Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T08:27:30.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative structures in English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

R. N. Campbell and
R. J. Wales
R. N. Campbell
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh
R. J. Wales
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Linguistics, epistemology and psychology share many common interests; for instance, an interest in the learning of language, in the nature of the fundamental units of which linguistic systems are composed, in the correspondence between language operations, logical operations and intellectual operations. The phenomenon of COMPARISON falls under the latter rubric, as do, for instance, NEGATION, ASSERTION and PREDICATION. In the literature of these three disciplines we find ample evidence of an interest in the latter three phenomena, but there has been surprisingly little discussion of comparison. We say, ‘surprisingly’, since of these four operations comparison might well be held to be the most important. In any kind of classification the fundamental intellectual activity is the comparing of one object, event, etc. with another or with others. Further, to adopt the terminology of psychology, our behaviour in any situation must be governed to some extent by the recognition, whether implicit or explicit, of similarities and differences between that situation and others with which we have had to deal.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , September 1969, pp. 215 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. M. (1968). Ergative and nominative in English. JL 4. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belasco, S. (1967). Deep grammar and surface grammar in French. GL 7. 3–12.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1967). Some semantic universals of German adjectivals. FL 3. 1–36.Google Scholar
Birkoff, G. & MacLane, S. (1963). A Survey of Modem Algebra, 3rd. ed.New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Cassirer, E. (1953). The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Vol. 1. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1967). Language as symbolization. Lg. 43. 57–91.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1968). Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. FL 4. 109–127.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cole, D. T. (1955). An Introduction to Tswana Grammar. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Doherty, P. & Schwartz, A. (1967). The syntax of the compared adjective in English. Lg. 43. 903–936.Google Scholar
Donaldson, M. C. & Wales, R. J. (1968). On the acquisition of some relational terms. In Hayes, M. J. R. (ed.). Proceedings of the 4th Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1965). Entailment rules in a semantic theory. Ohio State University (POLA Report No. 10. 60–82).Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1967). A proposal concerning English prepositions. MSLL 17.Google Scholar
García, E. (1967). Auxiliaries and the criterion of simplicity. Lg. 43. 853–870.Google Scholar
Hla, Pe (1965). A re-examination of Burmese classifiers. Lingua 15. 163–185.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1967). More on the English comparative. JL 3. 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jesperson, O. (1929). The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. (1921). Logic. Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1966). The Philosophy of Language. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1967). Recent issues in semantic theory. FL 3. 124–194.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. (1964). Towards an Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1965). The Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. (Report No. NSF-16.) Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Computation Laboratory.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. (1961). Grammatical analysis of the English comparative construction. Word 17. 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1963). Structural Semantics. (Publications of the Philological Society, 30.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1966 a). Towards a ‘notional’ theory of the ‘parts of speech’. JL 2. 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1966 b). Comments in Psycholinguistic Papers, pp. 129–132 (eds. Lyons, J. & Wales, R. J.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilch, H. (1965). Comparative constructions in English. Lg. 41. 37–58.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1967). On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. MSLL 17.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. (1904). A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1949). Grading: a study in semantics. In Selected Writings of Edward Sapir (ed. Mandelbaum, D. G.). Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Small, G. W. (1923). The Comparison of Inequality: the Semantics and Syntax of the Comparative Particle in English. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Small, G. W. (1929). The Germanic case of comparison. Language Monographs, 4. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1961). A class of complex modifiers in English. Lg. 41. 37–58.Google Scholar
Southworth, F. C. (1967). A model of semantic structure. Lg. 43. 342–361.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. (1966). On Voice in the English Verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Thompson, L. C. (1965). A Vietnamese Grammar. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Thorne, J., Bratley, P. & Dewar, H. (1968). The syntactic analysis of English by machine. In Michie, D. (ed.), Machine Intelligence 3. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
Wales, R. J. & Grieve, R. (forthcoming). What's so difficult about negation? Perception & Psychophysics.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1966). Explorations in semantic theory. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics. Vol. 3. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar