i . We noted in §1.1 that there are two different kinds of
comparison of inequality, superiority and inferiority; the former is marked inflectionally
or analytically, by more a , while inferiority is always marked analytically – by less a :
[5] superiority inferiority
i a. This is taller than that. b. This is less a tall than that.
ii a. This is more a porous than that. b. This is less a porous than that.
Less i , by contrast, is an inflectional form – in the central cases, the comparative form of
little. As such, it contrasts with the plain form:

[6] plain form inflectional comparative
a. We have little money. b. We have less i money than we need.
Again, the less a that modifies the adjectives in [5] does not contrast with the plain form
little: ∗This is little porous. The little in [6a] belongs to the determinative category and is
sharply distinct, in terms of both syntax and meaning, from the adjective little of a little
house, etc.15
Difference in relations of morea to lessa and of morei to lessi

More a and less a are markers of comparison of superiority and inferiority, respectively.
If we include the comparison of equality, we have the three terms shown in [7] (with
strong taking an inflectional comparative, tactful an analytic one):
[7] i equality I’m as strong as Ed. I’m as tactful as Ed.
ii superiority I’m stronger than Ed. I’m more a tactful than Ed.
iii inferiority I’m less a strong than Ed. I’m less a tactful than Ed.
Like old and young, as discussed in §1.1, the determinatives much and little are
opposite in orientation: the more money you have, the further removed from zero is
the amount of money you have, but the less money you have, the closer to zero it is. We
will say that much and little have respectively positive and negative orientation, since
Much has been achieved and Little has been achieved, say, are syntactically positive and
negative respectively (see Ch. 9, §3.3). As inflectional comparatives, more i and less i (like
older and younger) both express superiority, but there are no inferiority counterparts
marked by less a – cf. ∗I’ve less a much tea than Ed; ∗I’ve less a little tea than Ed. Thus
instead of a one-dimensional contrast between three forms, as illustrated in [7], we have
a two-dimensional pattern with four admissible forms:
[8] positive orientation negative orientation
i equality I’ve as much tea as Ed. I’ve as little tea as Ed.
ii superiority I’ve more i tea than Ed. I’ve less i tea than Ed.
Equivalences and entailments
Much and little
These determinatives denote scales that are effectively the same except for the positive
or negative orientation. In comparisons the relations are as illustrated in:
[9] i a. Kim has more i money than Pat. b. Pat has less i money than Kim. [a = b]
ii a. Kim has as much money as Pat. b. Pat has as little money as Kim. [a = b]
In [i], a comparison of superiority, [a] and [b] are equivalent: each entails the other.
Neither of them says whether Kim or Pat has much or little money, the issue being merely
their relative positions on the scales. The comparisons of equality, [ii], are not equivalent,
however; [iib] indicates that both Pat and Kim have little money, whereas [iia] (like both
examples in [i]) is neutral as to whether they have much or little money. The difference
correlates with the fact that much is the more general member of the pair: it can be used
more widely, and in particular without any implicature that an unmodified plain form
15
The adjective little has littler as its comparative form, but this and superlative littlest are rarely used, the
corresponding forms of small generally being preferred; see also the discussion of adjectival less(er) below.
§ 4.1.1 More and less 1125
would be applicable. How much money do you have?, for example, doesn’t presuppose
that you have much money, whereas How little money do you have? would generally be
used only in a context where it has been established that you have little money.
Adjectives
Some pairs of adjectives show the same behaviour as much and little, whereas for others
the relations are different. Consider the following comparisons of superiority:
[10] i a. Kim is older than Pat. b. Pat is younger than Kim.
ii a. Yours is better than mine. b. Mine is worse than yours.
iii a. Monday was hotter than Tuesday. b. Tuesday was colder than Monday.
In [i] we again have equivalence between [a] and [b]. In [ii] there is entailment in only
one direction: [b] entails [a], but [a] does not entail [b]. This is because [iia] is neutral
as to whether yours and mine are good or bad, whereas [iib] conveys that both are bad.
And in [iii] there is no entailment in either direction: [iiia] conveys that both days were
relatively hot, while [iiib] conveys that they were both relatively cold. Thus while old and
young, good and bad, hot and cold are opposites, they are opposites of somewhat different
kinds, and this of course is a matter of their lexical meaning.
Superiority and inferiority
Consider next the relation between the [a] examples in [10] and corresponding compar-
isons of inferiority:
[11] i a. Kim is older than Pat. b. Pat is less old than Kim.
ii a. Yours is better than mine. b. Mine is less good than yours.
iii a. Monday was hotter than Tuesday. b. Tuesday was less hot than Monday.
This time it is in [iii] that [a] and [b] are equivalent. In [i–ii] the [b] version entails the
[a], but [a] does not entail [b]. In [ia] Kim and Pat could both be young, whereas [ib]
conveys that both are relatively old, and similarly in [ii].
Relative infrequency of comparisons of inferiority

Of the three types of comparison, superiority, equality, and inferiority, the last is much
the least frequent. We have seen that it is grammatically excluded with the determinatives
much and little, and with adjectives it has to compete with various rival forms. Consider,
then:
[12] i The first problem was less difficult than the second.
ii The first problem was not as difficult as the second.

iii The first problem was easier than the second.
[entailed by [i]]
iv The second problem was more difficult than the first.
We noted in §1.1 that scalar equality is normally interpreted as “at least equal”, i.e. equal
or superior, and hence the negation of this is equivalent to inferiority: [i] and [ii] each
entail the other. The superiority comparisons [iii–iv] are entailed by [i], but do not entail
it because they don’t entail that the first problem was difficult.
Less occurs readily with adjectives of two or more syllables (less articulate, less inter-
esting, less likely, etc.) but not so commonly with short ones, especially where there is an
adjective of opposite meaning available: older is likely to be strongly preferred over less
young, smaller over less big, worse over less good, and so on.
Adjectival lessi
The less i that we have considered above is the comparative form of the determinative
little, but less i can also belong to the adjective category:
[13] i Is Soviet influence throughout the world greater or less than it was ten years ago?
ii They can employ apprentices provided they pay rates which are not less than those
of the other workers.
iii They too had felt the influence of Christianity to a greater or less extent.
Here less i contrasts with adjectival greater rather than with determinative more i . A non-
comparative construction corresponding to less in [i] might be Soviet influence is now
quite small, just as a positive orientation version would be along the lines of Soviet
influence is now very great/considerable (not much). Similarly, in [ii] a non-comparative
would have an adjective such as low rather than determinative little : These pay rates
are low/∗little. Adjectival less is clearly a comparative form, but it cannot be identified
as the comparative counterpart of any particular plain form. It is normally restricted
to predicative function, as in [i–ii]; its occurrence in attributive function is virtually
restricted to the particular phrase a greater or less extent. Note that in this example less is
in construction with a count singular noun, which is not possible for the determinative
little.
The double comparative lesser

[14] i They too had felt the influence of Christianity to a greater or lesser extent.
ii We think this is a lesser risk than taking no action at all.
iii a lesser man/journal
Lesser is found only in attributive function – in [i] as an alternant of less. The meaning is
“smaller” ([i–ii]) or “less worthy/significant” ([iii]). From a morphological point of view
lesser is a ‘double comparative’: it is formed by the addition of the regular comparative
suffix to what is itself an irregular comparative form, less. Other double comparative
forms, such as worser, are no longer current in Standard English.
4.1.2 Comparative forms of the degree determinatives

The count vs non-count distinction
The examples in [8] above have much and little as determiner to a non-count noun.
With a plural count noun as head we have the following pattern:
i equality I’ve as many shirts as Ed. I’ve as few shirts as Ed.
ii superiority I’ve more i shirts than Ed. I’ve fewer/less i shirts than Ed.
Many and few are the count plain forms corresponding to non-count much and little, but
in the comparison of superiority more is used with count as well as non-count nouns,
while with negative orientation non-count nouns take less, and count nouns either fewer
or less. The pattern is thus as shown in:
Non-count sg Count pl Non-count sg Count pl
equality as much as many as little as few
superiority more less fewer/less
§ 4.1.2 Comparative forms of degree determinatives 1127
The relation between less and fewer is fairly complex. In non-count singulars only less
is possible: Kim has less/∗fewer money than Pat. In plural NPs we have:
[17] i She left less than ten minutes ago.
ii Less/Fewer than thirty of the students had voted.
iii He made no less/fewer than fifteen mistakes.
iv You pass if you make ten mistakes or less/?fewer.
v He took less/∗fewer pains to convince us than I’d expected.
vi He made fewer/less mistakes than the others.
Both [i] and [ii] have than + numeral. In [i] ten minutes expresses an amount of time
rather than a number of individuated units, and in such cases fewer is virtually impossi-
ble – just as few would be in a comparison of equality: She left as little/∗few as ten minutes
ago. Similarly with We paid less than thirty dollars for it ; She’s less than forty years old;
We were going at less than ten miles an hour. In [ii] we are concerned with countable
individuals and little cannot be used in a comparison of equality (∗as little as thirty of the
students); nevertheless, for inequality less is more common than fewer in this construc-
tion. The same applies with percentages: Less/Fewer than 30% of the students had voted.
Construction [iii] has the comparative form following no: though the interpretation is
count plural, less is here again more common than fewer. Construction [iv] has or after
a numeral: less is the usual form here, with fewer quite marginal; this construction is
widely seen in supermarkets, with the fast checkout labelled eight items or less, or the
like. In [v] pains is plural but non-count rather than count (we can’t ask how many pains
he took), and here only less is possible. Finally in [vi] (as also in [15ii]) the comparative
occurs directly with a count plural noun: both forms are found, but less is subject to
quite strong prescriptive disapproval, so that fewer is widely preferred in formal style,
and by many speakers in informal style too.16
Grading of count singular nouns

[18] i Jill’s more of a scholar than Tom is.
ii The delay turned out to be less of a problem than we’d expected.
The comparative forms more and less are used in grading count singular heads in pred-
icative NPs: it is a matter of the degree to which Jill is a scholar, and to which the delay
was a problem. For the syntactic structure of these NPs, see Ch. 5, §9.2.
Degree adjunct in clause structure

[19] i She trusts you [more than her own solicitor].
ii It hurt [less than I’d thought it would].
The bracketed phrases are degree adjuncts modifying the verb. The plain forms much
and little occur in comparisons of equality (e.g. It hurt as much/little this time as on
the previous two occasions); unmodified much could occur only in non-affirmative
16
Usage manuals are divided on the issue of less vs fewer. Some uncompromisingly brand such forms as less
mistakes as incorrect, while others note that though commonly condemned they are often used by speakers
of Standard English. Before the Early Modern English period (beginning around 1500) more was restricted
to non-count NPs with moe used as the comparative of many. At that time less was used along with fewer for
count NPs, but came to be stigmatised and quite rare in this use: it is only within the last generation or so that
it has become frequent. The current revival seems inexorable, given the strong pressure of analogy with more.
contexts (She doesn’t trust you much), while unmodified little does not occur in this
position.
4.2 Less central governors in scalar inequality (rather, prefer, superior)

Rather
This contains the comparative suffix .er but the original base rath (meaning “soon”)
has been lost, so that rather is no longer analysable as an inflectional comparative. It
nevertheless retains clear semantic and syntactic affinities with ordinary comparative
constructions. We consider four uses where it appears in construction with than.
(a) The idiom would rather (“would prefer”)
[20] i She would rather live in danger than die of loneliness and boredom.
ii I’d far rather give it to charity than to the government.
iii I’d rather you left the position vacant than that you appointed your son.
iv I’d rather he came on Tuesday than on Wednesday.
These are term comparisons, with the terms marked by underlining. Would rather takes
either a bare infinitival complement ([i–ii]), or a finite one ([iii–iv]). In either case the
primary term can be either the whole complement, as in [i/iii], or part of it, as in [ii/iv]
(which can be expanded to make them like [i/iii]: than give it to the government, than
that he came on Wednesday). Sooner is an alternant of rather, and we can also have the
comparison of equality would as soon (+ as).
(b) With bare infinitival and “in preference” meaning
[21] i Many of them went to jail rather than pay the fine.
ii Rather than talk about it, let’s do it.
The meaning is related to that in (a), but syntactically the than complement is obligatory
and must immediately follow rather – note, for example, the impossibility of putting
rather before went in [i], or of omitting than pay the fine (without a change in the mean-
ing of rather).
(c) Contrastive link, meaning “not, instead of ”:
[22] i Care rather than skill is all you need.
ii Things like that would increase rather than be done away with.
The meaning of “preference” has here been lost, and rather than belongs with the coordi-
nators: see Ch. 15, §2.8. Note that in [ii] rather than is followed by a bare infinitival, but it
differs syntactically as well as semantically from the construction of [21]. In use (c) a bare
infinitival has to be paired with another one preceding rather (here increase) – compare
∗
Things like that increased rather than be done away with with [21i].
(d) Pleonastic use, with rather than equivalent to than alone:
[23] i Wouldn’t it be better to travel with friends, rather than total strangers?
ii These people are more likely to be referred to courts rather than to aid panels.
Rather has no independent meaning here, repeating or emphasising the superiority
feature expressed earlier in better and more. Usually, of course, we have than on its own,
and rather is allowed only when than is fairly far removed from the main comparative
§ 4.2 Less central governors in scalar inequality 1129
governor – than can’t be replaced by rather than in simple structures like Kim is more
patient than Pat. Nor can it occur in combination with determinative more: ∗Kim has
more patience in situations of this kind, rather than Pat.
Prefer
The meaning is the same as that of like better, which is overtly comparative; prefer itself,
however, is at the periphery of syntactically comparative expressions. It occurs in the
following constructions:
[24] i They prefer kangaroo meat to beef.
ii She prefers to read rather than watch television.
?
iii He’d prefer to put David over the cliff than let him have the land for building.
iv They preferred to sell their produce for gold rather than the local currency.
v He prefers plucking the guitar string to the bow-string.
The most usual pattern is seen in [i], a term comparison with the primary term expressed
by the object NP, the secondary one by the complement of the preposition to. To cannot
take an infinitival complement, however, and hence can’t be used when the primary term
has this form: instead we generally find rather than, as in [ii]. This use of rather than
can be related to use (d) above, except that with prefer omitting the rather is not fully
acceptable: the construction with than alone, as in [iii], is rare (and generally condemned
by prescriptivists, in spite of the clear analogy with would rather). Rather than is also
used when the terms are contained within an infinitival clause, as in [iv], which allows
expansion to rather than sell it for the local currency. Example [v] shows that to can also
be used when the terms are contained within a clause, but this is normally restricted to
gerund-participials: to cannot substitute for rather than in [iv]. Prefer can also take a
declarative content clause; an overt secondary term is rare here, but the structure would
follow the pattern of infinitivals (I’d prefer that the meeting was postponed than that it
should take place without you).17
Superior, inferior
These adjectives come from Latin comparative forms, but their syntactic resemblance to
English comparative forms is very limited. Most notably, they don’t take than, but to:
[25] i They believe their culture is superior to any in the world.
ii It is absurd to speak of philosophy as a superior enterprise to sociology.
The meaning of superior here is “better” – and note that the attributive use in [ii]
resembles the attributive use of a comparative form (as in Students find philosophy
a more difficult enterprise than sociology) in that the head noun applies semantically
to sociology as well as to philosophy, i.e. sociology is presupposed to be an enterprise
(cf. [40] of §2.3).
The modifiers these items take can be like those of comparative forms (see §4.4):
we could, for example, add much or far to superior in [25]. But they also accept the
modifiers used with plain forms, such as very : This is a very inferior design. In such cases
the comparative meaning is usually lost too, with very inferior interpreted simply as “very
17
Other prepositions than those shown in [24] are occasionally found – e.g. over. This is more usual, however,
with the noun preference: their preference for the country over the city.
poor quality”; the comparative meaning, “much poorer quality”, is nevertheless also
possible. Note finally that while an inflectional comparative cannot itself be compared,
such recursive comparison is much more acceptable with these forms:
[26] i ∗Our forces are more worse than theirs than you acknowledge.
ii Our forces are more inferior to theirs than you acknowledge.
Other adjectives deriving from Latin comparative forms are anterior, posterior, prior, senior,
junior, major, and minor. Except for the last two these can occur in the predicative construction
with a to complement, and senior/junior can take far and much as modifiers (cf. He’s far senior
to me in experience), but otherwise their syntactic resemblance to English comparative forms
is negligible.18
4.3 Scalar comparisons of equality: as, so, such

