University of British Columbia, Vancouver – Department Research SeminarJanuary 18, 2012

Context Dependency and the Semantics of the Positive in Samoan

Vera HohausEberhard Karls Universität Tübingen

“Turning now to the unmarked, Positive form, it is a bit paradoxical that the most morphosyntac-tically simple form of a gradable predicate turns out to be the hardest to adequately characterizein terms of a compositional semantic analysis.” (Kennedy 2007, p. 6)

Plot

1 Introduction and Some Background 1

1.1 Topics in Degree Semantics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 The Semantics of the Positive in English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 The Semantics of the Positive in Samoan 4

2.1 Some Background on the Samoan Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 Readings of the Positive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Spelling out the Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 Discussion and Concluding Remarks 11

3.1 Comparison Constructions in Samoan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.2 Revisiting the Null Hypothesis about Gradable Predicates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.3 The Crosslinguistic Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

1 Introduction and Some Background

1. How does meaning emerge from the interactionof syntactic structure, lexical information, composition principles, and context?

2. In how far is this interaction subject to crosslinguistic variation?

1. Discuss the semantics of the Positive in Samoan.2. Relate the findings to the semantics of degree constructions in Samoan.3. Relate the findings to the crosslinguistic picture.

(1) Acceptability judgment task: Obesity

(2) #Etap

putafat

Ioane.John

‘John is fat.’(3) Comment: “E puta Iosefo.”

1

1.1 Topics in Degree Semantics

– main assumptions (cf. e.g. Stechow (1984); Heim (1985); Beck (2011a)):

– introducing the notion of degree, thus capturing the intuition that“. . . when we make comparisons we have in mind points on a scale.”(Cresswell 1976, p. 266)

– degrees as “highly abstract entities” (Stechow 1984, p. 47) that are elements of scales,with scales consisting of a set and a total ordering relation on that set

– denotation domain of degrees, Dhdi the union of all mutually disjoint sets of degrees(e.g. age degrees, weight degrees), each set with its own ordering relation

– evidence for abstract items of this kind from the fact that certain natural language expressionsoperate on them, e.g. the comparative as a quantifier over degrees

– degrees are introduced into the composition by the gradable predicates of type hd, he, tiisuch as J tall K = �dhdi.�xhei.height(x) � d

– some major research topics in degree semantics (cf. Beck (2011a) for a recent overview):

– composition of the item of comparison: direct versus reduction analyses(cf. e.g. Hankamer (1973); Heim (1985); Bhatt and Takahashi (2007); Hofstetter (2009);Beck, Hohaus, and Tiemann (2012); Bhatt and Takahashi (to app.))

– all things scope: composition in the main clause, movement of the Degree Phrase,interaction with modals and quantifiers (cf. e.g. Heim (2001); Krasikova (2010); Beck (2011b))

– (parametric) crosslinguistic variation in degree constructions(cf. e.g. Beck, Oda, and Sugisaki (2004); Kennedy (2007); Beck et al. (2009))

1.2 The Semantics of the Positive in English

(4) a. Dirk W. Nowitzki is tall.b. The coffee in Vancouver is expensive.c. Mr. Darcy is rich.

(5) This work is quite sophisticated for an undergraduate student.(cf. Kennedy 2007, p. 13, fn. 11)

(6) The Children of Hurin is short compared to The Lord of the Rings.

The Comparative Core of the Positive.

– covert Positive operator, in complementary distribution with the other degree operators,the comparative, the superlative and the equative

– contextually restricted universal quantification over a set of degrees(cf. Stechow (2009) and Beck (2011a))

(7) JposChd,ti Kg = �Rhd,he,tii. 8d [C(d) ! max(�d0. R(d0)(x)) > d]

2

(8) hti

NPhei

Dirk

APhe,ti

DegPhhd, he, tii, he, tii

pos C

Ahd,he,tii

tall

(9) J (8) Kg = 8d [(g(C))(d) ! max(�d0.height(Dirk) > d

0]

‘For all contextually provided degrees d,the maximal degree to which Dirk is tall exceed d.’

“. . . a contextually determined function that gives the neutral segment of the scale in a particu-lar context. . . In other words, the pos-operator is a universal quantifier over degrees, which isrestricted by the contextually neutral degrees of the relevant scale.” (Stechow 2009, p. 220)

Figure 1: Partitions of the Degree Scale

– motivation: entailment patterns of the negated Positive

(10) a. Mary is not tall. 9 Mary is small.b. Mary is not small. 9 Mary is tall.

