Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

4.3.2.Modification of the comparative/superlative

quickinfo

Section 3.1.3 has shown that complex intensifying phrases of adjectives can be modified themselves. This section shows that there are various similarities between the modification possibilities of some of these complex intensifying phrases and those of the comparative/superlative forms. These similarities provide additional evidence for the claim that modification and comparison must be treated on a par. Note that there are also modes of modification that are possible with comparatives and superlatives only, which will be discussed as well.

I. Comparatives
- A. Similarities with the complex modifier headed by te'too'
- B. Differences from the complex modifier headed by te'too'
II. Superlatives
- A. Similarities with the complex modifier headed by zo
- B. Differences from the complex modifier headed by zo

[+] I. Comparatives

This subsection discusses modification of comparatives and the complex modifier phrases headed by te'too'. We will see in the first subsection below that the modification possibilities of the two are more or less identical, which provides evidence for the claim that, syntactically speaking, comparison is a special case of modification. Nevertheless, there are also differences between modification and comparison, which will be discussed in the second subsection.

[+] A. Similarities with the complex modifier headed by te'too'

Comparatives can be modified by elements that indicate the extent of the higher/lower degree. This subsection shows that the modification possibilities of majoratives are more or less identical to those of adjectives modified by the intensifying phrase te'too'. First, the examples in (148) show that modification by means of the amplifier erg and downtoner vrij is excluded, whereas the modifiers veel and enigszins can be freely added. The corresponding examples with te'too' can be found in (187) and (190a) of Section 3.1.3, sub II.

148

*erg/vrij duidelijker

'very/rather clearer'

a'.

veel/enigszins duidelijker

'much/somewhat clearer'

*erg/vrij mooier

'very/rather more beautiful'

b'.

veel/enigszins mooier

'much/somewhat more beautiful'

*erg/vrij korter

'very/rather shorter'

c'.

veel/enigszins korter

'much/somewhat shorter'

Second, the examples in (149a&b) show that majoratives can be modified by noun phrases like een stuk'a lot' or een (klein) beetje'a (little) bit'. Third, when we are dealing with a measure adjective, nominal modifiers like twee meter'two meter' are possible, as is shown in (149c). Fourth, besides the noun phrase een ietsje'a bit', it is also possible to use the element iets'somewhat' to modify the comparative, as in (149d). Finally, modification by means of wat is possible, as shown in (149e). The corresponding examples with te'too' can be found in the examples (190b-f) of Section 3.1.3, sub II.

149

een stuk/beetje duidelijker

'a lot/bit clearer'

een stuk/beetje mooier

'a lot/bit more beautiful'

twee meter korter

'two meters shorter'

een ietsje/iets jonger

'somewhat younger'

wat jonger

'somewhat younger'

The examples in (150) show that the modification possibilities of the minoratives are more or less similar to those of the majoratives, albeit that enigszins does not seem to yield a very felicitous result.

150

a.	*	erg/vrij	minder	duidelijk
		very/rather	less	clear

a'.		veel/?enigszins	minder	duidelijk
		much/somewhat	less	clear

b.		een stuk/beetje	minder	duidelijk
		a lot/bit	less	clear

c.		een ietsje/iets	minder	duidelijk
		somewhat	less	clear

d.		Dit boek	is nog	minder	duidelijk.
		this book	is even	less	clear

[+] B. Differences from the complex modifier headed by te'too'

The correspondence between the modification possibilities of adjectives modified by te'too' and comparative forms discussed in the previous subsection provides additional evidence for the claim that, syntactically speaking, comparison is a special case of modification. Nevertheless, there are also a number of differences between modification and comparison.

[+] 1. Modifiers of “distance"

The (a)-examples in (151) show that majoratives differ from adjectives modified by te'too' in that the former can also be modified by modifiers that specify the distance on an implied scale between the compared entities: beduidend'significantly', opmerkelijk'remarkably', zichtbaar'visibly'. The modifiers in the (b)-examples, which seem comparable to those in the (a)-examples, are possible in both cases, but with different meaning contributions: in (151b) the modifiers specify the distance on the implied scale between the compared entities, whereas in (151b') they indicate the distance on the implied scale between an implicitly assumed norm and the actual size of Jan.