The default degree adverb marking scalar equality is as : Kim is as old as Pat. So is also
possible under restricted conditions:
[27] i It’s not so simple as that.
ii The floor and furniture didn’t gleam nearly so much as yours do.
iii Is putting a rocket in orbit half so significant as the good news that God put his son,
Jesus Christ, on earth to live and die to save our hell-bound souls?
In this use, so occurs only in non-affirmative contexts – most are negatives, as in [i–ii], but
other types are found too, such as interrogative [iii]. As can replace so in these contexts,
where it is indeed somewhat more frequent. So is also used in some of the comparative
idioms discussed in §4.5 below: so/as far as I know ; No one else in the family had so/%as
much as heard of it.
In addition, such occurs in scalar comparisons of equality (as well as non-scalar ones
dealt with in §5.3):
[28] i This country has never faced such great dangers as threaten us today.
ii Few industries were growing at such a rate as catering.
iii His second film wasn’t such a success as his first.
iv Never again would the society assume such a high profile as in the late twenties.
Like so, such in this use is normally restricted to non-affirmative contexts. This restriction
does not apply to non-scalar such, nor to the use of degree such without an as phrase,
a use where the comparative meaning is effectively lost and such serves simply as an
intensifier: It seemed such a good idea at the time!; They are such pedants!
Omission of first as
Where the comparative complement consists of as + NP, the first as is sometimes omitted.
This is primarily found with familiar similes like good as gold, quick as lightning, safe as
18
Senior and junior allow the secondary term to be expressed as a genitive (cf. note 6 above), as in She is [two
years my senior]. The syntactic analysis of the bracketed phrase is problematic. The genitive dependent suggests
that it is an NP, but it cannot occur in core NP positions such as subject and object (cf. ∗[Two years my senior]
supported me). It cannot, moreover, be pluralised (They are two years my senior/ ∗seniors), and it alternates with
the clearly adjectival She is [two years senior to me].
§ 4.4.2 Modification 1131
houses, etc.; cf. also the informal (as) like as not, “probably” (He’d like as not prefer to eat
his meals there).
4.4 Modification
4.4.1 Degree modification
The governors of scalar comparison may be modified by such expressions as:
[29] i inequality: much, far, immensely, a great deal, a lot, somewhat, rather,
slightly, a bit, (a) little, no, any
ii equality: at least, about, approximately, roughly, every bit, easily,
half, twice, nearly, nothing like, nowhere near
iii either type: hardly, scarcely, a third, three times
The modifiers used in comparisons of inequality are the same with inflectional com-
paratives as with analytic ones: far bigger, far more careful. Very does not serve this
function – we need much instead (much bigger, not ∗very bigger, and so on). Much itself
can as usual be modified by very : very much bigger. Except for no, the expressions in [29i]
are found with the more peripheral comparative governors superior, inferior, preferable.
Note that while the multipliers half and twice are restricted to the equality type, a
third and three times, etc., occur with both – with the semantic relations illustrated in:
[30] i a. I earn four times as much as Ed. b. I earn four times more than Ed. [a = b]
ii a. I earn a third as much as Ed. b. I earn a third more than Ed. [a =
b]
iii I earn a third as much again as Ed. [ = iib]
In [i], the [a] and [b] versions are equivalent: if Ed earns $15,000 a year, I earn $60,000.
The more usual version is [ia], and this is semantically straightforward: $15,000 is as
much as Ed earns, and $60,000 is four times that. The less usual [ib] might be seen as a
blend between I earn more than Ed and I earn four times what Ed earns. In [ii] there is
no such equivalence between the two constructions. In [iia] I earn $5,000, one third of
the sum Ed earns; in [iib] I earn $20,000, which is $5,000 more than Ed’s $15,000, hence
more by one third. This latter meaning can be expressed by a comparison of equality
with again, as in [iii] – here I earn Ed’s $15,000 plus a further third of that.
4.4.2 Modification by the

The main function of the is as determiner in NP structure, but it also occurs as modifier
in various comparative constructions. Some of these involve set comparison (e.g. It’s Jill
who wins the more/most often) and are accordingly dealt with in §6.3.4 below. In term
comparison one special case is the correlative comparative construction (as in The more
you practise, the easier it becomes) described in §4.6; other cases are illustrated in:
[31] i This didn’t make her achievement [any the less significant].
ii In the Swedish context, notable for its tradition of peace and non-violence, the
senseless futility of this act stands out [the more starkly].
iii The plight of the four British employees greatly perturbed Urquhart, [the more]
because a request to the Governor for a contingent of Cossacks to escort them to
safety had been turned down.
iv The result is [all the more disappointing] because she had put in so much effort.
v That’s [all the more reason to avoid precipitous action].
vi He went prone on his stomach, [the better]to pursue his examination.
The here modifies the following comparative (more, less, better), forming a phrase which
in turn is modifier to an adjective ([i/iv]), an adverb ([ii]), a verb ([iii/vi]) or determiner
to a nominal ([v]).19 In [i–ii] the is freely omissible. In [iii] the underlined occurrence
of the would be omissible if it introduced a modifier rather than a supplement (which
would mean dropping the comma), but not as it stands. In [iv], all the might be glossed
as “even”, or all the + comparative as “especially”; the can only be omitted if all is omitted
too. Example [v] is similar, except that all the more is here a DP functioning as determiner
in NP structure. In [vi] the better is a fronted modifier in the infinitival clause of purpose;
the is obligatory in this position but optional in the basic position – compare in order to
pursue his examination (the) better.
The is completely excluded if the secondary term is expressed: ∗The result was the
better than I had expected. Nor is the permitted when the secondary term is recoverable
anaphorically, from what has gone before. We cannot, for example, insert the in It was
cloudy and cold for the first two days but on the third day the weather was better, where we
understand “better than on the first two days”.20
4.5 Comparative idioms and reanalysis

This section presents a sample of the numerous expressions containing comparative gov-
ernors which in the course of time have become idiomatised or syntactically reanalysed.
(a) More than, less than, etc., as modifiers

In Kim earns more/less than Pat(does) the comparative forms more and less are heads (more
precisely, fused determiner-heads), with the than phrases functioning as complements
to them. But in some cases than merges syntactically with more or less to form a modifier
of the item following than. A corresponding reanalysis is found with as. One clear case
(not applying with less than) is where than/as is followed by a verb that can be a tensed
form:
[32] i This more than compensated for the delay.
ii She expects to more than double her capital in three years.
iii She never so much as turned her eyes on any other bloke.
iv He as good as admitted he’d leaked the information himself.
More than compensated for the delay is a VP, and the head must be compensated, not
more – note, for example, that we can drop more than but not than compensated for the
delay. More than is therefore a modifier of the verb. Similarly in [ii]. Although double
is a plain form of the verb, not a tensed form like compensated in [i], this is due to the
expect + to construction and has nothing to do with more than. The crucial point is that
19
Historically this the is not the usual definite article but the fossilised remnant of an Old English instrumental
case-form meaning roughly “by so/that much”. It came to fall together phonologically with the definite article,
but its syntactic distribution still reflects its different origin.
20
In such an example as Kim was good but Pat was better we can insert the but doing so changes the term
comparison into a set comparison, for we understand not “better than Kim” but “the better of the two”.
§ 4.5 Comparative idioms and reanalysis 1133
we can equally have a tensed form here: She more than doubled her capital. Example [iii]
shows the same reanalysis with a comparison of equality; these tend to occur in non-
affirmative contexts and to have the form so much as, as here; as good as, however, can
also be used, as in [iv], meaning much the same as virtually.
She more than doubled her capital may be contrasted with She did more than double her capital,
where double is required to be in the plain form: here there is no reanalysis, more being head,
and than double her capital its complement. The construction with do allows less instead of
more but the special construction of [32ii] does not. The two constructions differ semantically
as well as syntactically. Suppose, for example, that her capital was initially $10,000. She more
than doubled her capital means that she increased it to over $20,000. But that is not the
meaning of She did more than double her capital. This says that she doubled her capital and
more: the ‘more’ may involve a further increase in the capital or else something different,
such as achieving promotion in her job.
The reanalysis also applies to more than and less than followed by an adjective or
adverb, as in He’d given a [more than satisfactory]explanation for his behaviour, where
satisfactory is head of the bracketed AdjP, and more than an optional modifier. (We do
not postulate reanalysis, however, in examples like more than fifty people : see Ch. 5, §11).
(b) No/any more than + comparative clause

[33] i The horses were no more on parade than was their driver.
ii Kim wouldn’t do anything prematurely or in bad taste any more than Pat would.
More in this construction is in modifier function, but the usual degree meaning has
effectively been lost. We don’t interpret [i] as a comparison between the degree/extent
to which the horses were on parade and that to which their driver was: it can be glossed
without a degree modifier as “The horses weren’t on parade, just as their driver wasn’t”.
The difference between this and an ordinary comparison may be fairly slight: This prospect
did not please Mrs King any more than did the possibility that her daughter might marry a
Bohemian. The literal interpretation compares degrees of pleasing (without saying what
they were), whereas the idiomatic one says that neither the prospect nor the marriage
possibility pleased Mrs King (at all). Where the subordinate clause expresses an obviously
false proposition the rhetorical effect is to emphasise the negative: Social invention did
not have to await social theory any more than the use of the warmth of a fire had to await
Lavoisier.
(c) Idioms containing soon

Sooner and as soon can be used as alternants of rather in the idiom with would: I’d rather /
sooner /as soon stay at home. The inequality versions mean “I’d prefer”, and the equality
as soon “I’d like as much”. In addition, both as soon as and no sooner have idiomatic
meanings as well as their ordinary comparative ones:
[34] i a. The car may not be ready as soon as I said it would. [ordinary comparison]
b. I’ll phone you as soon as the meeting is over. [idiom]
ii a. We got home no sooner than if we’d taken the bus. [ordinary comparison]

b. We’d no sooner got home than the police arrived.
[idiom]
c. No sooner had we got home than the police arrived.
Example [ia] is a variable comparison comparing how soon the car will (possibly) be
ready and how soon I said it would be ready (cf. also the variable–constant comparison
It may be ready as soon as tomorrow). But such a comparative meaning is lost in [ib],
where as soon as is an idiom meaning “immediately” (and best regarded as a compound
preposition).
Similarly no sooner has its literal comparative meaning in [34iia], but is an idiom in
[iib–c], where the meaning is “The police arrived immediately after we got home”. The
version with fronting and subject–auxiliary inversion, [iic], is much the more frequent.
The meaning is essentially the same as the construction with hardly/barely/scarcely +
when: We had hardly got home / Hardly had we got home when the police arrived. And
as a result of this equivalence blends between the constructions are found, with when
appearing instead of than with no sooner and vice versa with hardly, etc.:
[35] i No sooner had we got home when the police arrived.
ii Hardly had we got home than the police arrived.
Such blends are accepted as established usage by the liberal manuals, but still condemned
by the more authoritarian ones.
(d) Idioms containing long and far

[36] i I’ll look after them as/so long as you pay me.
ii As/So far as I know, he’s still in Paris.
iii As/So far as the weather was concerned, we were very lucky.
iv He went so/as far as to compare the proposal to a tax on sunshine.
v Insofar as it’s any business of mine, I’d say they should give up.
With as long as, [i] is ambiguous between an ordinary variable comparison (comparing
how long I’ll look after them and how long you’ll pay me) and one where as long as has
lost its comparative meaning and been reanalysed as a compound preposition meaning
“provided” (“I’ll look after them provided you pay me”). In affirmative contexts like
this, so is possible only in the idiomatic meaning. Similarly so alternates with as in the
idiomatic preposition as/so far as. As far as I know means approximately “to the best of
my knowledge”; I know is here a content clause, not a comparative clause. As far as X
is concerned means “Regarding X”; the weather was concerned is again not comparative,
and some speakers drop be concerned, making as/so far as a preposition taking an NP
complement: %As far as the weather, we were very lucky. The idiom in [iv] is go so/as far as
+ infinitival VP; here I assert that he compared the proposal to a tax on sunshine, and
indicate that this is a relatively surprising or extreme thing to do. Insofar as in [v] means
“to the extent that”.
(e) Well, better, best

As well (as) has the literal comparative meaning in I doubt if I’ll ever play as/so well again
or She did as well as could be expected; but it also has a range of idiomatic uses:
[37] i a. They invited Kim as well as Pat. b. It was raining, as well.
ii a. We might as well have stayed at home. b. You may as well leave it at that.
iii It’s just as well we called the doctor.
In [ia] as well as means “in addition to”, and like rather than in its “not, instead of ”
sense, is best regarded as having been reanalysed as a coordinator: see Ch. 15, §2.8. In
§ 4.6 The correlative comparative construction 1135
[ib] as well on its own means “in addition” and functions as a connective adjunct. The
as well of [ii] normally combines with one of the possibility modals may, might, could;
it is possible to have a comparative complement consisting of as + bare infinitival (We
might as well have stayed at home as come here), but the version with the secondary
term unexpressed is more common. This use of as well is idiomatic in that there is no
corresponding non-comparative use of well: #We stayed at home well. In [iia] it serves to
indicate dissatisfaction with what we have done: we’re no better off than if we had taken
the simpler course of staying at home. In [iib] it indicates an unenthusiastic, somewhat
grudging suggestion: “There’s no reason why you shouldn’t leave it at that”. In [iii] (just)
as well means approximately “fortunate”.
Idiomatic uses of better and best are seen in:
[38] i I knew better than to question his decision.
ii We’ll manage as best we can.
Know better than to means “know one shouldn’t”. Example [i] has a negative implicature
(“I didn’t question his decision”), but You know better than to talk with food in your
mouth! has a positive one (“You have been talking with food in your mouth”). In [ii] we
have a curious use of the superlative form instead of the regular as well as : as best occurs
only with can. For the modal idiom had better/best, see Ch. 3, §2.5.6.
4.6 The correlative comparative construction

What we refer to as the correlative comparative construction has two versions, illus-
trated in [39i–ii] respectively:
[39] i a. The more sanctions bite, the worse the violence becomes.
b. The more conditions I impose, the less likely is he to agree. [fronted version]
c. The older he gets, the more cynical he becomes.
ii a.The violence becomes worse the more sanctions bite.
b. He is less likely to agree the more conditions I impose. [basic version]
c. He becomes more cynical the older he gets.
Both versions have paired – ‘correlative’ – comparative phrases (indicated by underlin-
ing). Very much the more common version is the one shown in [i], but it is the other that
is syntactically the more basic. The more sanctions bite is a subordinate clause functioning
as adjunct, and likewise the more conditions I impose and the older he gets ; in [ii] they
occupy the default position at the end of the matrix clause, whereas in [i] they occupy
front position. The subordinate clause has the comparative phrase in front position in
both versions, whereas the head clause has it fronted only when the whole subordinate
clause is fronted. The comparative phrase begins with the when it is fronted; this is the
modifier the discussed in §4.4.2 above. In the basic version it is possible but rare to have
the in the non-fronted comparative phrase: The violence becomes the worse, the more
sanctions bite.
The construction indicates parallel or proportional increase (or decrease, in the case
of less) along the two scales expressed in the head and subordinate clauses.21 It can be
21
The basic version marginally allows a verb such as increase instead of a syntactic comparative: The violence
increases the more sanctions bite.
approximately paraphrased by a construction in which the subordinate clause functions

as complement to as:
[40] i As sanctions bite more, so the violence becomes worse.
ii The violence becomes worse as sanctions bite more.
Because of this parallel movement along the two scales it is often possible to reverse the
direction of dependency:
[41] i The more we pay them, the harder they work.
ii The harder they work, the more we pay them.
In [i] the work clause is superordinate: the effort they put into their work increases as we
pay them more. In [ii] it is the pay clause that is superordinate: the amount we pay them
increases as they work harder. The two versions are not equivalent, however: for example, if
they work harder each time we pay them more, but sometimes work harder for other reasons
and without getting more pay, then [i] is true but [ii] is false.
Syntactic evidence that the first clause in [39i] (the fronted version) and the second clause
in [39ii] (the basic version) is subordinate to the other is provided by examples like:
[42] i Won’t the violence become worse, the more the sanctions bite?
ii He is clearly the sort of person [who would be less likely to agree, the more conditions I
impose].
Example [i] is a closed interrogative, and it is marked as such by subject–auxiliary inversion in
the main clause. The bracketed part of [ii] is a relative clause, and again it is the superordinate
clause whose structure is affected by relativisation. Note that such operations as those forming
interrogatives and relatives can be performed on the basic version, not on the fronted version.
The fronted version can be subordinated, but only in ways that simply involve adding the
subordinators that or a relative phrase modifier such as in which case :
[43] i He realised [that the longer he delayed the more difficult the task would be].
ii She may call an election, in which case the sooner we resolve these differences, the better
our chances will be.
Structural reduction
Where the comparative phrase is a predicative AdjP, the verb be may be omitted, and in
the fronted version it is possible to reduce either the head clause alone or both clauses
to just the comparative phrase:
[44] i [The harder the task,] the more she relished it.
ii The more directly the sun strikes walls and roof, [the greater its heat impact].
iii The sooner you leave the firm, [the better].
iv [The sooner,] [the better].
Classification of subordinate clause

The subordinate clause in both versions of the correlative comparative construction belongs
to the class of content clauses. In terms of its internal structure the only special feature it
has is the fronting of the comparative phrase, but that same feature also applies to the head
clause in the fronted version of the construction, and hence is not a marker of subordination.
We noted in Ch. 11 that content clauses do not always differ structurally from main clauses,
§ 5 Non-scalar comparison 1137
and the present construction is one of the cases where there is no internal marking of
subordination.22
5 Non-scalar comparison
The differences between term and set comparison are less extensive in non-scalar com-
parison than in scalar comparison, and in this section we will therefore deal with them
together. Two general points concerning the relation between the two types should be
made before we review the various comparative governors in turn.
Potential ambiguity between set comparison and term comparison

[1] i They offered the same deal to Kim and Pat.
ii Our views are similar.
There may be ambiguity between a set comparison and a term comparison in which the
secondary term is left unexpressed. For example, [i] may express a set comparison where
the set consists of Kim and Pat: this is equivalent to the term comparison They offered
the same deal to Kim as to Pat. But [i] can also be equivalent to They offered the same deal
as this to Kim and Pat, with this referring to some deal just mentioned. In this latter case
it is purely incidental that Kim and Pat refers to a plurality, whereas in the former case
it is essential: They offered the same deal to Kim can only be a term comparison with an
understood secondary term. Likewise [ii] can be a set comparison between the views of
those referred to by the pronoun we or a term comparison between our views and some
view or views identified earlier.
Set comparison and reciprocals

[2] i These questions are very different (from each other).
ii The same question occurred to both of them: why had no one called the police?
Set comparisons are often equivalent to term comparisons in which the secondary
term is expressed by a reciprocal pronoun. The version of [i] without the parenthe-
sised phrase is a comparison between a set of questions, whereas the version with
the from phrase is a term comparison with the primary term expressed by these ques-
tions, the secondary one by each other. The set comparison construction is much more
common than the reciprocal, which will often sound unnecessarily complex: compare
Kim and Pat have the same colour hair and the less likely Kim and Pat have the same
colour hair as each other. In cases like [ii] there is no equivalent reciprocal construc-
tion at all: ∗The same question occurred to both of them as to each other. Leaving aside
cases of preposing, the reciprocal is excluded in constructions where the compara-
tive governor precedes the expression denoting the set, as same in [ii] precedes both of
them.
22
Some speakers, however, have that after the comparative phrase: % The more that sanctions bite, the worse
the violence becomes. Another variant has a relative clause, as in the attested example The more centralised
information became and the more uses to which the Australia Card was put, the more unease the Law Council
would have. This, however, cannot be regarded as grammatical; it may have been used to enable the writer to
avoid the stranding of the preposition in the more uses the Australia Card was put to.
5.1 Same
Inherent definiteness
In attributive function same is restricted to definite NPs, and in predicative function it
occurs with the. Contrast, then, the distribution of same with that of identical:
[3] i a. The same mistake was made by Ed. b. The identical mistake was made by Ed.
ii a. ∗A same mistake was made by Ed. b. An identical mistake was made by Ed.
iii a. The two copies are the same. b. The two copies are identical.
iv a. She treats them all the same. b. She treats them all identically.
In NPs same usually occurs with the, as in [ia], but demonstrative determiners are
also found: this same version. In [iiia] the same is an AdjP rather than an NP, with the
a dependent of an adjective, as in the comparisons of inequality discussed in §4.4.2.
Similarly, in [iva] same is head of an AdvP with the as dependent.23
Term comparison with comparative clause

Same commonly occurs with as + comparative clause:
[4] i He goes to the same school as his father went to /did.
ii She’ll be using the same method as proved so successful last time.
iii They behaved in the same way as you had predicted .
iv We achieved the same result as (was) obtained in the first experiment.
The range of possibilities is broadly like that found in scalar comparison. One restriction
is that it is not possible to have a contrast involving the head noun of the comparative
phrase:
[5] i He has the same phonetics tutor as he had last year.
ii ∗He has the same phonetics tutor as he has syntax lecturer.
Example [5ii] may be contrasted with the well-formed scalar comparative He wrote as
many symphonies as he wrote piano concertos. Example [4iii] illustrates the construc-
tion discussed in (d) of §2.1, where an embedded clause is left understood (“you had
predicted that he would behave in y way”), but it is considerably less frequent than with
scalar comparisons. In [4iv] the missing counterpart to the comparative phrase is subject
of a passive clause, and here the auxiliary verb be can be omitted.
With relative clause

Instead of as + comparative clause we often find an equivalent relative clause:
[6] i We’re going to the same hotel as we stayed at last year. [comparative clause]
ii We’re going to the same hotel that we stayed at last year. [relative clause]
The equivalence follows straightforwardly from the semantics of the constructions. With
the comparative we have “We’re going to hotel x ; we stayed at hotel y last year; x = y”. With
the relative we have “We’re going to hotel x ; we stayed at x last year” (cf. Ch. 12, §3.1).
In [i] the identity of the variables x and y is expressed by same ; in [ii] the relative con-
struction itself builds in the identity between the variables (as reflected in our use of the
23
In casual speech the is omissible in a few expressions: We stayed at home, same as usual/always. The is also
sometimes omitted in the anaphoric use of same seen in examples like Thank you for the application form; I
enclose (the) same herewith, duly completed.
§ 5.1 Same 1139
same symbol x in our representation of the meaning). Same is omissible in [ii],24 but its
presence serves to reinforce, to emphasise, the identity. Structurally the two constructions
are very similar – in [6], for example, both subordinate clauses have the complement of
at left understood. The main difference is that comparative clauses allow for a greater
amount of reduction than relatives. There is, for example, no relative corresponding to
the same hotel as usual, for the relative can’t be reduced to a verbless structure like this.
Note also that relatives do not allow the inversion that is characteristic of comparatives:
Sheep and goats turned up on Timor at the same time as/∗that did the dingo.25
Same as with NP complement

It is very common for the comparative complement to consist of as + NP. In some cases
it is possible to add a verb, in others it is not:
[7] i a. I am in the same class as Pat (is). b. I left at the same time as Pat (did/left).
ii a. Kim’s views are the same as Pat’s. b. This version looks the same as that one.
The examples in [i] are similar to scalar comparisons – e.g. I am in a higher class than
Pat (is); I left earlier than Pat (did/left). Those in [ii] differ from scalar comparisons
(such as Kim’s views are better informed than Pat’s; This version looks more authentic than
that one) precisely by not allowing the addition of be ; the same as here is similar to
identical to or equivalent to, and the examples are best regarded as simply comparisons
between constants – between Kim’s views and Pat’s, this version and that one. Gerund-
participials can also appear in this construction: Promising to do something is not the
same as doing it.
Blurring of distinction between scalar and non-scalar equality

When same occurs with nouns denoting measurable properties such as age, size, height, length,
and indeed more generally with gradable nouns, the interpretation will often be similar to
that of a scalar comparative:
[8] i a. He’ll soon be the same height as me. b. He’ll soon be as tall as me.
ii a. I don’t earn the same salary as you. b. I don’t earn as much as you.
iii a. It’s not the same quality as the earlier model. b. It’s not as good as the earlier model.
The [a] examples, with same, will typically convey much the same as the [b] examples, which
are central cases of scalar comparisons of equality. We take the view, however, that this is a
matter of implicature: the [a] and [b] examples do not have the same truth conditions. The
scalar equality expressed by as ( . . . as) means “at least equal”, but that is not the meaning of
same. Consider the questions Is he the same age as you? and Is he as old as you? It is perfectly
natural to answer the first with No, he’s two years older, but this is not a natural answer to
the second (where we would have Yes, two years older, in fact or the like). Similarly, [iia] can
naturally be continued with I earn $1,000 more, but this would be possible as a continuation
of [iib] only if the latter were interpreted as having metalinguistic negation. Or compare If I
24
This leads some of the more authoritarian usage manuals to condemn the relative construction – on the
grounds that same is here redundant. There is no empirical basis for proscribing it, however: it is very common
and thoroughly acceptable.
25
For these reasons we do not follow the common traditional practice of analysing as as a relative pronoun here:
the examples in [6] belong to syntactically distinct constructions even though they are semantically equivalent.
earn more than you, then necessarily I earn as much as you and #If I earn more than you, then
necessarily I earn the same as you.26
The same as as equivalent to ( just ) as or like

[9] i They stay here the same as you do. [=(just) as]
ii You deserve a break the same as everyone else. [=like]
This construction belongs to informal style. The interpretation of the subordinate clause
in [i] would seem to be simply “you stay here”: there is no counterpart of the comparative
phrase. In this respect it is a marginal member of the class of comparative clauses. The
connection with central members, however, is seen in the fact that it can be reduced to
such forms as as usual: We’re going to the movies on Friday, the same as usual.27
Anaphoric use of the same in term comparison

The comparative complement, and hence the secondary term in the comparison, is
commonly left understood:
[10] i He arrived on Tuesday morning and left for Sydney the same day.
ii Kim certainly tried, and the same can be said for Jill.
iii They rejected my application and the same thing happened to Kim.
In [i] the same day is interpreted anaphorically as “on Tuesday”; in [ii] what can be said
for Jill is that she certainly tried; and in [iii] they rejected Kim’s application too. This
represents one of the major anaphoric devices in English, not least in construction with
do (as object) or happen (as subject) – see Ch. 17, §8.
The same in set comparison

[11] a. Kim and Pat are the same age. b. We asked them all the same question.
Example [a], where the set is expressed by a coordination, is equivalent to the term com-
parison Kim is the same age as Pat. The difference between the two versions is a matter
of information packaging: in the term comparison Kim and Pat are differentiated as
primary and secondary terms, whereas in [11a] they are of equal status as members of
the set being compared.
Modification
In NPs same can be modified by very : the very same mistake as you made last time.
Semantically this serves to reinforce the same rather than to indicate degree: it is com-
parable to that of That’s the very point I was making rather than that of That’s very good.
The compound selfsame achieves the same emphasis. Same can also be modified by such
items as much, almost, roughly, exactly preceding the : much the same, etc.; apart from
much, these are the main items that modify scalar comparisons of equality (cf. [29] of §4).
26
The implicatures commonly conveyed by the [a] examples in [8] are also found with NPs that have no overt
comparison: I don’t earn your salary will tend to implicate that I earn less. The similarity between such pairs as
those in [8] provides the basis for the blend between non-scalar and scalar comparisons found in the attested
example He used a rod that was exactly the same length as the model tower was high.
27
There is a somewhat similar type of construction in more formal style: In exactly the same way as we best see
something faint (Halley’s Comet, say) by not looking directly at it, so the thinking part of our brain tends to work
better when we’re not conscious of thinking. Here too in exactly the same way as could be replaced by just as, and
the comparative clause is not understood as having an implicit modifier matching in exactly the same way.
§ 5.2 Similar 1141
5.2 Similar
We here examine similar as representative of a set of comparative governors that occur
with to, from, or with, but not the prototypical comparative prepositions as and than,28
and hence not with comparative clauses.
Similar with a comparative complement

Similar selects to and is found in the following range of constructions:
[12] i This festival is rather similar to Munich’s Oktoberfest. [predicative]
ii The tribunal has powers similar to those of the courts. [postpositive]
iii She was using a similar argument to that outlined above. [attributive:i]
iv This problem is of similar complexity to the last one. [attributive:ii]
The secondary term in the comparison is in all cases expressed by the complement of
to. Where similar is used predicatively the primary term is expressed by its predicand –
the subject this festival in [i], the object in They have made this festival rather similar
to Munich’s Oktoberfest. In the postpositive use it is given by the part of the nominal
preceding similar, here powers – the comparison is between the powers the tribunal has
and the powers of the courts. In the attributive use of similar (much less frequent than
the other two) there are two possibilities. In [iii] (Type i), the primary term is given
by the comparative phrase – a . . . argument. In [iv] (Type ii), it is given by some other
NP – the subject this problem. Type i is the more usual construction; in the following
pair, for example, [i] is much more likely than [ii]:
[13] i She was using a similar argument to yours. [attributive:i]
ii She was using a similar argument to you. [attributive:ii]
Nevertheless, Type ii examples are readily found:
[14] i We should set up a local Labour Party along similar lines to the London one.
ii Errors on this new task take a very similar form to those which are made on the
conservation or class inclusion task.
iii A semi-synthetic molecule available in Europe and Japan, artepon, has a similar
mechanism of action to the drugs currently under study.
The comparative complement is omissible if recoverable anaphorically, except in the
postpositive case. If we drop to those of the courts from [12ii], for example, the general
rules for the placement of adjectives will require that similar occupy pre-head position:
The tribunal has similar powers.
Similar in set comparison

Set comparisons are found corresponding to two of the term comparisons illustrated in
[12], namely the predicative and the Type ii attributive:
[15] i This festival and Munich’s Oktoberfest are rather similar.
ii This problem and the last one are of similar complexity.
28
Examples with as are attested: The average Australian retiring in twenty years will need up to $2 million in assets
to live at a similar standard as today. They are not, however, frequent or systematic enough to be regarded as
grammatical; they appear to be restricted to relatively complex examples facilitating the analogical influence
of same : we do not find examples like ∗My views are similar as yours or ∗I have similar views as you.
Modification
Similar is a gradable adjective, and hence can be modified by such adverbs as very, quite,
rather, extremely, etc., and can itself be subject to scalar comparison (The Opposition’s
policy is more similar to the government’s than they care to admit). In general the degree
of likeness conveyed by similar falls short of complete identity, but it is sometimes used
for the latter, allowing such modifiers as exactly and almost.
Lexical derivatives
The corresponding noun and adverb are seen in:
[16] i The shooting had remarkable similarities with/to a terrorist execution.
ii Purchase of state vehicles is handled similarly to all state purchases.
The adjective dissimilar usually takes to, but from is found too.
5.3 Such
We focus here on such as it appears in non-scalar comparisons with a comparative
complement; for scalar such, see §4.3 above, and for the use of such with a resultative
complement, see Ch. 11, §4.6. Such does not occur in set comparisons.
Such as with comparative clause

Such may precede or follow the noun head, as in [17i–ii] respectively:29
[17] i a. Would you yourself follow such advice as you give me ?
b. We have been requested to discuss with you such matters as appear to us to be
relevant.
c. Applications shall be made in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary
to the Treasury may prescribe .
d. Such roads as existed were pretty much open roads.
e. We were in the worst possible shape to deal with the immediate task of trying to
co-operate with the Russians, who suffered from no such disadvantages as did we.
ii a. There were no homes for old people such as there are today.
b. A new payroll tax, such as the Minister proposes , would be highly unpopular.
c. He questioned the value of certification, such as provided by these courses.
The comparative phrase is the NP containing such and the counterpart to this is al-
ways missing in the comparative clause. Other features of the comparative construc-
tion are seen in the inverted order of [id] and the omission of the passive auxiliary
be in [iic].
The central meaning of such concerns likeness of kind. For example, [17ia] might
be glossed as “advice like that which you give me”, [iib] as “a new payroll tax of the
kind the Minister proposes”. In [ic] – a type quite common in legal language – the sense
of such . . . as is close to that of whatever. Example [id] is also comparable to a fused
relative construction, but without the ·ever : what roads existed. It conveys that there were
29
The such phrase can also be postposed: No depression occurs such as is seen clinically or may be produced in
normal persons by drugs.
§ 5.4 Different, other, else 1143
relatively few roads.30 But in spite of the semantic similarity with relatives, such, unlike
same, does not normally take a relative clause instead of the comparative complement.
Examples like Such overseas interests that Australian companies do have are summarised
in Appendix 5 are attested, but rare, and of questionable acceptability.
Such + as is also found occasionally without a following head noun:
[18] i The concern they felt for me was such as I shall never forget .
ii We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and
sufficient to explain their appearances.
Note that the missing object in [i] cannot be recovered from the such phrase itself : we need
to go to the subject NP (the concern they felt for me). In this respect the example differs
from normal comparative constructions (but compare [45] of §2 above); it may represent
a blend between the comparative and the resultative content clause construction The
concern they felt for me was such that I shall never forget it. In [ii] such is fused modifier-
head.
Such as with phrase

The most common use of such ( . . . ) as is with a single element after as, usually an NP:
[19] i What is one to make of such statements as this?
ii The choice depends on such factors as costs and projected life expectancy.
iii Traditional sports such as tennis, cricket, and football led in popularity.
iv It is no interference with sovereignty to point out defects where they exist, such as
that a plan calls for factories without power to run them.
In the majority of cases (unlike those cited for scalar such in [28] of §4.3) it is not
possible to add a verb, and the NP following as is best regarded as an immediate
complement, not a reduced clause (§2.2). Especially when such follows the head noun,
the element of likeness may be attenuated, with such as just introducing examples, as
in [iii].31
5.4 Different, other, else

Term comparison: different + from
The comparative complement usually has from as head; the range of constructions
matches that discussed above for similar + to:
[20] i My brushes are different from those used by most watercolourists. [predicative]
ii They have an examination system not very different from ours. [postpositive]
iii You’re answering a different question from the one I asked. [attributive:i]
iv Do Catholics have different attitudes from Anglicans? [attributive:ii]
In Type i attributives the primary term is expressed in the comparative phrase
(a . . . question . . . ), while in Type ii it is expressed elsewhere, here in the subject.
30
Such a deprecatory interpretation is also found in the idiomatic frame such as they are, etc.: My opinions, such
as they are, are my own suggests that the opinions are of limited value or significance.
31
In existential constructions with thing the comparison involves identity rather than likeness: There’s no such
thing as a free lunch, “There are no (genuinely) free lunches”.
Construction [iv] is simpler than the equivalent Type i construction formed by replacing
Anglicans by those of Anglicans.32
Different + to and than

While the verb differ selects only from, different also takes to or than :
[21] i This version is very different to the one we shall hear in the simulcast.
%
ii Records provide a different sort of experience than live music.
%
iii The focus of interpersonal relationships is different in marriage than in a pre-
marital situation.
iv %There was no evidence that anything was different than it had been.
They are, however, very much less frequent than from. Than is subject to regional vari-
ation: it is hardly used at all in BrE, but is well established in AmE, though even there it
is unlikely in the simplest predicative and postpositive constructions (?My needs are dif-
ferent than yours ; ? We expected a result rather different than this). As elsewhere, than can
be followed by a single element (NP in [ii], PP in [iii]) or a clearly clausal construction
([iv]). From and to are normally restricted to NP complements, so that replacement of
than by from or to in cases like [iii–iv] requires a more complex formulation involving
nominalisation, for example by means of a fused relative: different in marriage from what
it is in a pre-marital situation, different from what it had been.33
Differently
The adverb is found with the same range of prepositions as the adjective:
[22] i We need to remember that Israel treated sheep differently from us.
%
ii People often behave differently in a crowd than they would individually.
Note that in [i] the primary term is expressed by the subject Israel, but in [ii] it is given in
the comparative phrase differently, understood as “in a different way”. The comparison
is between the way people behave in a crowd and the way they behave individually.
Set comparison
[23] i The two versions of the incident are very different.
ii They proposed three different ways of solving the problem.
iii Different people hold different views on this matter.
iv The various candidates had reacted quite differently.
Different, like similar above, is used in set comparisons in predicatives ([i]) or Type i
attributives ([ii]). In the latter case different may occur in more than one NP, as in [iii];
the effect of the repetition is to pair people and views, excluding the case where a single
32
A comparable simplification is seen in the predicative Public attitudes to historical material were very different
then from now. The primary term here is expressed by then, not the subject, as it would be with from what they
are now.
33
The choice of preposition with different is much discussed in usage manuals. The most authoritarian insist that
only from is correct, but the majority recognise that this rule is in clear conflict with accepted usage. American
manuals accept than, especially with clausal complements, while British ones vary in their attitude to it: some
defend it as permitting a simpler construction in cases like [21iii–iv] (and on the grounds that different takes
modifiers like no and much, which makes it like a comparative form), but most do not allow it as standard in
BrE.
§ 5.4 Different, other, else 1145
person holds different views. Example [iv] illustrates the use of the adverb differently in
set comparison.
Modification
Different (like similar) is a gradable adjective, allowing the usual range of modifiers for
this class, such as very and a scalar comparative (His views were more different from mine
than I’d expected). At the same time, however, it takes those found with scalar comparison
of inequality (cf. [29] of §4): no, any, much (generally in non-affirmative contexts: It isn’t
much different from the previous version), far, a great deal, and so on.
Other + than
Other occurs only in term comparison. The comparative complement has than as
preposition.34 As an adjective, other occurs predicatively, postpositively, and in the Type
i attributive construction:
[24] i It turns out that the US policy is in fact other than he stated. [predicative]
ii He has no income other than his pension. [postpositive]
iii We must find some other means of restricting imports than tariffs. [attributive:i]
The predicative use is comparatively rare, and other here requires a complement. We
cannot therefore say, for example, ∗Our policy is other; instead we need Our policy is
different. The construction with other used predicatively is the only one where the than
can take a comparative clause, as in [i] – compare ∗He has no income other than the
government provides and He has no income other than that which the government provides,
with an NP as immediate complement of than.
The attributive use is much less frequent than the postpositive, but syntactically more
straightforward in that the than phrase is omissible and clearly a separate dependent in the
structure of the NP. Other can be coordinated with a scalar comparative form, showing
that we are here not far removed from the central type of comparative construction:
My mother had the faculty of gazing beyond people into space inhabited by other and
more exciting ones than those who were actually in the room. Also straightforward is the
construction where other is a nominal pro-form: These wrongs are public in the sense that
they involve others than the agent, with others head (“other people”) and than the agent
comparative complement.
In the postpositive construction than cannot be omitted: ∗He has no income other. This
is conducive to a reanalysis whereby other than is construed as a compound preposition
with a meaning like “besides, except, apart from”. Such a reanalysis certainly seems to
have applied in the construction where other than is not in construction with a head
noun, but introduces an adjunct:
[25] i [Other than this very significant result,] most of the information now available
about the radio emission of the planets is restricted to the intensity of radiation.
ii Little has changed [other than that it is now a silent and deserted place].
iii For a long time we didn’t talk [other than to confirm our common destination].
34
Other is occasionally found in combination with but instead: I wouldn’t want any other pet but a dog – a blend
between any pet but and any other pet than. This is different from the combination with except, as in He has no
other friends except you, which doesn’t say that you are his only friend: the interpretation here is “He has no
other friends than these except you” – i.e. there is an understood secondary term for comparative other.
Further constructions where other than appears to function as a constituent are illus-
trated in:
[26] i Did he consider the possibility of recording other than popular music in this way?
ii No one suggests these deals are other than legitimate commercial operations.
iii He is at pains to define his key terms other than anecdotally.
Again, other could not occur on its own in these positions, and it is doubtful if it can
properly be regarded as head. The underlined sequences are NPs in [i–ii] and an AdvP
in [iii], and it is plausible to take music, operations, and anecdotally as syntactic head
with other than a modifier, comparable to the reanalysed uses of more than and less than
discussed in §4.5.
Else
This is semantically equivalent to other, but it takes a complement headed by either
than or but that is always optional: anyone else (than/but you), nowhere else (than/but in
France). Like non-predicative other, it cannot take than + comparative clause: anything
else than what she gave you, not ∗anything else than she gave you. Else is restricted to
occurrence with interrogatives (who/what/how else, etc.), the compound determinatives
(everyone, anything, etc.), and much, little, and all in fused determiner-head function.
5.5 As
In this section we are concerned with term comparisons of equality where the preposition
as appears on its own, without a superordinate comparative governor such as same, such,
so, or a preceding as :
[27] i As you know, we face a difficult year. [adjunct of comparison]
ii I did it as I was told to do it. [manner]
iii The universe today looks just as it did millions of years ago. [predicative]
iv The plan as currently conceived is seriously flawed. [dependent of nominal]
This as is itself the comparative governor, and takes a bare comparative complement (cf.
§1.3). It does not occur in set comparison: it always introduces the secondary term in
term comparison.
We focus primarily on constructions where as takes a clausal complement, consid-
ering in turn the four categories illustrated in [27]. The causal as of As it was raining
they cancelled the match and the temporal one of She fell as she was going downstairs are
excluded as falling outside the domain of comparison: these simply take content clauses
as complement, whereas the complements of as in [27] are comparative clauses.
Adjunct of comparison
The underlined adjunct or complement in [27ii–iv] is only incidentally comparative:
the as phrase could be replaced without change of function by, for example, carefully,
remarkable, in its present state, and so on. The adjunct in [27i], however, is inherently
comparative, not replaceable by an expression with the same function that is not com-
parative: it is for this reason that we call it an adjunct of comparison, a semantic type of
§ 5.5 As 1147
adjunct on a par with those described in Ch. 8. Further examples are given in:
[28] i [As I have already observed ,] no reason has yet been offered for this change.
ii The event was sponsored, [as is the fashion these days,] by a brewery.
iii He didn’t report the matter to the police [as you’d predicted ].
The comparative clauses functioning as complement to as are structurally incomplete
in that the clausal complements which their verbs would have in main clauses are missing.
They are recoverable from the matrix: in [28i], for example, what I have already observed
is that no reason has yet been offered for this change. Similarly in [ii]: what is the fashion
these days is for comparable events to be sponsored by a brewery. Example [iii] is
ambiguous: what you’d predicted may be that he would report the matter to the police
or that he wouldn’t.
Adjuncts of this kind cannot be foregrounded in the it-cleft construction (∗It’s as you
know that we face a difficult year). Nor can they fall within the scope of a negative – note, for
example, that in neither interpretation of [28iii] does the negative have the subordinate
clause within its scope: it cannot be used to convey that you had not predicted that he
would/wouldn’t report the matter to the police. They are generally prosodically detached,
having the status of supplements. As for the interpretation, the truth of the subordinate
clause is not at issue: it is taken for granted or presupposed.35
Other verbs often found in the comparative clause in this construction include:
[29] acknowledge argue claim demonstrate discover
expect find hear insist note
promise remark say show suggest
These are verbs that take content clauses as internal complement; such adjectives as
aware follow the same pattern (as you will be aware). The missing complement may
likewise be understood as subject of these verbs in the passive (as is widely known), or of
other expressions taking clausal subjects (as happens frequently), or verb + predicative
(as will be obvious). The structure is like that found in central comparative constructions:
compare [28iii] with Not as many people came [as you’d predicted ]. One difference,
however, is that in the present construction the as phrase can occupy a range of positions,
like many other adjuncts: front, end, or central (We face, as you know, a difficult year). This
difference is attributable to the fact that the as here is itself the comparative governor,
rather than being selected by some superordinate governor that it must follow.
Relationship with relative construction
The construction containing an adjunct of comparison bears a significant resemblance
to one with a supplementary relative clause:
[30] i a. He phoned home every day, [as he’d promised to do]. [comparative]
b. He phoned home every day, which he’d promised to do. [relative]
35
As I recall (or as I remember) has a somewhat different interpretation from the examples in [28]. The truth of the
subordinate clause is not here taken for granted; rather, the as phrase serves as a ‘hedge’, a modal qualification,
indicating that the information in the matrix clause is based on recollection. The meaning is similar to that
of as far as I recall. Note, by contrast, that as I well recall follows the usual pattern. Compare As I recall, no one
had raised any objections to the proposal, and The Society to which I myself belonged in my own college at Oxford
was, as I well recall, of this latter sort.
ii a. She has recovered quickly, [as her doctor will confirm]. [comparative]
b. She has recovered quickly, which confirms that it wasn’t serious. [relative]
The underlining marks the subordinate clauses, comparative or relative, while the brack-
ets in the [a] examples mark the adjunct of comparison. In [ia] we have a comparison of
equality between two variables: “x (he phoned home every day); he promised to do y ;
x = y ”. In the relative construction [ib] we have two occurrences of the same variable:
“x (he phoned home every day); he’d promised to do x ”. The end result is the same
in the two constructions, just as we saw that same + as can be equivalent to same +
relative (§5.1). Nevertheless, there are pragmatic and syntactic differences between the
two constructions.
The informational content of the comparative clause is backgrounded, whereas the
relative presents the information it expresses as separate from that of the main clause. In
[30iia] as is much more likely than which, whereas in [iib] as would be impossible: the
relative here takes the matrix as the starting-point or basis for new information of equal
importance.
Syntactically, the comparative displays distinctive properties of the central compara-
tive construction, as illustrated in:
[31] i He was a devout Catholic, [as were both his brothers].
ii They claimed it as a deductible expense, [as permitted under US tax law].
iii Kim won convincingly, [as usual ].
iv I’ve also felt at times like leaving my wife, [as she has me].
In [i] we have postposing of the subject, which would not be possible in a relative: which
both his brothers were too, but not ∗which were both his brothers too. In [ii] the passive
auxiliary be is omitted, and again this is not permitted in a relative: cf. which is permitted,
but not ∗which permitted. In [iii] the comparative clause is reduced to an adjective: which
would require a finite construction, which is usual. And in [iv] has is stranded, but with
an object following the missing verb: relative ∗which she has me would again be quite
impossible.
Reduction not always obligatory
One respect in which this as construction differs from more central types is that the
subordinate clause is not necessarily structurally incomplete. Instead of [31iv], for ex-
ample, we could have as she has felt at times like leaving me, with no material missing
but understood. The minimum reduction required in central comparatives is that the
counterpart to the comparative governor be missing (cf. §2.1), but in this construction
the governor, as, is head of an adjunct which has no counterpart in the subordinate
clause.
This is not to say, however, that reduction is always optional: it is most clearly obliga-
tory in cases like [27i], [28], or [31ii–iii], where it would be impossible to add a pronoun
in place of the missing complement (∗as you know it, ∗as I have already observed it, etc.). In
these cases the y variable is understood as embedded as complement of a verb or verb +
predicative, rather than as constituting the whole complement of as.
No requirement for new or contrasting material
The comparative clause usually contains material distinct from that in the matrix: in [27i]
you know appears only in the subordinate clause, in [31iv] we have contrasting subjects
§ 5.5 As 1149
(she vs I) and contrasting objects (me vs my wife), and so on. But as with scalar com-
parisons of equality (She’s as fit as she is because . . . ) the subordinate clause need not
contain new or contrastive lexical material:
[32] i If the aim is to create disunity, [as it is ,] we should reject his proposal.
ii She suggested he hadn’t been honest with her, [as indeed he hadn’t ].
iii The deadlock is a disappointment coming [as it does]after such a promising start.
What makes these possible is that the matrix does not state that the proposition is
true, whereas the comparative clause does. The latter does therefore introduce a new
feature, but it is not a matter of the lexical content. In [i] the aim is to create disunity is
complement to if and hence merely entertained conditionally, rather than stated, in the
matrix. Similarly in [ii] the x variable is expressed by the complement of suggested, and
hence is not entailed. And [iii] has non-finite coming, which is not itself a construction
used for stating: note that we could not here replace coming by because it comes.
Reduction to a single element
The comparative clause can be reduced to a single element:
[33] i In sport, [as in everything else], attitude is all important.
ii We took the precaution, [as always], of having the paintings authenticated.
iii These qualities are necessary today [as never before] if we are to march together to
greater security, prosperity, and peace.
We understand “as it is in everything else”, “as we always do/did”, “as they have never
been before”. Again the construction resembles central comparatives – cf. Attitude is as
all important in sport as in everything else ; These qualities are more necessary today than
ever before. There is, however, one major difference: in the present construction a clause
cannot normally be reduced to an NP understood as subject or object. For example, we
can’t omit the verb from [31i]: ∗He was a devout Catholic, as both his brothers. Instead we
need like : He was a devout Catholic, like both his brothers.
Manner
Here the as phrase functions as manner element in the matrix and the comparative clause
has an implicit manner element that is compared with it:
[34] i He uses statistics [as a drunk uses a lamppost ], for support rather than
illumination.
ii The louvres are constructed [as shown in the diagram].
iii These people don’t know how to go about complaining [as Europeans do].
Example [i] may therefore be analysed along the lines proposed for central comparatives:
“He uses statistics in way x; a drunk uses a lamppost in way y; x = y ”. And again there is
an equivalent with a relative clause: He uses statistics in the way a drunk uses a lamppost.
Example [ii] gives another illustration of the past-participial construction, with the
passive auxiliary be omitted; the missing subject can be interpreted as “how louvres are
constructed”.
There may be ambiguity between the manner and adjunct of comparison types, as
in [34iii]. The manner interpretation is concerned with the way Europeans go about
complaining – these people don’t know how to go about doing it in this way. In the
adjunct of comparison interpretation the equality is simply between what they don’t
know and what Europeans do know. Only the adjunct of comparison interpretation is
possible if the as phrase is placed before how : They don’t know, as Europeans do, how to
go about complaining.
Predicative
Here there is a comparison between two kinds or states:
[35] i His behaviour was [as we’d expected it to be ].
ii Make sure you leave everything [as you find it ].
iii The design of the building is [as shown in Figure 12].
These fit the familiar analysis: “His behaviour was x, we’d expected it to be y ; x = y ”,
with the variables representing predicative complements. Example [ii] is equivalent to
a relative construction with the noun state as head: leave everything in the state in which
you find it. And [iii] is a further past-participial passive. The as phrase functions as
predicative complement: subjective in [i/iii], objective in [ii]. The comparative clause
has a missing predicative complement in [i–ii]; [iii] has a missing subject, interpreted
as “the design of the building”, and it is arguable that there is also a missing predicative
complement here too: it’s a matter of how Figure 12 shows the design.
In construction with a nominal or NP

[36] i This is a photograph of the church [as it was in 1900].
ii Computer technology may make the car, [as we know it ,]a Smithsonian antique.
iii No one thought that Margot, [as she was then known ,]would last the distance.
The as phrase in [i] is a modifier in the structure of the nominal headed by church, while
those in [ii–iii] are supplements to the anchor NPs the car and Margot. This construction
differs semantically somewhat from the others we have been considering, and doesn’t
lend itself to an analysis of the familiar kind involving variables x and y. Rather, the as
phrase specifies some property or aspect of what is denoted by the head noun or the
anchor NP: in [i] we are concerned with how the church was in 1900, in [ii] with how
we know (conceive of) the car, in [iii] with how (by what name) the person concerned
was known at the time in question.
Syntactically the complement of as is still a comparative clause, still structurally
incomplete relative to a main clause. This is most obvious in [36i], which may be com-
pared with main clause The church was in such-and-such a state in 1900. The comparative
clauses in [ii–iii] may similarly be contrasted with We know it in such-and-such a form
and She was then known as such-and-such.
Idiomatic uses
Examples such as the following are of limited productivity:
[37] a. As it happens, I met her only yesterday. b. Do as I say / as you like.
It happens is structurally incomplete in that it couldn’t stand alone, but it is not clear what
missing element is understood: as it happens is a fixed phrase. Compare also as things stand, as
it is. Both versions of [b] have exceptional syntax in that do normally takes an NP object (cf.
Do this ; Do what I say); the pattern does not occur with other transitive verbs (e.g. ∗Take as
you like). A relatively recent such idiom is as is : All items are sold as is (“in their present state”).
§ 5.5 As 1151
As if and as though
These introduce phrases with the same range of functions as those discussed above for
as alone, except that they do not function as dependents to a noun:
[38] i He had scurried up the hatch as if we were abandoning ship.
ii They were treated as if they were Commonwealth citizens.
iii There was a ragged edge to her voice now, as if she’d been crying.
iv The effect is as if he had materialised out of nowhere.
The as if phrase is a manner adjunct in [i], a manner complement in [ii], an adjunct
of comparison in [iii], and a predicative complement in [iv].
As if and as though as compound prepositions
In the examples of [38] it is possible to fill out the construction, inserting material
between as and if :
[39] i He had scurried up the hatch as he would if we were abandoning ship.
ii They were treated as they would be if they were Commonwealth citizens.
iii There was a ragged edge to her voice, as there would have been if she’d been crying.
iv The effect is as it would have been if he had materialised out of nowhere.
This might suggest that there is nothing special about [38] – that the underlined phrases
simply consist of as as head with the if phrase as complement. Thus [38iii], for example,
would be comparable to There was a ragged edge to her voice, as when she’d been crying.
There is strong syntactic and semantic evidence, however, for saying that as and if have
merged into a single compound preposition taking a content clause as complement, that
the examples of [38] cannot be analysed as reduced versions of [39].
The first argument for the compound analysis is that as if in [38] can be replaced without
change of meaning by as though, whereas if in [39] cannot be replaced by though.
The second argument is that it is not possible to repeat if in coordination: ∗They were
treated as if they were Commonwealth citizens or if they had resided here for ten years or more.
The third argument is that expansion of the kind shown in [39] is very often not possible:
[40] i Don’t attack a mouth as if you’re dipping a mop into a slop-bucket!
ii It was highly imprudent of him to drink as if he were a youngster like ourselves.
iii She acts as if she hates me.
iv It seems/looks as if we’ve offended them.
v Max seems/looks as if he’s in difficulties.
vi As if this news wasn’t bad enough, I found that the printer wasn’t working either.
In [i] we have a comparison of equality (interpreted as resemblance) not between two ways
of attacking a mouth but between a way of attacking a mouth and the way of dipping a mop
into a slop-bucket. In [ii] the comparison is not between the way he drank and the way he
would drink if he were a youngster but between the way he drank and the way it would be
acceptable, appropriate, or reasonable to drink if he were a youngster. Example [iii] could be
expanded if it had modal preterite hated (She acts as she would act if she hated me), but it can’t
be expanded as it stands, with present tense hates.
Whereas in [40i–ii] the idea of comparison associated with as remains very evident, it is
much attentuated in [iii]: it is more a matter of the way she acts suggesting that she hates me.
This shift from comparison to the issue of whether the content clause is true is carried a step
further in [40iv]. In the version with seem, as if could be replaced by that with virtually no
change in meaning. In this construction the as if reinforces or harmonises with the modal
meaning expressed in the verb (essentially medium strength epistemic modality, in the sense
of Ch. 3, §9) – thus, roughly, “Judging from appearances, it is likely that we have offended
them”.
Other verbs of similar meaning likewise take a complement of this form: appear, feel,
sound, taste, and also be.36 In addition to the impersonal construction of [40iv] we find
ordinary subjects, as in [v].
Finally, [40vi] involves a special use of as if /though, where the matrix clause presents some
situation as a further instance of something, normally something bad – in this example, of
further bad news. In this use, the as if always has a negative complement, and again it is less
a matter of comparison than of the status of the content clause. This time the construction
indicates that the content clause is true (not merely likely): this news wasn’t bad enough (i.e.
bad enough to satisfy a malevolent fate, as it were, bad enough to make it unnecessary to
inflict further bad things on me).
The as if/though phrase standing on its own
The as if /though phrase may form an exclamatory clause by itself:
[41] i As if I didn’t have enough on my plate as it was !
ii As if I would try to cheat you !
The first of these is a structurally incomplete version of the construction shown in [40vi]:
the indication of what else I had on my plate is left unexpressed, being recoverable from
the context. Example [41ii] presents the content clause as false: it is an indignant rejection
of the suggestion that I would try to cheat you.
Irrealis were and the preterite
The as if /though construction is one of those that allow irrealis were or a modal preterite.
Where the matrix clause has present tense, we have the expected contrast in the content
clause between were or modal preterite and present tense:
[42] He moves about on camera, angular, emaciated, graceful, as if his body were /is
weightless.
The version with irrealis were is motivated by the fact that his body is not actually
weightless, i.e. by the counterfactuality of the content clause. The version with is, by
contrast, presents his body’s being weightless as an open possibility, thereby suggesting
that he gives the appearance of being weightless. Compare also She acts as if she hated
me and She acts as if she hates me (=[40iii]). The latter conveys that the way she acts
suggests that she does hate me or may well do so, whereas the modal preterite hated
presents her hating me as a more remote possibility (though it is certainly not presented
as counterfactual).
Less straightforward is the case where the matrix clause is in the preterite:
[43] i He was treated as if he were a Commonwealth citizen.
ii As the trooper left the room, the gambler turned to the army girl with an odd
expression, as though he were remembering painful things.
36
With be in the negative we actually have an entailment that the content clause is false : It’s not as if he wasn’t
trying entails that he was trying. This construction is used to deny a proposition that might otherwise have
been deduced (perhaps he didn’t perform as well as expected).
§ 5.5 As 1153
The natural interpretation of [i] is that he was treated like a Commonwealth citizen
although he wasn’t one. Example [ii], however, doesn’t imply that he wasn’t remembering
painful things: on the contrary, it suggests that he was or appeared to be. In [i] we could
have as if he had been a Commonwealth citizen, with the perfect marking backshift (or
past time) and the preterite marking modal remoteness; it is, however, much more usual
in such contexts to have an irrealis or simple preterite after as if /though than a preterite
perfect.
The irrealis in [43ii] does not appear to be semantically motivated: certainly if we had
a simple preterite in this context we would have no reason to regard it as a modal preterite.
This were is therefore probably best regarded as belonging with the ‘extended’ uses of the
irrealis discussed in Ch. 3, §1.7. Like them, it has the flavour of a hypercorrection: was
is a less formal variant of were in modal remoteness constructions like [i], so that some
speakers feel were to be stylistically preferable to was in similar constructions where was
was not traditionally stigmatised.37
As if/though with infinitival and verbless complement
A further difference between as if /though and if is that the former can take a subjectless
infinitival or verbless clause as complement:
[44] i He examined the notes thoroughly, as if to see if they were real.
ii She combed her hair back with her fingers as if to see better.
iii Unruly hair goes straight up from his forehead, standing so high that the top falls
gently over, as if to show that it really is hair and not bristle.
iv He rose up as if weightless.
The infinitival is interpreted as involving purpose or intention. The subject of the matrix
clause is normally a human agent: exceptional examples like [iii] are interpreted as
involving personification, with the hair conceived of as acting purposefully. The force of
the as if/though is much like that in [40iii]: his examining the notes thoroughly (or the
way he did so) suggested that his intention was to see if they were real. Example [44iv]
illustrates the case where subject + be is omitted to yield a verbless complement.
As if/though in scalar comparison
We have been concerned so far with non-scalar comparison (diluted in some cases in
such a way that there is little sense of comparison at all). Consider, finally, examples of
scalar comparison like the following:
[45] i Our aim is to be as competitive as if we had rivals breathing down our necks.
ii The part of her that was in control was as calm as though she were just shedding an
outer garment during a photo session.
In [i] the second as is head of the comparative phrase and has the if phrase as its
complement: as if is not here a compound preposition. Nevertheless one finds occa-
sional examples with though instead of if, as in [ii]; they are, however, of question-
able acceptability, and probably best treated as blends between the construction where
as and if /though form a compound preposition, as in the non-scalar examples, and
37
This extended use of irrealis were is occasionally found in constructions where the matrix has present tense: It
sounds from the guide book as if Verona were worth a visit. The flavour of hypercorrectness is stronger here: the
example falls under the use of as if seen in [40iv], which indicates that the content clause is relatively likely to
be true, making the irrealis semantically inappropriate.
the one where if is head of the complement of the as marking scalar comparison of
equality.
5.6 Like
Like occurs with a comparative sense in a wide range of constructions. We look first at
those where it has an NP as complement, then in §5.6.2 at the use of like with finite clause
complements, and then review summarily a variety of other constructions in §5.6.3. For
the distinction between like as an adjective and as a preposition, see Ch. 7, §2.2.
5.6.1 Like + NP complement

With an NP as complement, like rather than as is used in non-scalar term comparisons
of equality:
[46] i a. Jill is like her mother. b. ∗Jill is as her mother.
ii a. Like you, I welcome this decision. b. ∗As you, I welcome this decision.
iii a. Jill was talking like a lawyer. b. Jill was talking as a lawyer.
Here [ib] and [iib] are ungrammatical, while [iiib] is not a comparative construction,
differing sharply in meaning from the comparative [iiia]. The latter expresses a compar-
ison of equality (resemblance) between Jill and a lawyer with respect to the way she was
talking; [iiib] says that Jill was talking in her capacity of lawyer. As here takes a predicative
complement, so we infer that Jill was a lawyer – whereas in [iiia] she may or may not
have been.
Like phrases with an NP as complement function in clause structure as predicative,
manner complement, or adjunct, and they also function as dependent of a noun or as a
supplement anchored to an NP.
(a) Like phrases as predicative

[47] i Max is just like his father. It seemed like a good idea at the time. It feels
like silk. The wine tasted like vinegar.
ii It is just like Max to be late.
iii The effect was to make him even more like his father.
iv I don’t want Sally to see me like this. It would be better like this.
Like phrases commonly occur as complement to be and other complex-intransitive
verbs, especially the appearance verbs seem and appear, and the sense verbs feel, look,
sound, and taste.38 Max is like his father is a straightforward comparison of equality
between Max as primary term and his father as secondary term, with equality interpreted
as resemblance. The sphere of resemblance can be specified in a modifier such as in his
attitude to work.
Example [47ii] illustrates a special use of like with the sense “characteristic of ”. In [iii]
the like phrase is objective predicative complement. This is not a common construction:
relatively few complex-transitive verbs readily allow a like phrase as predicative (cf. ? I
38
I feel like an intruder belongs to this construction, but I feel like a drink does not: feel like is here an idiom
meaning approximately “want”, with feel a prepositional verb and like a drink a non-predicative complement.
In That looks like Kim over there the meaning is not comparative “resemble” but modal “is probably / seems to
be”.
§ 5.6.1 Like + NP complement 1155
thought him like his father, ∗This got him like a raving lunatic, and so on). In [iv] like this
is a predicative adjunct.
(b) Manner complement

[48] i Liz is behaving like a prima donna.
ii Jill treated Max like the others.
iii You shouldn’t treat her like that.
The few verbs that take a manner phrase as complement readily allow it to have the
form of a like phrase. Thus [i] expresses resemblance between Liz and a prima donna
with respect to the way or manner in which Liz is behaving. Example [ii] is ambiguous,
in that the primary term in the comparison can be either Jill or Max: “Jill treated Max
in the same way as the others treated him” or “Jill treated Max in the same way as she
treated the others”. This ambiguity is like that found in scalar comparisons such as Sue
phoned Angela more often than Liz (=[20v] of §2), though there can be no question of
analysing the complement of like as a reduced clause here. Finally, [iii] is an instance of
what we have called a variable–constant comparison (cf. I stayed longer than six weeks
discussed in §1.3). The meaning can be given as “You shouldn’t treat her in manner x ;
x = that”, so that it is equivalent to the non-comparative construction You shouldn’t treat
her that way.
(c) Non-predicative adjunct

Like phrases are very common in this function, where they have a rather wide range of
interpretation. We consider three cases, though the distinction between the second and
third is by no means sharp:
[49] i Like his brother, Max is a keen gardener. [likeness of predication]
ii Max talks like his brother. [likeness of manner]
iii Like a fool, Max believed everything they told him. [other likeness]
Likeness of predication
The likeness between Max and his brother in [49i] is that both are keen gardeners: in this
type, something is said about the primary term that also applies to the secondary term.
The primary term is almost always expressed by the subject of the clause, and hence we
call this ‘likeness of predication’ in that the same predicate applies to both terms. The
distinction we are drawing between the primary and secondary terms in a comparison is
reflected here in the status of the two propositions conveyed: “Max is a keen gardener” is
asserted as the main information, while “His brother is a keen gardener” is backgrounded,
presupposed information, something that is taken for granted.
This type differs from the others with respect to negation, in that like can take the
negative prefix un·. Compare, for example:
[50] i Unlike his brother, Max is a keen gardener.
ii ∗Max talks unlike his brother.
Example [ii] is inadmissible in the meaning “Max talks in a way which is unlike that in
which his brother talks” – it would be acceptable with a comma after talks, but in that
case it would be the counterpart not of [49ii] but of Max talks, like his brother, which
involves likeness of predication, not likeness of manner. Example [50i] has subclausal
negation, unlike serving to negate the secondary proposition, so that the meaning is:
“Max is a keen gardener, but his brother is not”. With clausal negation we have (changing
the content of the propositions for greater naturalness):
[51] i Like his brother, Max had not received a distribution from the family trust.
ii Max had not, like his brother, received a distribution from the family trust.
iii Max had not been to university like his brother.
In [i] the like is outside the scope of negation: Max and his brother are alike in that they
had both not received a distribution from the family trust. Example [ii] is ambiguous:
like can be outside the scope of negation, giving the same meaning as for [i]; or it can be
inside the scope of negation, so that Max and his brother are not alike – Max’s brother
had received a distribution, but Max himself had not. In abstraction from prosody, the
same ambiguity applies in [iii]. If the sentence is read as a single intonation phrase, the
like phrase is inside the scope of negation (“His brother had been to university, but Max
hadn’t”), but if like his brother is read as a separate intonation phrase it will normally be
outside the scope of negation (“Both of them hadn’t been”).
Where the complement of like is a personal pronoun it normally takes accusative case; this is
the only possibility when the like phrase precedes the subject or follows the VP, but when it
comes between subject and verb nominative forms are occasionally attested:
[52] i Like us/∗we, Max is a keen gardener.
ii The Russians, like us/ %we, have an obvious interest in avoiding war.
The nominative suggests that the pronoun is construed as a subject, but it is not coordinate
with the Russians and could not in this position be expanded into a finite clause; it is probably
best regarded, therefore, as a hypercorrection (cf. Ch. 5, §16.2).
In the great majority of cases, the primary term in the comparison is expressed by the
subject of the clause – by Max in [52i], the Russians in [52ii], and so on. Departures from
this pattern are illustrated in:
[53] i Like any stray, his response to these comforts was instantaneous.
ii Like Moscow, the main streets in Leningrad are wide and tree-lined.
iii Like certain expensive restaurants, just sitting there gave you the illusion of being
wealthy yourself.
iv Like so many great successes, the ideas are surprisingly simple.
In [i] the primary term is expressed by the pronoun his, determiner within the subject NP,
not subject of the clause itself. In [ii] it is expressed by the complement of in within the
subject NP. In [iii] it is expressed by the locative adjunct there within the clause function-
ing as subject. And in [iv] it is not expressed at all, but is understood as the work or what-
ever whose ideas are surprisingly simple. Such examples are widely condemned in style
manuals, and would generally be avoided in careful writing. This can be done by reformu-
lating the clause so that the primary term is expressed by the subject (he responded . . . ),
or by using a construction with as + PP (as with so many great successes, . . . ).
Likeness of manner
[54] i These birds walk like human beings.
ii These birds don’t walk like human beings.
We interpret [i] as “These birds walk in the same way/manner as human beings” – hence
the label ‘likeness of manner’. In [ii] the like phrase falls within the scope of negation:
§ 5.6.1 Like + NP complement 1157
“These birds don’t walk in the same way/manner as human beings”; the implicature is that
the birds do walk, but in a different way from humans. As with manner complements, the
NP following like can itself refer to a manner: You should do it like this. The comparison
here is between the way you should do it and ‘this’.
Again, the primary term in the comparison is not invariably expressed by the subject:
[55] i He loved her like a sister.
ii Bergs will simply rip through sea ice like tissue-paper if the overall current is at
variance to the top few metres of the watermass.
Less specific likeness
[56] i The girls shrieked their applause like a mob of cockatoos.
ii The afternoon sun shone through her chestnut hair like a fiery halo.
iii He just slid his hand slowly out again like a snake.
iv I followed his instructions, like a coward.
The examples in [i–iii] bear some similarity to [54i], but the comparison is not with
the manner in which a mob of cockatoos might shriek their applause, in which a fiery
halo might shine through her hair, or in which he might slide a snake slowly out. It is
simply that the girls resembled a mob of cockatoos as they shrieked out their applause,
the afternoon sun resembled a fiery halo as it shone through her hair, his hand resembled
a snake as he slid it slowly out again. Like a coward in [iv] is somewhat different. It is
not a matter of any visual resemblance: rather, I was like a coward simply by virtue of
following his instructions.
(d) Modifier of a nominal or supplement to an NP

[57] i She gave an account of their meeting very like the one published in the press.
ii I don’t think there’ll ever be another rider like him.
iii Tossing around terms like ‘new right’ benefits no one but the left.
iv I hope that wearing a dress like this will give me confidence.
v There were others who ingested strange objects, like live fish.
vi ?She had an accent like a Dutch kid I used to know.
The like phrase in [i] can be expanded into a relative clause, which was very like the
one published in the press : it is straightforwardly a matter of resemblance. A similar
expansion is possible in [ii], but less natural: the interpretation is similar to that of a
scalar comparison, as good as him. Like in [iii] is equivalent to such as: new right is
an example of the terms in question. Some of the more authoritarian style manuals
condemn this usage, but there is no empirical basis for doing so: it is very common and
in no way restricted to informal style. Like expresses what we are calling a comparison
of equality, and there is no requirement that the resemblance stop short of inclusion or
identity. In [iv], for example, it is likely that ‘this’ is precisely the dress that will be worn:
in this context the difference between this dress and a dress like this is that the latter is
concerned with the kind of dress involved. In all of [i–iv] the like phrase is integrated into
the structure of the NP as a modifier. In [v], by contrast, it is a supplement. Finally, [vi]
is attested but of doubtful acceptability. The comparison is not between a Dutch kid I
used to know and an accent, but between the Dutch kid and the referent of she – compare
She had an accent like that of a Dutch kid I used to know. As it stands, [vi] is stylistically
comparable to the examples in [53].
5.6.2 Like + finite clause

Like may take either a comparative clause or a content clause as complement:
[58] with comparative clause
i He wanted to see if she was really like [she always seemed to be in his dreams].
ii You talk like [my mother talks ].
iii You didn’t look both ways before crossing the road like [you promised ].
iv She was pushing a pram, a high-riding one with large wheels like [you see in
English movies].
[59] with content clause
i It looked like [the scheme would founder before it was properly started].
ii You look like [you need a drink].
iii She clasped it in her hand like [it was a precious stone].
iv It was like [I had lost something valuable in a vault full of my own money].
In [58] like is in competition with as (or such as in the case of [iv]), and the bracketed
clause is structurally incomplete in the way discussed above for the complement of as
in §5.5. The missing element is predicative complement in [i], manner adjunct in [ii],
complement in [iii], object in [iv] – compare You see high-riding prams with large wheels
in English movies, and so on. In [59] like is in competition with as if /though, and its
complement is structurally complete.
There is a quite strong tradition of prescriptive opposition to these constructions: it
is alleged that like requires an NP complement and cannot take a finite clause (or, to
put it in terms of the traditional analysis, that like is a ‘preposition’, not a ‘conjunction’).
Undoubtedly some speakers follow this rule, avoiding like in such examples as [58–59] in
favour of the competing forms. Such speakers are, however, very much in the minority:
both constructions are commonly used, though somewhat more widely in AmE than in
BrE. In BrE they are mainly restricted to informal style; in AmE they are also associated
with informal style, but less exclusively, as evident from such examples as:
[60] There is nothing to suggest that the brain can alter past impressions to fit into an
original, realistic and unbroken continuity like [we experience in dreams].
5.6.3 Other constructions