– comparison with a contextually provided standard degree (cf. e.g. Kennedy 1997)

(11) Jpos Kg = �Rhd,he,tii.�xhei. max(�d0. R(d0)(x)) > dc

(adopted from Kennedy (2007, p. 7, no. (6)))

“. . . value of the standard is not part of the lexical meaning. . .but is rather determined on the fly.” (Kennedy 2007, p. 3)

Challenges and Suggested Alternatives.

– lack of clear cut-off points and unavailability of crisp judgments (Fults 2006; Kennedy 2007)

(12) Assume the book The Children of Hurin is 100 pages longwhile the book The Lord of the Rings is 99 pages long.

(13) a. #The Children of Hurin is long (compared to The Lord of the Rings).b. The Children of Hurin is longer (compared to The Lord of the Rings).

“We can’t seem to pinpoint the degree. . . These positive forms that include explicit standard ex-pressions are vague just as much as the plain positive form. . . ” (Fults 2006, p. 190)

3

– unavailability of differential measure phrases (cf. Fults 2006; Kennedy 2007);maybe expected under the entry suggested by Stechow (2009)as it would allow for the neutral interval of the scale to be a singleton set only

(14) a. #John is six centimeters tall.

6= ‘John is six centimeters taller than the contextually provided standard.’b. *John is 16 centimeters tall compared to Mary.

6= ‘John is sixteen centimeters taller than Mary.’c. *John is eight centimeters tall for a Basketball player.

6= ‘John is eight centimeters taller than the average Basketball player.’

– suggestions in Fara (2000); Fults (2006); Kennedy (2007):additional requirement on the contextually provided standard degree:

“. . . in positive comparisons, the referent must be significantly greater than the standard, and, fornow, I will leave open how to define ‘significantly,’. . . ” (Fults 2006, p. 199)

(15) JposChe,ti Kg = �Rhd,he,tii.�xhei 9d [significantc(d) & max(�d0. R(d0)(x)) � average(C) + d](adopted from Fults (2006))

– choice of “. . . a standard of comparison in such a way as to ensure that the object has the Positiveform is true to stand out in the context of utterance, relative to the kind of measurement thatthe adjective encodes.” (Kennedy 2007, p. 17)

Whatever the exact semantics of the Positive operator in English, the above challenges do not arise inSamoan as the unmarked form of the gradable predicate behaves quite differently (and the semanticssuggested in (7) seems a perfect fit)!

2 The Semantics of the Positive in Samoan

2.1 Some Background on the Samoan Language

Samoan is a Polynesian language with about 200,000 speakers on the Pacific islands of Samoa and Amer-ican Samoa (Campbell 1995, p. 435), and with approx. 370,000 speakers worldwide (Lewis 2009).1

Figure 2: The Samoan Archipel (Dragicevich and McLachlan 2009)1 Standard reference works include Milner (1966), Marsack (1975), Mosel and Hovdhaugen (1992), and Hunkin (1992).

Unless otherwise indicated, the data presented come from my work with Samoan informants. In working with informants,I used the elicitation techniques presented in Matthewson (2004, 2011), cf. also Beck (2006).

4

Figure 3: Languages of Polynesia (Lynch 1998, p. 29)

Word Order. Basic word order VSO, derived by obligatory I-to-C movement of V, as suggested forTongan in Otsuka (2000) and for Tagalog in Aldridge (2004).

(16) Etap

alofalove

ledef.det.sg.

tamaboy

iprep.

ledef.det.sg.

teine.girl

“The boy loves the girl.”(Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992, p. 428, ex. (9.91))

(17) Satap

‘aieat

eby

ledef.det.sg.

aliichief

ledef.det.sg.

i‘a.fish

“The chief ate the fish.”(Mosel and Hovdhaugen 1992, p. 423, ex. (9.62))

Lexical Categories. Mosel and Hovdhaugen (1992, pp. 72-74) and Pawley (1966, pp. 19-26) both arguethat Samoan lacks certain category distinctions familiar from Indo-European languages. In particular, asmost Samoan equivalents of English adjectives appear to function as nouns or verbs as well, they suggestthat Samoan lacks an adjectival category. (If so, does the absence of an adjectival category have anyrepercussions on the functional expression of comparison?)