151

a.		Jan is beduidend/opmerkelijk/zichtbaar	groter	dan Peter.
		Jan is significantly/remarkably/visibly	bigger	than Peter

a'.		Jan is ?beduidend/*opmerkelijk/?zichtbaar	te groot.
		Jan is significantly/remarkably/visibly	too big

b.		Jan is flink/fors/duidelijk	groter dan Peter.
		Jan is considerably/substantially/clearly	bigger than Peter

b'.		Jan is flink/fors/duidelijk	te groot.
		Jan is considerably/substantially/clearly	too big

[+] 2. Modification by nog'even'

Majoratives differ from adjectives modified by te'too' in that the former can be modified by the accented element nog'even'; cf. Section 4.1.1. This is illustrated in (152). Note in passing that the primed examples are acceptable if nog is interpreted as an adverb of time, that is, as English still. Under this interpretation, which does not concern us here, nog need not be accented.

152

a.		Dit boek	is nóg	duidelijker.
		this book	is even	clearer

a'.

Dit boek is nog te duidelijk.

b.		Dit boek	is nóg	mooier.
		this book	is even	more beautiful

b'.

Dit boek is nog te mooi.

c.		Deze jurk	is nóg	korter.
		this dress	is even	shorter

c'.

Deze jurk is nog te kort.

[+] 3. Modification by hoe langer hoe A -er

A remarkable case of modification, which occurs with majoratives only, is given in (153) and (154). The string hoe langer hoe A -er forms a constituent, which is clear from the fact illustrated in the primeless (b)-examples that it can be placed in clause-initial position as a whole; cf. the constituency test. This is also suggested by the fact illustrated in the primed (b)-examples that the string cannot be split.

153

a.	Het boek wordt	hoe langer	hoe beter.
	the book becomes	how longer	how better
	'The book is getting better all the time.'

Hoe langer hoe beter wordt het boek.

b'.

Hoe langer wordt het boek hoe beter.

b''.

Hoe beter wordt het boek hoe langer.

154

a.	Peter wordt	hoe langer	hoe brutaler.
	Peter becomes	how longer	how cheekier
	'Peter is getting cheekier all the time.'

Hoe langer hoe brutaler wordt Peter.

b'.

Hoe langer wordt Peter hoe brutaler.

b''.

Hoe brutaler wordt Peter hoe langer.

The internal makeup of the string hoe langer hoe A -er is far from clear. Perhaps we should consider the string hoe langer hoe as a lexical unit with a more or less similar meaning as the adverbs steeds/alsmaar'continuously'; cf. the discussion of (17a). Although the second majorative ( beter/brutaler) clearly is the head of the complex phrase, it does not seem to be the semantic target of the modification: instead, the construction expresses that the process of getting more A is ongoing, that is, we are dealing with a restriction on the aspectual nature of the event. This is also clear from the fact that the progressive copula worden'to be' cannot be replaced by the stative copula zijn'to have been'. In this respect, this construction again resembles adverbial phrases like steeds/alsmaar'continuously'

155

Het boek is hoe langer hoe beter.

Peter is hoe langer hoe brutaler.

The examples in (156) show that the string hoe langer hoe beter cannot be readily used in attributive position, which is supported by the fact that our Google search (3/12/2015) on the string [ een hoe langer hoe beter(e)] resulted in no more than three relevant cases. The (a)-examples in (157) show that the same thing holds for the corresponding constructions with the adverb steeds'continuously'; the primed example is marked if the present participle of the copula worden'to become' is not expressed. That we may be dealing with a semantic restriction is strongly suggested by the fact that the same thing can be observed in the (b)-examples in (157), in which the phrase beter en beter'better and better' expresses a similar meaning as hoe langer hoe beter and steeds beter.

156

a.	??	een	hoe langer	hoe beter	boek
		a	how longer	how better	book

b.	*?	een	hoe langer	hoe brutalere	jongen
		a	how longer	how cheekier	boy

157

a.		Het boek	wordt	steeds	beter.
		the book	becomes	continuously	better

a'.		een	steeds	beter	??(wordend)	boek.
		a	continuously	better	becoming	book

b.		Het boek	wordt	beter en beter.
		the book	becomes	better and better

b'.		een	beter en beter	??(wordend)	boek.
		a	better and better	becoming	book

The examples in (158) show that the presence of the string hoe langer hoe blocks the addition of the comparative dan/als-phrase (cf. the discussion of (17a)), and that it is not compatible with other modifiers, like veel.

158

Het boek wordt (*hoe langer hoe) beter dan/als ...

Het boek wordt (*hoe langer hoe) veel beter.

Note, finally, that the construction in (153) and (154) should not be confused with the examples in (159), which may involve a (reduced) adjunct clause and which are special in that both clauses have the finite verb in clause-final position; see Section V10.3.1 for more discussion of this construction.

159

a.	Hoe langer	het boek	wordt,	hoe beter	[het is].
	how longer	the book	gets	how better	[it is]
	'The longer the book gets, the better itʼll be.'

b.	Hoe langer	je	oefent,	hoe beter	het	zal	gaan.
	how longer	you	practice	how better	it	will	go
	'The longer you practice, the better itʼll go.'

[+] II. Superlatives

This subsection discusses similarities and differences between modification of superlatives and modification of complex modifier phrases headed by zo.

[+] A. Similarities with the complex modifier headed by zo

Superlatives and adjectives modified by the degree element zo both allow the addition of the element mogelijk. For adjectives modified by zo, this has been discussed in Section 3.1.3, sub ID. For superlatives, we illustrate this in (160). Occasionally, the element mogelijk can be replaced by denkbaar'conceivable', as in (160c); this is never possible if we are dealing with adjectives modified by zo.

160

a.		de	kortst	mogelijke	weg
		the	shortest	possible	road

b.		de	best	mogelijke	oplossing
		the	best	possible	solution

c.		de	best	denkbare	oplossing
		the	best	conceivable	solution

[+] B. Differences from the complex modifier headed by zo

The superlative differs from adjectives modified by zo in that it can also be modified by the discontinuous PP op XP na, in which XP can either be a numeral or a noun phrase, and verreweg'by far'.

[+] 1. Op + NUMERAL + na

The first construction involves a definite numeral (generally of a relatively low cardinality). In (161a), we give an example that involves a superlative used in complementive position. The (b)-examples in (161) show that the PP can occur either before or after the definite determiner if the superlative is used attributively.

161

a.	dat	Jan	op	één	na	het best	is.
	that	Jan	op	one	na	the best	is
	'that Jan is second best.'

b.	Jan is op	één	na	de beste student.
	Jan is op	one	na	the best student
	'Jan is the second best student.'

b'.

Jan is de op één na beste student.

Besides (161a), constructions such as (162a), in which the superlative is preceded by de'the', are also possible. In these cases, de is the regular definite determiner, and we are dealing with noun phrases in which the head noun is deleted, which is indicated by [ e]. This means that example (162a) is structurally parallel to (161b). Not surprisingly, the head noun in (161b') can also be left out, which leads to the construction in (162b).

162

Jan is op

één na de beste [e].

Jan is de op één na beste [e].

The PP op + numeral + na must be left-adjacent to the predicatively used superlative. First, the examples in (163a&a') show that it cannot be moved leftwards in isolation. Second, the (b)-examples in (163) show that topicalization of the adjective is possible only if the PP is pied-piped, which is a clear indication that the two make up a constituent. Finally, the (c)-examples in (163) show that the PP cannot occur to the immediate right of the adjective or be placed after the verbs in clause-final position. Note, however, that example (163c') improves considerably if the PP in extraposed position is preceded by an intonation break.

