Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Yuanyuan Sun
Introduction
According to Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman (2016), one of the basic and crucial
human cognitive capacities is to be able to comprehend and express differences and similarities.
One of the most significant constructions in English to help people do that is the comparative.
Specialized morphology and syntax in different languages offer foundation for the comparative
constructions (Kennedy, 2004). English uses adjectives, adverbs, the inflectional morphemes
such as er as well as quantifiers such as more and less to express comparison (Celce-Murcia
& Larsen-Freeman, 2016). In addition, English allows for the possibility of using a range of
phrase types after than/as to help express more complicated comparisons (Kennedy, 2004).
According to Bresnan (1973), the comparative clause construction in English can be a huge
challenge for English learners because of its syntactic complexity. There are various
grammatical processes in the English comparative clause construction, for instance, recursions,
deletions, permutations, and suppletions. All these could cause ambiguity and puzzles for the
learners. This paper will take a closer look at the topic of comparative deletion and subdeletion.
The definition and form of both comparative deletion and subdeletion will be briefly presented
first. As a fairly new classification of English comparative constructions, there are still many
arguable approaches to analyze this construction (Chae, 1992). The paper will introduce
two main types of approaches about comparative deletion and subdeletion rules. Based on this
discussion, then this paper will focus on discussing different arguments and perspectives
towards the issues within the topic, which is if comparative deletion and subdeletion should be
To start with the definitions of comparative deletion and subdeletion in terms of both
form and meaning, Bresnan (1973, 1975, cited in Kennedy & Merchant, 2000) introduced the
or nominal constituent is eliminated from the surface representation of the complement of than
or as (henceforth the comparative clause) in sentences. Kennedy and Merchant (2000) offered
(1) Zizou didnt score as many goals as we thought he would score ____.
subdeletion constructions (CSD). Kennedy and Merchant (2000) offer an example as follow:
(2) By actually refuting his own early self, Wittgenstein was as unusual as Frege was
as the constructions which compare two quantities of the same sort of stuff such as (3):
(3) The galaxy contains more stars than the eye can see ___. (number of stars)
Kennedy (2002) defined CSD as compare quantities of different sorts of stuff such
as (4):
(4) Michael Jordan has more scoring titles than Dennis Rodman has ____ tattoos.
From the definitions of CD and CSD, it can be easily seen that both types of
comparative constructions are featured with the missing compared element in the comparative
COMPARATIVE DELETION AND SUBDELETION 4
clause. Concerning with the missing compared element, a question could be raised about what
kind of syntactic process is engaged in removing the compared item in the comparative clause
(Corver, 2005). Two deletion rules will be discussed in the next section of the paper in detail.
Corver (2005) introduced two deletion rules in his paper, unbounded Deletion
(Bresnan's approach) and wh-movement (Chomsky's approach). At the same time, he offered
With regards to the unbounded deletion rule, it is a very unified and generalized deletion
rule Bresnan proposed for both comparative deletion and comparative subdeletion. In addition
to the basic rule that the compared constituent in the comparative clause should be deleted,
Bresnan also stressed how much should be removed form the compared constituent. Generally
speaking, Bresnan argues that only as much is deleted from the compared constituent by the
rule of Comparative Deletion as is maximally recoverable from the head of the comparative
clause (Corver, 2005). In other words, in somewhat more explicit terms, only the maximal
undergoes Comparative Deletion (Corver, 2005). Bresnan offered two examples with respect
to this rule:
(5) a. There isnt as large a number of women as there was ___ of man. NP- deletion.
b. They make better police dogs than they make ___ pets. AP-deletion.
However, many people have raised doubts towards if a single rule can truly achieve
the goal of removing a part of the compared elements or the entire compared element
COMPARATIVE DELETION AND SUBDELETION 5
effectively and successfully in both CD and CSD. Corver (2005) offered two exceptional
examples regarding to the unbounded deletion rule from Pinkham (1982)s paper:
(6) a. *John has a longer desk than Sue has [a [ wide] table].
In (6)a, the quantifier of an attributive adjective phrase got removed; In (6)b, the
attributive AP got deleted, both under identity with those of the matrix compared phrases.
However, none of the deletion rule applied successfully to these two sentences. Since these
sentences are in CSD structures, it may indicate the ineffectiveness of the unbounded deletion
Another deletion rule was Chomsky's approach called the rule of wh-movement.
program through 1973 to 1977. As a result, Chomsky claims that various construction types
such as topicalization, clefts, wh-interrogatives, relatives all can be included into a general
movement schema - Move Wh-. More specifically, moving a wh-constituent to Comp such as
[Spec, CP] (Corver, 2005). A possibility is the movement of Quantity Phrase(QP) out of NP to
COMP and possible from COMP to COMP, which is similar to the wh- elements. Chomsky
also provided three wh-diagnostics, which refers to the general characteristics of wh-movement
John met more linguists than I believed that Sue had met.
*John met more linguists than I believed the claim that Sue had met.
According to what have been discussed in this paper, the researchers have been trying
to develop a perfect unified approach to deal with the process of both CD and CSD. However,
the complexity of the constructs has been made this job very challenging. The task of
conquering the challenges are also very closely related to the central question in the study of
the Comparative Deletion and Subdeletion constructions: The uniformity of CD and CSD. Do
CD and CSD have the same syntax essentially? Is there any possibility that the two
constructions being unified so that linguistics could come up with a single syntactic rule of
comparative formation? If the answer is no, what are the reasons for assigning CD and CSD
different syntactic analyses? (Corver, 2005) There are many different arguments toward these
To start with, there are many researchers holding the idea that there is uniformity
between CD and CSD. Based on the hypothesis that Comparative Deletion and Subdeletion
share a single rule of comparative formation, Bresnan proposed the unbounded rule of
hypothesis so that he developed the wh- movement rule, recasting Bresnans proposal (Corver,
2005). Recently researchers such as Kennedy expressed the same argument (Kennedy, 2002).
COMPARATIVE DELETION AND SUBDELETION 7
constructions of CD and CSD in her work (Kennedy, 2002). Above all, Kennedy showed a
clausal complement of than/as, plus deletion under identity with the head of the comparative
Generally speaking, Kennedy considered that the CD and CSD constructions the
derivational output of one and the same syntactic rule (Corver, 2005). Kennedy reviewed
Bresnans deletion rule that obligatorily eliminates a degree term from the compared
constituent. Then she claimed that the subsequent analyses and observations showed that CD
and CSD have properties similar to wh-movement construction. Based on these, Kennedy
raised a few assumptions: Both CD and CSD should have a set of shared properties; they should
react the same to constraints on movement or deletion; can be derived fundamentally in the
same way. Next, Kennedy listed three pieces of evidence to confirm all the assumptions.
The first evidence is that both CD and CSD are ill-formed when the gap is embedded
in an extraction island (Kennedy, 2002). Both CD and CSD require a gap. A few examples
(9) Wh-islands
COMPARATIVE DELETION AND SUBDELETION 8
a.*The shapes were longer than I wondered whether they would be.
Sentential subjects
a.*There are more stars in the sky than that the eye can see is certain.
b. *There are more stars in the sky than that the eye can see planets is certain.
The second evidence is based on the definitions of CD and CSD. The uniform analysis
is necessary because both comparative constructions share the similar semantic conditions:
both of them are expressing the comparison of two amounts. However, this evidence tends to
be not strong enough as the definitions of CD and CSD are not identical. As mentioned earlier
in this paper, CD is comparing amounts of the same sorts of stuff, while CSD is comparing
Except for the positive evidence supporting the uniform analysis approach, there is
The first evidence is that the left branch condition could appear when the unbounded
deletion rule is applied in the CSD (Corver, 2005). The left branch condition refers to the rule
that normally left-branch-modifying elements cannot be moved away from the constituent
they modify (Corver, 2005). For example, moving away the same type of phrase from what it
The second evidence is that similar to other types of movement and deletion
COMPARATIVE DELETION AND SUBDELETION 9
The last evidence is that the comparative constructions can be very complicated. There
is a construction called multiply-headed comparative. Thorny and tough problems may occur
when it comes to the application of the uniform analysis to this kind of comparative
construction. (12) shows two example sentences of the complicated comparative constructions:
b. Max persuaded more men to buy more cars than you persuaded women to buy
trucks.
First of all, there are multiple heads in the comparative phrases in the sentences. It
is confusing and challenging to directly apply unbounded deletion rule to these sentences.
complicated. Kennedy (2002) gave the interpretation of the sentence (12)b as follow:
(13) [the number of men that Max persuaded to buy cars > the number of women
that you persuaded to buy trucks]AND [the number of cars that Max persuaded men to buy>
It can be easily seen that in the sentence (12)b the multiply-headed CSD works very
well, but on the other hand, parallel examples of multiply-headed CD are unacceptable
(Kennedy, 2002).
Overall speaking, whether comparative deletion and subdeletion have the same
syntax and can be incorporated in the same rule remains big argument, and clearly, there is no
Pedagogical Indications
With regards to pedagogical discussion, in consideration of the fact that the construction
of comparative deletion and subdeletion are actually very complicated syntactically, its
necessary and significant for teachers to take specific characteristics of students particularly
comparative morphology, noun phrases, adjective phrases, quantities and clauses to be able to
comprehend and produce these structures. For the students new to the construction, it would
be helpful if the teacher simplified the instruction. Instead of giving students complicated
linguistic definitions of the constructions of CD and CSD, the teacher can consider using
Kennedy (2002)s definition for the instruction in the beginning. It may not be too challenging
for students to understand that CD compares two quantities of the same sort of stuff while
Moreover, though there are many debates on if there is a generated deletion rule for
both construction, for classes with lower level students, if the constructions in the class
COMPARATIVE DELETION AND SUBDELETION 11
materials conform to the generated deletion rules aforementioned in this paper, it may be
helpful for the teacher to inform students the rules. In this case, the rules could help students
acquire the basic form of the comparative constructions in the beginning. As for the advanced
class, students may encounter the exceptions of the generalized rules. The teacher can inform
students that there are constraints of the rule, and avoid students from using the generated rules
in all their production of the constructions at all the time. Overall, more research on
construction of comparative deletion and subdeletion is needed. The English teachers and
students could be benefited if one day a more accurate and easier-conducted deletion rule is
Ur (1988) proposed that grammar teaching goes through four stages, which a general
framework which a wide variety of teaching techniques can fit into: presentation, isolation and
explanation, practice and test. The first two stages focus on helping students perceive and
understand the various aspects of the target grammar structure. Its possible that for a
complicate and difficult structure like comparatives, the first two stages may take some time.
However, Ur (1988) suggested that if the structure is very close to a parallel in the native
language, it may take much less time for students to acquire the structure. Thus, before the
instruction, the teacher can do research in the comparative structure in students native
References
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2016). The grammar book: Form, meaning, and use
for English language teachers (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: National Geographic Learning, 767-
787.
Chae, H. R. (1992). English comparatives and an indexed phrase structure grammar. Annual
Kennedy, C. (2002). Comparative deletion and optimality in syntax. Natural Language &
Kennedy, C., & Merchant, J. (2000). Attributive comparative deletion. Natural Language &
Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. New York., NY: