In:Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 29, Nijmegen
Edited by Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs and Dominique Nouveau
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13] 2018
► pp. 259–278
For an overt movement analysis of comparison at a distance in French
Published online: 13 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.13.16pas
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.13.16pas
This paper focuses on nominal comparative constructions in European French, specifically on constructions in which the comparative quantifier can appear separated from its nominal restrictor (hence the name Comparison At a Distance). One question is whether the nominal comparative construction in which the quantifier is separated from its restrictor is derivationally related to the corresponding construction in which the quantifier is adjacent to its restrictor (movement analysis) or whether those two constructions are not derivationally related (base-generation analysis). I show that there are arguments in favor of analyzing CAD as a case of overt quantifier movement (locality restrictions) and arguments against a base-generation analysis (reconstruction). Furthermore, I show that nominal comparative quantifiers that can be separated from their restrictor have the same locality restrictions as the quantifier tout ‘everything’, which has been argued to move (Kayne 1975), suggesting that tout and comparative quantifiers are amenable to the same movement rule.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.No support for base-generation analysis
- 3.Reconstruction facts
- 4.Locality restrictions
- 4.1Where can deP be?
- 4.2How distant can Q and deP be?
- 4.3Intervention
- 5.Comparison with tout ‘everything’
- 6.Conclusion
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (14)
Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Burnett, Heather S. 2009. Formal Approaches to Semantic Microvariation: Adverbial Quantifiers in European and Quebec French. Master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Doetjes, Jenny Sandra. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection. Ph. D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.
Grevisse, Maurice, and André Goosse. 2007. Le bon usage (14 ed.). Louvain-la-Neuve: Editions De Boeck Université.
Hartman, Jeremy. 2011. “Intervention in Tough Constructions”. In Proceedings of the 39th Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 39), ed. by Suzi Lima, Kevin Mullin and Brian Smith, 387–398.
Heim, Irene. 2001. “Degree Operators and Scope”. In Proceedings of SALT 10. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Homer, Vincent. 2011. Polarity and Modality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Current Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Malhotra, Shiti. 2011. Movement and Intervention Effects: Evidence from Hindi/Urdu. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.
Obenauer, Hans-Georg. 1983. “Une quantification canonique: la quantification à distance“. Langue française 58: 66–88.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.