(a) With PP complement
[61] The shops stay open all night, just like [in the States].
Here again, like is in competition with as, which would generally be preferred in for-
mal style (and required by the more authoritarian prescriptivists). The construction is
comparable to that where than or as is followed by a PP (They aren’t as good as in the
States): it may be that the complement of like should be analysed as a reduced clause
(see §2.2). We should also include here examples like They’re going to Bournemouth like
last year; although last year is an NP, it is one of those that can function as adjunct, so
that the example is comparable in acceptability to They are going to Bournemouth like
they did last year.
§ 5.6.3 Other constructions 1159
(b) NP + PP
Like is often followed by the sequence (det) + nominal + PP, and it may be unclear
whether the PP is a post-head modifier of the nominal (with the whole sequence therefore
forming a single NP), or a separate element (with the sequence forming a verbless clause).
Compare the bracketed word sequences in these examples:
[62] i He looks like [a guy in my tutorial]. [single NP]
ii She took to it like [a duck to water]. [NP + PP]
iii At every problem he goes running to the sergeant like [a child to its mother].
iv Hate rose in him like [mercury in a thermometer].
v There were countless boats bobbing up and down like [corks in a bathtub].
The two possible structures are illustrated in the first two examples respectively. In [i],
in my tutorial is a modifier of guy, but to water in [ii] cannot be a dependent of duck, as
evident from the ungrammaticality of ∗She saw a duck to water, and suchlike. Like a duck
to water is a familiar expression, but the same structure must apply in [iii]: child does not
belong to the restricted set of nouns that can take a to phrase as dependent. Examples [ii]
and [iii] are quite grammatical, and not subject to prescriptive condemnation; it would
be unusual, of perhaps questionable acceptability, to replace like by as here. Examples
[iv–v], and numerous similar ones, can be construed either like [i] or like [ii–iii]. There
is nothing to stop the in phrase being modifier to mercury and corks, but nor is there
anything to block the other structure, with the interpretations “as mercury rises in
a thermometer”, “as corks bob up and down in a bathtub”. Note that the in phrase
is relevant to the comparison, whereas in [i] it simply gives information limiting the
denotation of the nominal. In [v] we could drop the PP because the boats were in the
sea and corks would bob up and down in the sea as well as in a bathtub. But it would be
pragmatically odd to drop the PP in [iv], for it is not a general characteristic of mercury
to rise.
(c) Gerund-participials
The distribution of gerund-participials is very similar to that of NPs, so that in most of
the constructions discussed in §5.6.1 above the NP complement of like could be replaced
by a gerund-participial. Instead of Max is just like his father, for example, we can have
Talking to Max is just like taking an oral examination. In addition, we should note the
following uses of the gerund-participial:
[63] i He shook the barman once more, like a bull-terrier shaking a rat.
ii The project looks like continuing another few years.
Example [i] raises the same issues as were discussed in (b) above: it is unclear whether
the complement of like is an NP (with shaking a rat a modifier to bull-terrier) or a non-
finite clause (with a bull-terrier as subject and shaking a rat as predicate). Example [ii]
illustrates a special use of look + like, with the gerund-participial an oblique catenative
complement; the meaning is the same as for look as if (cf. The project looks as if it will last
another few years).
(d) Reanalysis
[64] i We have [nothing like finished].
ii His results aren’t [anything like as good as they were last year].
We noted in §4.5 a number of places where sequences containing scalar than or as have
been reanalysed as modifying expressions: [64] illustrates a similar reanalysis with non-
scalar like. Example [i] cannot be analysed in the same way as, for example, We have
nothing like this specimen, where nothing is head of the object NP and like this specimen
is modifier. Rather, the bracketed sequence is complement of perfect have, so its head
must be finished, with nothing like a modifier; the example may be compared with We
haven’t [even nearly finished ]. Similarly, in [ii] anything like is a modifier of as, and in
We found something like thirty major errors the sequence something like is a modifier of
thirty.
(e) Like as a noun and attributive adjective

[65] i I’d never seen the like of it.
ii We want to protect our privacy from ID cards and the like.
iii She had no mind to condemn the Queen’s weakness knowing herself guilty of the
like.
iv A quarter of a million pounds was provided for preserving historic properties and a
like amount for purchasing.
In [i–iii], like is the head noun in the underlined NP, while in [iv] it is an attributive
adjective modifying amount. The secondary term in the comparison is expressed by the
complement of of in [i] and is recovered anaphorically in the other examples: the NPs
are understood as “things like that”, “a weakness like (or identical to) the Queen’s”, “a
similar amount to that for purchasing”. Pattern [i] allows a plural in informal style: the
likes of us, “people like us”.
(f) Set comparison: like and alike

[66] i We are of like mind on this question.
ii They seem to be growing more and more alike.
iii She insisted on treating us all alike.
iv Revenues have been a great disappointment to planners and investors alike.
v The prospect of mediocrity and the dread of oblivion were alike past bearing.
Like can be used for set comparison as an attributive adjective, as in [i], but elsewhere set
comparison requires alike. It is a predicative adjective in [ii], a manner adverb in [iii],
while [iv–v] illustrate its most frequent use, as an adverb associated with coordination. In
[iv] it is adjunct in an expanded coordination (Ch. 15, §4.1), and in [v] distributive adjunct
in clause structure: the coordination identifies the set being compared. Coordination
inherently implies likeness between the coordinates, and alike simply makes this explicit.
5.6.4 Unlike
The negative form occurs in a subset of the constructions available with like :
[67] i Like poles repel, unlike poles attract.
ii Jill is quite unlike her mother.
iii It’s unlike Max to be late.
iv She came up with a proposal quite unlike any we had considered so far.
v Ice-bergs, unlike sea ice, are not greatly affected by winds.
§ 6 Scalar set comparison 1161
vi Unlike other fruits, one cannot eat the skin of an avocado.

vii Unlike in Europe, very few popular books about the natural world were printed in
in Australia.
In [i–iv] it is an adjective (attributive, predicative, or postpositive), in [v–vii] a prepo-
sition. Example [iii] matches [47ii] above, with unlike interpreted as “uncharacteristic
of”. The modifier use in [67v–vii] matches the ‘likeness of predication’ use of like, with
[v] illustrating the most usual pattern. Example [vi] departs from this pattern in that the
primary term in the comparison is not expressed by the subject but by the complement
of a preposition (an avocado) within the object NP – compare [53] for like.
Unlike does not take a finite clause as complement, but it is sometimes found with a
PP, as in [67vii]. The acceptability status of this matches that of the corresponding like
construction seen in [61]; note, however, that while as would be preferred in formal style
to like, as has no negative counterpart that could be substituted for unlike.
6 Scalar set comparison
6.1 Plain, comparative, and superlative grade

We approach the description of superlatives by returning to the contrast between plain,
comparative, and superlative forms, as illustrated in:
[1] i Sam is good. [plain]
ii Pat is better than Sam. [comparative]
iii Kim is the best of the three. [superlative]
A trio of examples like this can be joined together to form a coherent sentence (Sam is
good, but Pat is better and Kim is the best of the three) and this might suggest that the three
categories express progressively higher degrees of the property denoted by the lexical
base. But it would be a mistake to interpret them in that way. In the first place, recall that
Pat is better than Sam does not entail that Pat is good – Pat could be bad, but simply not
as bad as Sam. Older women, moreover, is generally construed as denoting a subset of
women whose average age is less than that of those denoted by the phrase old women: see
below. Secondly, Kim is the best of the three is equivalent to Kim is better than the other
two : there is no difference in degree.
The system of grade, therefore, is not a matter of different degrees ordered on a scale.
The plain form differs from the others in that it does not express comparison. The main
difference between the comparative and the superlative is that for the most part they
express different kinds of comparison: the comparative is used predominantly for term
comparison while the superlative is used exclusively for set comparison.
Thus [1i] does not explicitly compare Sam with anybody else. This is not to say,
however, that there is no implicit comparison. Suppose Sam, Pat, and Kim are students
and are being evaluated as to how good they are as students. Not all students are good
students, so that saying Sam is good, or a good student, involves some comparison with
the standards of students in general. Such relativity is particularly evident in examples
like Jumbo is a small elephant. This does not say that Jumbo is small in any absolute
sense: we interpret it as saying that Jumbo is small relative to the standards applicable
to elephants. Note, moreover, that it is possible to express comparison in accompanying

phrases: Sam is a good student compared with the others in the class. The point remains,
however, that the plain grade does not itself express comparison.39
Example [1ii] is an instance of what we are calling term comparison; the terms in the
comparison are either Pat and Sam (if we take the complement of than to be simply an
NP) or the degree x to which Pat is good and the degree y to which Sam is good (if we
take the complement of than to be a reduced clause). Example [iii] is a set comparison:
the comparison is between the members of the set of three, with Kim ranked at the top
of the scale of ‘goodness’ for that set.
Non-scalar set comparison has been dealt with in §5, and scalar set comparison of
equality (as in Kim and Pat are equally guilty) needs no further discussion: our concern
in this final section of the chapter is therefore with scalar set comparison of inequality.
This is primarily marked by superlative grade, but we will look first at constructions
containing comparative grade.
6.2 Comparative grade in set comparison

The central case: the better of the two
Comparative forms are found in set comparison when the set contains just two members:
[2] comparative superlative
i a. Pat is the more reliable of the two. b. Pat is the most reliable of the three.
ii a. Which of the two is the better value? b. Which of the three is the best value?
Comparative more and better cannot substitute for superlative most and best in [b]: a
superlative is required if the set contains three or more. In [a], however, the superlative
is found as an alternant to the comparative, though it is generally restricted to informal
style. The superlative is used more readily in those cases where the dual nature of the
set is less immediately or explicitly indicated than it is in [ia/iia] themselves – as in the
following example from a linguistics textbook :
[3] For lexical units with identical grammatical properties, two alternative criteria for
for membership of the same lexeme will be proposed. The first is the most important.
Comparatives of the type older women
[4] i The programme is designed for older women.
ii Taller students are asked to use the top shelves.
iii This was not one of his better suggestions.
The comparatives here are better regarded as set comparisons than as term comparisons:
it is not possible to add a than phrase (without a fundamental change of meaning), and
such comparatives readily take definite determiners, as in This programme is designed for
the younger listener, or The obvious solution is for the taller students to use the top shelves –
or the genitive of [iii]. Older women implies a comparison within the set of women: it
39
The traditional term for plain grade is ‘positive grade’, but we have preferred to restrict ‘positive’ to the sense
where it contrasts with ‘negative’. Another term found in the literature is ‘absolute’, but we regard this as
semantically inappropriate for reasons given in the text; ‘absolute comparative’, moreover, is a traditional term
for a comparative in which the secondary term is left unexpressed, as in This is cheaper.
§ 6.2 Comparative grade in set comparison 1163
denotes a subset who are above the mean age. In general, older covers a larger range
of the scale of age than the plain form old : women of fifty, for example, might well be
regarded as older women, but not as old.
The lexical comparatives upper, inner, and outer

These forms transparently contain the comparative suffix ·er, but it is here better regarded
as a derivational suffix than as an inflectional one. Upper, inner, and outer are adjectives
restricted to attributive position, whereas up, in, and out are prepositions, not adjectives.
These comparatives do not license a than phrase (cf. ∗I’d rather live in an outer suburb
than this), and do not express term comparison.
However, in some uses at least, they express a type of set comparison over two-member
sets. In such comparisons, upper is contrasted with lower (an inflectional comparative
form)40 and inner with outer :
[5] i a. her upper lip b. her lower lip
ii a. the outer suburbs b. the inner suburbs
Note also that ·er here does not contrast with ·est. Rather, ·most can be added after
the ·er to form what might similarly be regarded as derivational superlatives, uppermost,
innermost, outermost. (There are also forms in ·most without counterparts in ·er : topmost,
rightmost, northernmost, etc.)
Former and latter

Here too we take the ·er to be a derivational rather than an inflectional suffix. Both forms
enter into a further lexical word-formation process, namely suffixation of ·ly (formerly,
latterly). Again they do not license a than phrase. They have both non-anaphoric and
anaphoric uses, illustrated in [6i–ii] respectively :
[6] i a. She has had to take out an injunction against her former husband.
b. The poem was written in the latter part of the twelfth century.
ii a. The wine may be chilled in a bucket of ice and water or the freezing compartment
of a refrigerator, the former being far preferable.
b. If asked to choose between a terrible probability and a more terrible possibility,
most people will choose the latter.
The non-anaphoric use of former belongs in fact in the term comparison category : it
involves reference to a time earlier than now (or than the time under consideration).
The other cases, however, are set comparisons. Non-anaphoric latter picks out one of a
set of two members (here subdivisions of the twelfth century); it is broadly equivalent to
the inflectional comparative later. In the anaphoric use (described more fully in Ch. 17,
§9.4), members of the set being compared are specified in the preceding text, with former
picking out the first and latter the last, thus a bucket of ice and water in [iia] and a more
terrible possibility in [iib]. In this use former and latter are commonly paired:
[7] It is not easy to make an economic comparison between clay pots and the various
substitutes; the former may last indefinitely with luck, while the latter are often
expendable and used only once.
Former is normally restricted to two-member sets, but it is not uncommon for latter
40
There is also the archaic nether, found in the expressions nether regions /garments, and various place names.
to be used for the last-named of a larger set – a manifestation of the weak degree of
grammaticalisation of the dual category in English. An alternative to latter in such cases
is last, and the ordinal numerals can also be used in a similar way.
6.3 Superlatives
6.3.1 Inflectional and analytic superlatives
The formation of superlatives is very similar to that of comparatives. They can be marked
inflectionally, with the suffix ·est corresponding to comparative ·er, or analytically, with
the adverbs most and least corresponding to comparative more and less. Again we add
subscript ‘a’ to indicate the analytic marker use:
[8] comparative superlative
i superiority easier more a difficult easiest most a difficult
ii inferiority less a easy less a difficult least a easy least a difficult
Superlatives of superiority and inferiority are illustrated in:
[9] i This is the most a difficult problem of them all. [superlative of superiority]
ii This is the least a difficult problem of them all. [superlative of inferiority]
We have here a comparison on a scale of difficulty between the members of a set of
problems: [i] picks out the problem at the top of the scale, [ii] the one at the bottom.
Like comparative more and less, superlative most and least can also be inflectional
forms of the degree determinatives, and as before we add subscript ‘i’ to represent this
inflectional use. The various forms are given in [10], with the superlatives illustrated in
[11]:
[1 0] positive orientation negative orientation

non-count sg count pl non-count sg count pl
plain much many little few
comparative morei lessi fewer/lessi
superlative mosti leasti fewest/leasti

[11] i Kim shows (the) most i promise. [non-count
positive orientation]
ii Kim has (the) most i friends. [count

iii Kim has (the) least i patience. [non-count
negative orientation]
iv Kim made (the) fewest/least i errors. [count
The variation between least i and fewest is broadly similar to that between less i and fewer,
but superlative fewest and least i are very much less frequent than fewer and less i , and do
not enter into the wide range of construction types that we noted for the latter pair.
There is a traditional prescriptive rule requiring fewest with count plurals. This is
more often followed when the determinative is in construction with a plural noun than
when it is functioning as fused determiner-head, as in No one made many errors, but Kim
made the fewest/leasti .
§ 6.3.2 Non-superlative uses of most 1165
Most i and least i also function as adjunct of degree in clause structure, but unlike
comparative more i and less i they are not used in the grading of count singular nominals:
[12] i Kim enjoyed it the most i /least i .
ii ∗Of all my teachers Kim was the most i /least i of a scholar.
Adjectival least
Least i is not only a determinative but also an adjective:
[13] i Its attractiveness as an investment is least during periods of high inflation.
ii [Even the least alteration to the plan] could prove fatal.
iii That’s [the least of my worries].
iv She didn’t seem [the least bit] interested in what they were saying.
Least here is the opposite of greatest, and means “smallest/slightest”. Example [i] illus-
trates the predicative use, where it is the superlative counterpart of adjectival less. In [ii–iv]
least is used attributively: it functions as modifier in NP structure (fused with the head
in [iii]). To a limited extent it here corresponds to adjectival lesser – [iii] is comparable
with That’s the lesser of my worries, and to the least degree with to a lesser degree.
6.3.2 Non-superlative uses of most

Most has a number of uses besides those where it is a superlative form or marker.
Intensifier most
[14] i Kim is a [most enthusiastic] supporter. [intensifying]
ii This one is [most useful ]. [superlative or intensifying]
iii This one is [cheapest]. [superlative only]
iv You are [most kind ]. [intensifying as salient reading]
The most of [i], which belongs to relatively formal style, is an intensifier, a degree adverb
meaning approximately “highly, very, extremely”. It does not express comparison any
more than other intensifiers such as very.
There is a clear semantic difference between most enthusiastic here and in the su-
perlative Kim is the most enthusiastic supporter I’ve come across, where we do have a
comparison within the set of supporters I’ve come across. In this case, the two uses of
most are distinguished by the article, with a requiring the intensifying interpretation, the
the superlative one. Example [14ii] is ambiguous between a superlative reading equiva-
lent to “This one is more useful than all the others”, and an intensifying one, “This one
is extremely useful”; adding the before most forces the superlative reading.
In general, forms marked with the inflectional suffix ·est are not used in the intensi-
fying sense: we cannot, for example, replace most enthusiastic in [14i] with such a form:
∗
Kim is a keenest supporter. Cheapest in [iii] is thus unambiguously superlative, and allows
the insertion of the without change of meaning.
Example [14iv] has in principle the same ambiguity as [ii], but since kind allows
inflectional marking of grade, we would expect You are kindest as the superlative. As a
result, [iv] itself would generally be construed as intensifying.41
41
One exceptional case where an inflected form expresses intensification rather than set comparison is with
terms of endearment, as in my dearest Anna (“my very dear Anna”). Precisely because it is so exceptional, we
retain the term superlative for the inflectional form and treat my dearest Anna as an intensifying use of the
superlative form rather than saying, as we do of a most enthusiastic supporter, that it doesn’t belong to the
There is no corresponding use of least. This one is least useful, for example, is unam-
biguous, meaning “This is the least useful one among them”, not “This one is not very
useful”.
Proportional quantifier

[15] i Most people think he’s guilty.
[proportional quantifier]
ii I agree with most of your points.
iii Kim had interviewed most candidates. [superlative or proportional]

iv Kim had interviewed the most candidates.
[superlative only]
v Kim had interviewed (the) least candidates.
Most in [i–ii] means “more than half, the majority”: it expresses a kind of proportional
quantification (Ch. 5, §7.11). Many and much, by contrast, are non-proportional: I agree
with many of your points, for example, doesn’t indicate whether or not the number of
your points that I agree with exceeds the number that I don’t agree with, and analogously
for I agree with much of what you say.
The difference between this proportional sense and the superlative one can be brought
out by considering ambiguous examples like [15iii]. In the superlative reading Kim had
interviewed more candidates than anybody else: we have a comparison between the set
of interviewers with respect to how many candidates each had interviewed, with Kim
placed at the top of the scale. In this reading there is no indication as to what proportion
of the candidates Kim had interviewed. In the proportional reading of [iii], Kim had
interviewed more than half the candidates; this time there is no comparison between
Kim and anybody else, no indication that anybody else was interviewing candidates.
The two readings are grammatically distinguished in that only the superlative one
allows the insertion of the : [iv] is unambiguously superlative. Similarly most can be
replaced by least or fewest only in the superlative reading, so that [v] is likewise unam-
biguously superlative: least expresses set comparison, not proportion.
Reduction of almost
Most can also be a reduced form of almost, as in % I think most everybody would agree. This
use of most is found primarily in AmE and is characteristic of relatively informal style. It
functions as modifier to all, any, and every, and compounds containing them, such as anything,
everybody – and always.
6.3.3 Absolute and relative superlatives

NPs containing superlatives may have either absolute or relative interpretations:
[16] i Kim lives in the smallest house in England. [absolute]
ii Of all members of the team, Kim had the most difficult job. [relative]
In [i] the comparison is between the set of houses in England: the underlined NP refers
to the member of this set which is at the top of the scale of smallness. The comparison
here doesn’t involve anything outside the NP containing the superlative form. In [ii],
by contrast, the comparison crucially involves Kim: it is a matter of how difficult a job
Kim had in comparison with how difficult a job other members of the team had. The
superlative category at all. One additional special use of intensifying most is in titles for people holding certain
high offices in the judiciary or the church: Most Honourable, Most Reverend.
§ 6.3.4 The structure of superlative phrases 1167
job here, then, is not the most difficult in an absolute sense, but only relative to the jobs
assigned to members of the team. The difference can be brought out by comparing these
set comparisons with equivalent term comparisons:
[17] i Kim lives in a smaller house than any other house in England.
ii Kim had a more difficult job than any other member of the team.
In [ii] any other member of the team means “any other member than Kim”: Kim is involved
in the comparison in [ii] but not in [i].
Most in [16ii] is the analytic marker; the determinative most i , by contrast, is virtually
always relative:
[18] Kim scored the most points. [relative]
An absolute use of this most might be Kim scored the most possible points, but this is quite
marginal: we would generally express the intended meaning as Kim scored the highest
possible number of points or the like.
Absolute superlatives are often concerned with possible maximum or minimum
degrees:
[19] i We want to ensure that the fullest discussion takes place.
ii I have the strangest feeling of having lived through this very same event before.
iii The ground was so soft that the lightest step made a deep imprint.
iv She hasn’t the slightest/least recollection of what happened.
In such contexts the slightest/smallest/least and the like are equivalent to any at all: She
hasn’t any recollection at all of what happened. Special cases of this use are seen in the
phrases at least, at most, in the least. Note finally the contrast in meaning and structure
in such a pair as the following:
[20] i Kim was not the least concerned about what people might think. [absolute]
ii Kim was the least concerned about these developments. [relative]
In [i] the least is a constituent modifying concerned: the is obligatory and the modifying
phrase could be replaced by the least bit, in the least, at all. In [ii] the is optional and does
not form a constituent with least, and the superlative implies a comparison between Kim
and some set of which Kim is a member.
6.3.4 The structure of superlative phrases

In describing the structure of superlative phrases we need to distinguish between two
cases, which we call incorporated and free superlatives. They are illustrated in [21i–ii]
respectively, where the underlined sequence is the superlative phrase:
[21] i a. They rejected [the two best novels she has written].
b. Kim has [the most valuable collection of all].
c. This is [her most perfectly constructed novel].
[incorporated]
d. Pat made [the most mistakes].
e. He offered me [the least valuable of the paintings].
f. [The most we can hope for] is a 2% rise.
ii a. She’s [the candidate most likely to be elected].
b. These were the ones that the grown-ups laughed at loudest.
[free]
c. He’s the least able to look after himself.
d. It was Jill who presented her case the most effectively.
The superlative phrases in [i] are incorporated into the structure of an NP, marked by
the bracketing – more precisely they occur before the head ([a–d]) or fuse with it ([e–f]).
Those in [ii] are either not contained within an NP at all ([b–d]) or are in post-head
position ([a]).
In [21ia–c] the superlative phrase constitutes all or part of a modifier of the head of
the NP. The the in [ia–b] does not form part of the superlative phrase but is determiner
in NP structure: it can be separated from the superlative by another modifier, as in
[ia], and can be replaced by other definite determiners, such as the genitive in [ic] or a
demonstrative (this most recent edition).
The most of [21id], however, is the inflectional superlative of many, and here the most
forms a DP functioning as determiner in the NP; this the is optional and cannot be
replaced by a genitive or demonstrative.
The same distinction applies in [21ie–f], where the superlative phrase is fused with
the head of the NP. In [ie] the is determiner and least valuable fused modifier-head. Note
again the possibility of inserting a modifier such as two between them. In [if] the most is
fused determiner-head; the is obligatory this time, but again not replaceable by a genitive
or demonstrative.
The free superlatives in [21ii] are more straightforward. The initial the in [iic–d] is
not determiner in a matrix NP, but part of the superlative phrase; it cannot be separated
from the superlative phrase and is not in contrast with definite determiners like genitives.
We will see below that there are also differences between the free and incorporated
constructions with respect to post-head elements.
Presence or absence of the

In free superlative phrases the is usually permitted but optional. It can, for example, be
dropped from [21iic–d], and it can be inserted in [iia–b], though it is much more usual
for it to be omitted in the construction shown in [iia], where the superlative phrase is an
AdjP used postpositively, i.e. as post-head modifier in NP structure. One construction
where it is not possible to have the is in supplements like those in [22].
[22] i Most important of all, the weather at the time was dry: there was no rain to bring
down the radioactive materials.
ii Most surprisingly of all, they continued to believe in his innocence.
Incorporated superlatives generally confer definiteness on the NP containing them
and are therefore incompatible with indefinite determiners: ∗a brightest girl in the class.42
The (or some other determiner) is always permitted in definite NPs, normally quite
strongly preferred, and often obligatory. Consider the following, where the bracketing
marks NPs:
[23] i The prize was won by [the youngest competitor].
ii These are [the two tallest buildings in the city].
iii The programme gives [(the) best results]if you begin before the age of thirty.
iv The rebates should be given to those in [(the) greatest need].
v It was Kim who attracted [(the) most attention].
42
Occasional exceptions are found where the NP is indefinite: Several of the competitors achieved personal best
times. Such examples tend to involve highly lexicalised collocations.
§ 6.3.4 The structure of superlative phrases 1169
The is obligatory in [i–ii], optional in the others. In [i] competitor is a count singular noun
and hence requires a determiner by the general rules of NP structure: the only effect of
the superlative youngest is to add the requirement that the determiner be definite. In [ii]
the impossibility of dropping the is not attributable to the head noun, but to the fact that
omission of the would make two the determiner: this would mark the NP as indefinite,
which is incompatible with the inherent definiteness conferred by the superlative.
No such factors apply in [23iii–v], and here the can be omitted. Note, however, that
its omission does not result in a change of meaning – in particular, there is no change
from definite to indefinite. In [v] the is part of the DP, as in [21id] above.
Relative clauses
One distinctive property of superlatives is that they can take integrated relative clauses
as dependents even when not incorporated into NP structure:
[24] i The price of gold is the lowest it has been for ten years.
ii The system seems to be working the most efficiently that it has ever worked.
Lowest in [i] is an adjective, efficiently in [ii] an adverb, and there is no plausible reason
to propose that the underlined phrases they head are NPs. Note, for example, that wh
relatives are not permitted (∗the lowest which it has been for years) and that the equivalent
term comparisons are simply lower than it has been for ten years, more efficiently than it
has ever worked before. The is obligatory in this construction.
Other post-head dependents

Besides relative clauses, superlatives take such dependents as ever, imaginable, possible,
practicable, and of phrases indicating the set whose members are compared:
[25] i a. We’ll aim for the best possible result. b. We’ll aim for the best result possible.
ii a. Kim’s essay was the best of all. b. Kim wrote the best essay of them all.
With incorporated superlatives, the single word dependents are optionally delayed so as
to become indirect dependents in the structure of the NP, as illustrated in [ib/iib]. Such
delay is obligatory for of phrases (compare [iib] with ∗the best of them all essay). Note also
that them in [iib] can refer either to the set of essays, in which case we have an absolute
superlative, or to the set of essay writers, in which case we have a relative superlative.
Pre-head dependents
These fall into two groups, as follows:
[26] i very ; next and ordinal numerals other than first
ii absolutely, almost, altogether, barely, by far, easily, entirely, fully, hardly,
more or less, much, nearly, practically, quite, scarcely, virtually, . . .
Those in [i] follow the, while those in [ii] precede it:
[27] i It was the very best performance I can recall.
ii Kim’s the second youngest in the class.
iii This one works easily the most efficiently.
iv I made by far the most errors.
Very here means “absolutely”; it occurs with inflectional but not analytic superlatives.
The ordinal numerals indicate position in a rank ordering, counting from the top (or
from the bottom in the case of comparisons of inferiority, as in the third least expensive
model). In [27ii], for example, there is just one person younger than Kim. The fact that
the items in [26ii] precede the means that with incorporated superlatives such as that in
[27iv] they function as peripheral modifier in the structure of the NP rather than in the
structure of the superlative phrase itself (see Ch. 5, §13).

Comparative constructions analyzed

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Comparative constructions analyzed

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

13

6.3 Superlatives 1164

1.1 Two cross-cutting distinctions: scalar vs non-scalar,

[3] i Jill is as clever as Liz. [Jill may be cleverer]

Sanctioning of non-affirmative items

1.2 Term and set comparison

Omission of secondary term in term comparison

Equivalence between set and term comparisons

[9] term comparison

1.3 Comparative complements, comparative governors,

Comparative complement – bare and expanded

and expanded comparative complement including it. As applied to the examples in

Position of the comparative complement

Comparativeclauses form a subcategory of subordinate clauses, contrasting with relative

2.1 Reduction of comparative clauses

(a) Obligatory absence of counterpart to the comparative governor

(b) Counterpart of comparative phrase normally omitted unless distinct

(c) Stranding and do

(d) Omission of embedded clauses

(e) Verbless clauses: reduction to two (or more) elements

(f) Verbless clauses: reduction to a single element

[21] subject non-subject

(g) Restrictions on omission of subject

2.2 Than/as + single element (Bob is as generous as Liz )

Head: Comp: Head: Comp:

Evidence for a reduced clause analysis

preposition. Compare, for example:

(c) Potential for expansion

[30] i Sue phoned Angela before Liz.

Evidence for an immediate complement analysis

Fused relative as complement: than what . . .

2.3 Likeness and contrast between comparative clause and matrix

Contrasts involving embedding

2.4 The comparative phrase

Predicative vs attributive AdjP

Unexpected cases of upwards percolation

3 Metalinguistic comparison (more apparent than real )

4 Scalar term comparison

4.1 The major governors in comparisons of inequality

4.1.1 More and less: analytic markers vs inflectional forms

[1] plain comparative superlative

More as an inflectional form

little. As such, it contrasts with the plain form:

Difference in relations of morea to lessa and of morei to lessi

Relative infrequency of comparisons of inferiority

The double comparative lesser

4.1.2 Comparative forms of the degree determinatives

Grading of count singular nouns

Degree adjunct in clause structure

4.2 Less central governors in scalar inequality (rather, prefer, superior)

4.3 Scalar comparisons of equality: as, so, such

4.4.2 Modification by the

4.5 Comparative idioms and reanalysis

(a) More than, less than, etc., as modifiers

(b) No/any more than + comparative clause

(c) Idioms containing soon

(d) Idioms containing long and far

(e) Well, better, best

4.6 The correlative comparative construction

approximately paraphrased by a construction in which the subordinate clause functions

Classification of subordinate clause

Potential ambiguity between set comparison and term comparison

Set comparison and reciprocals