Against a Hidden Conditional Analysis

This section argues against an obvious possible analysis of compared-to phrases: that they are actually the reduced form of a conditional antecedent clause. A hidden conditional analysis would account for compared-to in the following way. They start out like either of the acceptable sentences in (75).

(75) a. If he1 is compared to John, (then) Bill1 is happy.

b. When she1 is compared to Sarah, (then) Sue1 is tall.

These conditionals look a lot like compared-to constructions. There is a comparative reading of these sentences in which the comparison expressed in the antecedent clause allows an assignment of the standard degree in the consequent that is relational. This reading does not entail that Bill is happy. Bill can be quite

only be happy relative to John's happiness. (75)b does not assert that Sue is tall in general, in fact she can be quite short. She only has to be tall relative to Sarah. This is exactly what we expect if these constructions underlie the compared-to phrases.

The analysis then posits an optional ellipsis process which deletes part of the antecedent clause such that only the compared to DP part is pronounced.

(76) a. If he1 is compared to John, Bill1 is happy.

b. When she1 is compared to Sarah, Sue1 is tall.

This analysis has a simplicity to it that is appealing. Notice that it sits well with Beck et al.'s (2004) proposal. If compared-to is a context setter that allows one to infer the value of the standard degree, then a hidden conditional analysis might allow us to give a more explicit formal account of how this might happen. It seems natural to suggest that the meanings of (75) might be something like: in the contexts where Bill and John are explicitly compared, those are the ones where Bill should be judged as happy; and, in the contexts where Sue is explicitly compared to Sarah, those are the contexts where Sue is considered to be tall. Under the analysis of Beck et al, it should be easy to infer from these contexts what the standard degree is.

I have four arguments against the hidden conditional analysis. First, notice that the then must be deleted along with the antecedent material. This might be unexpected under a simple PF deletion process that targets the antecedent. Second, the other compared-to phrases cannot be (easily) explained under this analysis since it is not obvious what the antecedent clause would have to look like prior to deletion.

(77) a. ??If he1 is in comparison to John, (then) Bill1 is tall.

b. *When he1 is with regards to John, (then) Bill1 is tall.

c. *If he1 is relative to John, (then) Bill1 is tall.

d. *If he1 is with respect to John, (then) Bill1 is tall.

Under the assumption that we want an analysis that covers each type of compared-to phrase, then the hidden conditional analysis falls short.

Third, an overt conditional has another possible reading besides the one that correlates with the compared-to phrase: an event-conditional reading.

(78) a. If he1 is compared to Bill, John1 will be sad.

b. When he1 is compared to Bill, John will be sad.

In (78) there is a possible reading in which John will be saddened by the event of him being compared Bill. Notice that under this reading there is an entailment that, in the situation where John is compared to Bill, John is sad: not sad compared to Bill, but sad simply. This is not the meaning of compared-to phrases: if the underlying form of compared-to was a conditional, then we would expect to get both of these readings in (79).

However, we only get the comparative reading. In (79), John must be sad in comparison to Bill, and could in fact be relatively happy.

Lastly, a conditional does not require there to be a sortal in the consequent clause, but the compared-to phrase does.

(80) a. Compared to Bill, John is tall. b. #Compared to Bill, John will vomit.

Intended Interpretation:

When he is compared to Bill, John will vomit.

(80)b cannot have the intended reading. It is good only with a very strained reading in which the predicate will vomit is ranked, somehow, on a scale. For instance, we could rank events of vomiting on a scale according to the volume of stomach contents that are ejected out of one's mouth. Under most people's use of the word vomit, what John will spew forth would not constitute a vomiting. Then, this strained, gradable reading of (80)b says that, compared to what Bill spewed, which wasn't very much, whatever John will spew, even if it is very little, should be considered to be a

vomiting. The point is that compared-to requires an expression in the clause it

appears with to be gradable, and if one doesn't exist, then the non-gradable predicate will be coerced into gradablity. Full conditionals do not require a gradable predicate, and of course, appear quite often without them. Another way of stating this

difference between compared-to and full conditionals is that conditionals do not allow ellipsis of the sort proposed to derive compared-to phrases.

(81) a. If he left the baby alone, she cried. b. *left the baby alone, she cried.

Therefore, I think we can safely conclude that compared-to phrases are not hidden conditionals. So, what are they? The Beck et al. (2004) analysis says they are sentence level adjuncts that set the context such that it is easy to infer what the standard degree argument is. In the next section, I argue that they are base-generated inside the gradable adjective phrase, and therefore could not be context setters in this sense.