5

2.2 Readings of the Positive

Questionnaire Items from Beck (2006); cf. also Villalta (2007a):

(18) Global Context: The average height for people is 4’9” to 5’5”.a. Local Context: Mary is 5’8” tall.

Target: “Mary is tall.”b. Local Context: John is 4’8” tall.

Target: “John is small.”c. Local Context: Mary is is 5’4” tall.

Target: “Mary is not tall.”

(19) Etap

umilong

Malia.Mary

‘Mary is tall.’2

(20) Etap

puupuushort

Ioane.John

‘John is small.’(21) E

tap

lenot

umitall

Malia.Mary

‘Mary is not tall.’

(22) Translation task: City Trips

(23) Puaina, Malia, and Eseta love going on city breaks. This year, Puaina wants to travel to London,Malia to Berlin, and Eseta to Tokyo, the world’s biggest city.

(24) Prompt: “Eseta wants to visit the biggest city.”

(25) Etap

mana‘owant

EsetaEseta

etap

asiasivisit

iprep.

ledef.det.sg.

taulagaharbor

tele.big

‘Eseta wants to visit the big city.’

2 I only make use of diacritics (i. e. the macron to indicate vowel length and the inverted comma to indicate the glottal stop)if required for disambiguation. Abbreviations used in glosses include comp.= comparative marker, def.det.= definitedeterminer, dem.= demonstrative, hum.= affix to numerals when counting humans, indef.det.= indefinite deter-miner, part.= particle, pl. = plural, prep.= preposition, prn.= pronoun, sg. = singular, tap= tense-aspect particle,top.= marker of topicalization.

6

(26) Acceptability judgment task: The Basketball Players

(27) #Etap

umitall

Malia.Mary

‘Mary is tall.’

(28) Comment: “E umi Falani. ‘O Malia e puupuu.”

(29) Acceptability judgment task: The Temperature Chart

(30) #Etap

mafanafanawarm

Iuni.June

‘June is warm.’

(31) Comment: “E mafanfana Iulai.”

Hypothesis:pos introduces contextually restricted universal quantification.

(32) JposChe,ti Kg = �Rhd,he,tii.�xhei. 8y [(g(C))(y) �! max(�d.R(d)(x)) > max(�d.R(d)(y))]

(33) JE umi Malia Kg = 1iff 8y [(g(C))(y) �! max(�d.height(Mary) � d) > max(�d.height(y) � d)]iff 8y [(g(C))(y) �! height(Mary) > height(y)]

7

(34) hti

MaliaheiMary

he, ti

posC

hhdhe, tii, he, tiiumi hd,he,tii

long

(35) Acceptability judgment task: Inhabitants

(36) E le toatele tagata i Perth.tap not hum.+many people in Perth‘Not many people live in Perth.’

(37) Translation task: Cabin LuggageDie Fluggesellschaft erlaubt ein Handgepäckstück mit 8 Kilogramm Gewicht. Meine Tasche wiegtzu viel und ich will deshalb ein Buch aussortieren. Ich frage meinen Mann:

(38) Prompt: “Welches Buch ist am schwersten?”(39) ‘O

top.

feawhich

ledef.det.sg.

tusibook

etap

mamafa?heavy

‘Which is the book which is heavy?’(40) Translation task: Samoan Mountains

Ich schreibe an einem Bericht über Samoa, weiß aber nicht mehr, ob Mauga Silisili oder MaugaMataaga der höchste Berg von Samoa ist. Ich frage eine samoanische Freundin:

(41) Prompt: “Wie heißt der höchste Berg?”(42) ‘O

top.

leadef.det.sg.+what

ledef.det.sg.

maugamountain

etap

maualuga?high

‘Which is the mountain that is high?’

– versatility of this Positive constructions,observed by Holmer (1966, pp. 27-28) for several Oceanic languages

– comparative readings with one-membered context sets,superlative readings with larger context sets

– quantifier domain restriction with regard to salient subsets(Comment: “Oh, I’m not counting her in.”)

8

(43) Acceptability judgment task: The Family

(44) Etap

matuaold

Ioane.Ioane

‘John is old.’

“English is a lazy language.” (Mele Maualaivao)

2.2.1 Intensional Comparisons with the Positive.

(45) Translation task: The Picture (Villalta 2007a, p. 14, no. (41))Suppose that Mary is in fact small (1.50 m), but tall enough to reach the place where she wantsto hang up a picture.

(46) Prompt: “Mary is tall enough to hang up the picture.”(47) E

tap

mafaipossible

natap

tautauhang

eby

MaliaMary

ledef.det.sg.

ata,picture

onabecause

etap

umi.tall

‘It is possible for Mary to hang up the picture because she is tall.’(Villalta 2007a, p. 14, no. (41))

(48) Translation task: The Driving LicenseIn order to get a driver’s license in the United States, you have to be at least 16 years old. Paul’s16th birthday was yesterday.

(49) Prompt: “Paul is now old enough.”(50) Ua

tap

matuaold

Paul.Paul

‘Paul has become old.’(51) Translation task: The Rugby Match

Ioane really wanted to be able to watch Manu Samoa play against Fiji in the Rubgy World Cup.He tried to get off early from work but was not able to because of an important meeting. Whenasked whether he was home early enough to watch the match he replies:

(52) Prompt: “I was too late for that match.”(53) Ua

tap

ouprn.1sg.

tuailate

mofor

ledef.det.sg.

taalogamatch

lakapirugby

lena.dem.sg.

“I was late for that match.”(54) Translation task: The Road to the Airport

It is Monday and we are flying to Auckland to visit family. We are on the way to Faleolo Airportbut there is a lot of traffic and we are running late. Our mother says: “The road is too busy forus to get to the airport on time.”

9

(55) Uatap

pisibusy

ledef.det.sg.

aualaroadway

‘ileto+def.det.sg.

malae va’aleleairport

etap

taunuuarrive

tonuexactly

aiprn.

iprep.

ledef.det.sg.

taimi.time

‘The road to the airport is busy for us to arrive exactly on time.’

2.3 Spelling out the Analysis

– Samoan comparison constructions employ a degree semantics. Degrees are introduced into thecomposition by gradable predicates of type hd, he, tii. Samoan is [+dsp].

(56) Jmaualuga (‘high’) K = �dhdi.�xhei. height(x) � d

(57) Degree Semantics Parameter (DSP):A language {does/ does not} have gradable predicates,i. e. lexical items that introduce degree arguments.(Beck et al. 2009, p. 19, no. (62))

– Evidence comes from the availability of DiffC and CompDeg as well as from the availability of anumber of other expressions that plausibly operate on degrees (cf. Hohaus 2010, to app.).

– Samoan employs the Positive operator below, repeated from (7) above. The Positive contributescontextually restricted universal quantification over degrees.

(58) JposChd,ti Kg = �Rhd,he,tii. 8d [C(d) ! max(�d0. R(d0)(x)) > d]

– Just like with English compared to or Japanese yori, context setters may add information aboutthe domain of quantification. These are however not compositionally integrated (cf. Beck, Oda, andSugisaki 2004; Krasikova 2008).

(59) Etap

umilong

MaliaMary

iprep.

lopart.

Ioane.John

‘Mary is tall compared to John.’

(60) 8d [C(d) ! max(�d0.height(Mary) � d

0) > d]with C : {d : height(John) � d}

– Evidence against a more direct compositional integration of i lo-phrases comes from the fact that theyneed not directly specify the domain of quantification. The harder it is to infer the the quantificationdomain from the material provided in the i lo-phrases, the more variability in acceptability we find;cf. also Beck, Oda, and Sugisaki (2004) for similar data and reasoning for Japanese.

(61) ?Satap

faataubuy

eby

MaliaMary

tusibook

etap

telemany

iprep.

lopart.

Falani.Frank

‘The books which were bought by Mary are many compared to Frank.’(Villalta 2007b, p. 4, ex. (3a))

(62) C : {card({x : book(x) & buy(x)(Frank)})}

10

(63) ??Etap

umilong

atudir.

ledef.det.sg.

faamaluumbrella

aof

MaliaMary

satap

faataubuy

iprep.

lopart.

Falani.Frank

‘The umbrella which Mary bought is long compared to Frank.’(Villalta 2007a, p. 6, ex. (14b))

(64) C : {length(◆x [umbrella(x) & buy(x)(Frank)])}

(65) ??Satap

faataubuy

eby

MaliaMary

seindef.det.sg.

faamaluumbrella

etap

taugataexpensive

iprep.

lopart.

Falani.Frank

‘Mary bought an umbrella which was expensive compared to Frank.’(Villalta 2007a, p. 6, ex. (15b))

(66) C : {price(◆x [umbrella(x) & buy(x)(Frank)])}

– Unlike English, Samoan allows for crisp judgments and differential measure phrases in the Positive.

(67) Context: Suppose that we are in the Antarctic, and that today we had -40 degrees, whileyesterday we had -41 degrees.

(68) Etap

mafanafanawarm

neitoday

iprep.

lopart.

ananafi.yesterday

‘Today is warm compared to yesterday.’(Villalta 2007a, p 4, ex. (8))

(69) Etap

umilong

MaliaMary

iprep.

ledef.det.sg.

luatwo

inisiinch

iprep.

loJohn

Ioane.

‘Mary is two inches tall compared to John.’

3 Discussion and Concluding Remarks

3.1 Comparison Constructions in Samoan

Conjoined Comparatives.

(70) Acceptability judgment task: Conjoined ComparativesThe tallest family members I have are my aunt Sulu and my brother Alofa. Both are quite tall.Sulu’s height is 6’2”. Alofa is even 6’4”.

(71) ?Etap

maualugahigh

Alofa,Alofa

etap

puupuusmall

Sulu.Sulu

‘Alofa is taller than Sulu.’

The Separative Comparative.

(72) Etap

umilong

atucomp.

MaliaMary

iprep.

lopart.

Ioane.John

‘Mary is taller compared to John.’(73) E

tap

umilong

atucomp.

MaliaMary

iprep.

ledef.det.sg.

luatwo

inisiinch

iprep.

lopart.

Ioane.John

‘Mary is two inches taller compared to John.’

11

(74) J atu Kg = �Rhd,he,tii.�xhei.max(�d.R(d)(x)) > dc

– differences in meaning between the Separative Comparative and the Positive:

– The Positive without an i lo-phrase receives a superlative reading in context where the relevantset of degrees is not a singleton set, the Separative Comparative receives a comparative one.

(75) a. Etap

umilong

Ioane.John

‘John is the tallest.’b. E

tap

umilong

atucomp.

Ioane.John

‘John is taller.’

– The Positive without an i lo-phrase is dispreferred for contextual comparison(cf. also Villalta 2007a, p. 7, ex. (16)).

(76) Etap

onosix

futufoot

ledef.det.sg.

umiheight

oof

Malia.Mary

Etap

umilong

#(atu)comp.

Ioane.John

‘Mary’s height is six foot. John is tall(er).’

– The Positive is dispreferred for comparison with a degree (cf. Villalta 2007a, p. 7-8, ex. (18)-(19)). I was unable to replicate this finding.

– In nominalizations, the construction with atu cannot be used to refer to Mary’s height but onlyto the height difference between Mary and some contextually salient degree or individual.

(77) a. ledef.det.sg.

umiheight

atucomp.

oof

MaliaMary

‘the height difference of Mary’b. le

def.det.sg.umiheight

oof

MaliaMary

‘Mary’s height’(?) ‘the height difference of Mary’

– Only the Positive can also be used for intensional comparison.

3.2 Revisiting the Null Hypothesis about Gradable Predicates

pos is a very powerful covert operator: How do we know that this is not the lexical denotation of thedegree predicate proper? If the posited meaning were that of the gradable predicate proper, positing arestriction on variable binding or the syntactic realization of an argument slot would be superfluous (cf.e.g. Fults 2006; Kamp 1975; Oda 2008).

Measure Phrase Constructions and Degree Questions. Samoan lacks P(MP) and DegQ, which can becouched in terms of [-DegPP]. Variation thus concerns the syntactic realization of the degree argument.

(78) Degree Phrase Parameter (DegPP):The degree argument position of a gradable predicate {may/ may not} be overtly filled.(Beck et al. 2009, p. 24, no. (86))

12

(79) *Etap

umilong

MaliaMary

iprep.

ledef.det.sg.

limafive

futu.foot

‘Mary is five foot tall.’(80) E

tap

limafive

futufoot

ledef.det.sg.

umiheight

oof

Malia.Mary

‘Mary’s height is five foot.’(81) *‘O

top

ledef.det.sg.

awhat

umilong

Malia?Mary

‘How tall is Mary?’(82) ‘O

top

ledef.det.sg.

awhat

ledef.det.sg.

umiheight

oof

Malia?Mary

‘What is Mary’s height?’

3.3 The Crosslinguistic Picture

– Only Navaho seems to overtly mark pos on some predicates (Bogal-Allbritten 2008). However,Sybesma (1999) suggests that Mandarin hen (‘very’) might be a candidate for pos.

– The distinction between a bare and a marked comparative is crosslinguistically very common (cf.Schwarzschild 2010), e.g. Hebrew but also Japanese, Turkish, and Hindi.

(83) YaelYael

(yoter)more

xazakastrong

mi-Dani.from-Danny

‘Yael is stronger than Danny.’(Schwarzschild 2010, p. 2, ex. (10)-(11))

Difficulties:

– What is semantic contribution of the separative comparative then?– What to make of the other specialized constructions,

i.e. intensional comparison with tele (‘enough’),the superlative with sili (‘topmost’), the pronominal equative with faapea (‘likewise’)?

“However this goal has remained elusive.” (Fults 2006, p. 273)

Acknowledgements

I am indebted to the Samoan native speaker that have contributed at various stages to this project. EpeEsera, Rosita Esera, Tony Faleafaga, Fulisia Grube, Temukisa Grundhöfer, Malia Hackel, Laena Her-mansen, Tony Faleafaga, Leutu Jaschke, Telesia Lafotanoa, Jordanna Mareko, Puaina Pfeiffer, CecilliaSagota, Rosa Schreckenberg, Alofa Tjus, and Lomialagi Vaiotu-Fuao. Faafetai tele lava!

I would also like to thank Nadine Bade, Sigrid Beck, Lucas Champollion, Remus Gergel, Stefan Hofstetter,Anna Howell, Lisa Matthewson, Sonja Tiemann and Malte Zimmermann as well as the audiences at theCentre for Samoan Studies Seminar Series in Apia in September 2011 and at the Potsdam CollaborativeResearch Center 632 in November 2011 for feedback and discussion.

13

References

Aldridge, Edith (2004). “Ergativity and Word Order in Austronesian Languages.” PhD thesis. CornellUniversity.

Beck, Sigrid (2006). “Komparative: Anleitung zur sprachvergleichenden Datenerhebung.” Handout, Eber-hard Karls Universität Tübingen. Nov. 2006.(2011a). “Comparison Constructions.” In: Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Lan-guage Meaning. Ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner. Vol. 2. Berlin:De Gruyter, pp. 1341–1389.(2011b). “Seuren/Rullmann Ambiguities as Plural Comparisons.” In: Proceedings of Semantics andLinguistic Theory 20. Ed. by Nan Li and David Lutz, pp. 406–427.

Beck, Sigrid, Vera Hohaus, and Sonja Tiemann (2012). “A Note on Phrasal Comparatives.” Manuscript,Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. Jan. 2012.

Beck, Sigrid, Toshiko Oda, and Koji Sugisaki (2004). “Parametric Variation in the Semantics of Compar-ison: Japanese versus English.” In: Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13, pp. 289–344.

Beck, Sigrid et al. (2009). “Crosslinguistic Variation in Comparison Constructions.” In: Linguistic VariationYearbook 9, pp. 1–66.

Bhatt, Rajesh and Shoichi Takahashi (2007). “Direct Comparisons: Resurrecting the Direct Analysis ofPhrasal Comparatives.” In: Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 17. Ed. by MasayukiGibson and Tova Friedman, pp. 19–36.(to app.). “Reduced and Unreduced Phrasal Comparatives.” In: Natural Language and LinguisticTheory.

Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth (2008). “Gradability and Degree Constructions in Navajo.” Honors Thesis,Swarthmore College. Dec. 2008.

Campbell, George L. (1995). Concise Compendium of the World’s Languages. New York: Routledge.Cresswell, Max J. (1976). “The Semantics of Degree.” In: Montague Grammar. Ed. by Barbara Partee.

New York: Academic Press, pp. 261–292.Dragicevich, Peter and Craig McLachlan (2009). Samoa and Tonga. 6th ed. London: Lonely Planet Pub-

lications.Fara, Delia Graf (2000). “Shifting Sands: An Interest-Relative Theory of Vagueness.” In: Philosophical

Topics 28, pp. 45–81.Fults, Scott (2006). “The Structure of Comparison: An Investigation of Gradable Adjectives.” PhD thesis.

University of Maryland at College Park.Hankamer, Jorge (1973). “Why There Are Two Than’s in English.” In: Proceedings of the 9th Annual

Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 179–191.Heim, Irene (1985). “Notes on Comparatives and Related Matters.” Manuscript, University of Texas at

Austin.(2001). “Degree Operators and Scope.” In: Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: A Festschrift for Arnim vonStechow. Ed. by Caroline Féry and Wolfgang Sternefeld. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, pp. 214–239.

Hofstetter, Stefan (2009). “Comparison in Turkish: A Rediscovery of the Phrasal Comparative.” In: Pro-ceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 13, pp. 191–205.

Hohaus, Vera (2010). “The Semantics of Motion Verbs and Comparison in Samoan.” Magisterarbeit.Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen.

14

(to app.). “Directed Motion as Comparison: Evidence from Samoan.” In: Proceedings of SULA 6.Ed. by Elizabeth Bogal-Allbritten.

Holmer, N. M. (1966). Oceanic Semantics: A Study in the Framing of Concepts in the Native Languagesof Australia and Oceania. Uppsala: Lundeqvistska Bokhandeln.

Hunkin, Galumalemana Afeleti L. (1992). Gagana Samoa: A Samoan Language Coursebook. Auckland:Polynesian Press.

Kamp, Hans (1975). “Two Theories of Adjectives.” In: Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Ed. byEdward Keenan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 123–155.

Kennedy, Christopher (1997). “Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability andComparison.” PhD thesis. University of California, Santa Cruz.(2007). “Vagueness and Grammer: The Semantics of Absolute and Relative Gradable Adjectives.”In: Linguistics and Philosophy 30, pp. 1–45.

Krasikova, Svetlana (2008). “Comparison in Chinese.” In: Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7.Ed. by Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, pp. 263–281.(2010). “Modals in Comparatives.” PhD thesis. Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen.

Lewis, M. Paul, ed. (2009). Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 16th ed. Dallas: SIL International.Lynch, John (1998). Pacific Languages: An Introduction. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Marsack, C. C. (1975). Samoan. 4th ed. Norwich: The English Universities Press.Matthewson, Lisa (2004). “On the Methodology of Semantic Fieldwork.” In: International Journal of

American Linguistics 70.4, pp. 369–451.(2011). “Methods in Crosslinguistic Formal Semantics.” In: Semantics: An International Handbookof Natural Language Meaning. Ed. by Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, and Paul Portner.Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 268–284.

Milner, George B. (1966). Samoan Dictionary. London: Oxford University Press.Mosel, Ulrike and Even Hovdhaugen (1992). Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University

Press.Oda, Toshiko (2008). “Degree Constructions in Japanese.” PhD thesis. University of Connecticut.Otsuka, Yuko (2000). “Ergativity in Tongan.” PhD thesis. University of Oxford.Pawley, Andrew (1966). “Samoan Phrase Structure: The Morphology-Syntax of a Western Polynesian

Language.” In: Anthropological Linguistics 8.5, pp. 1–63.Schwarzschild, Roger (2010). “Incomplete Comparatives.” Handout for a Workshop on Comparatives,

Massachussetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge. Nov. 2010.Stechow, Arnim von (1984). “Comparing Semantic Theories of Comparison.” In: Journal of Semantics 3,

pp. 1–77.(2009). “The Temporal Degree Adjectives Früh(er)/ Spät(er) (‘Early(er)’/ ‘Late(r)’) and the Se-

mantics of the Positive.” In: Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization. Ed. by AnastasiaGiannakidou and Monika Rathert. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 214–233.

Sybesma, Rynt (1999). The Mandarin Verb Phrase. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Villalta, Elisabeth (2007a). “Fragebogen zu Komparativen im Samoan.” Handout, Eberhard Karls Uni-

versität Tübingen. July 2007.(2007b). “Komparative im Samoan.” Handout, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. July 2007.

15