163

Op één na is Jan het best.

a'.

Jan is op één na waarschijnlijk het best.

Op één na het best is Jan.

b'.

Het best is Jan op één na.

dat Jan het best op één na is.

c'.

dat Jan het best is *( , ) op één na.

For completeness’ sake, note that the discussion in Paardekooper (1986) seems to suggest that the order in (163c) is acceptable. Most of his examples involve APs that are not followed by a verb, however, so we may actually be dealing with the extraposition construction in (163c'), which he considers fully acceptable.
Example (164a) shows that the pre-determiner PP in (161b) cannot be topicalized in isolation, which suggests that the PP forms a constituent with the noun phrase; cf. de op één na beste student is Jan waarschijnlijk. That the PP and the noun phrase in (161b) form a constituent is less clear than in the case of the PP and the superlative in (161a), however, given that topicalization of the noun phrase also leads to a marked result, both with and without pied piping of the PP; cf. (164a'&a''). Further, it can be observed that placement of the PP to the right of the noun phrase is not possible, although the result improves slightly in the case of extraposition if the PP is preceded by an intonation break; the improvement is not as great as in the case of (163c'), however.

164

Op één na is Jan de beste student.

a'.

Op één na de beste student is Jan waarschijnlijk.

a''.

De beste student is Jan waarschijnlijk op één na.

dat Jan de beste student op één na is.

b'.

dat Jan de beste student is *(?? , ) op één na.

[+] 2. Op + NP + na

The discontinuous PP op ... na may also contain a full noun phrase. This PP is used especially if the proposition expressed by the clause involves universal (∀x) or negative existential (¬∃x) quantification. The universal quantification can be implicit, as in example (165c) without allemaal'all'.

165

a.	Op Peter na	is iedereen/niemand	aanwezig.
	op Peter na	is everyone/no one	present
	'Except for Peter, everyone/no one is present.'

b.	Op gisteren	na	ben	ik	daar	altijd/nooit	geweest.
	op yesterday	na	am	I	there	always/never	been
	'Except for yesterday Iʼve always/never been there.'

c.	Die boeken	heb	ik	op	Nostromo na	(allemaal)	gelezen.
	those books	have	I	op	Nostromo na	all	read
	'I read all those books, except for Nostromo.'

Example (166) shows that the PP op NP na can also be used if a superlative is present, which is not really surprising given that the superlative also expresses universal quantification; cf. the semantic representation in (27b).

166

dat	Jan op	Peter	na	het best	is.
that	Jan OP	Peter	NA	the best	is
'that Jan is the best after Peter.'

Although (166) at first sight strongly resembles the construction in (161a), we will argue below that the most likely analysis of these constructions is one in which this PP does not form a constituent with the adjective, in contrast to the PP op + numeral + na in (161). A first indication that the PPs in (161) and (166) are different is that the PP op NP na cannot be placed after the determiner in primeless examples such as (167). Note that we find the same facts in the primed examples, which support the analysis of examples of this sort in terms of N-ellipsis; see the discussion of (131) and (162).

167

a.	Jan is op	Peter	na	de beste student.
	Jan is OP	Peter	NA	the best student
	'Jan is the best student after Peter.'

a'.

Jan is op Peter na de beste [e].

Jan is de op Peter na beste student.

b'.

Jan is de op Peter na beste [e].

A second indication that the two PPs are different is that the (a)-examples in (168) show that the PP in (166) can be moved leftwards stranding the AP. This suggests that the PP and the adjective do not form a constituent in this case, but that the PP acts as an independent adverbial modifier of the clause. This idea is supported by the fact that the topicalization construction in (168b) is marginal at best, although it should be observed that movement of the adjective in isolation, as in (168b'), seems to be awkward as well. Placement of the PP to the right of the adjective is not possible, although the example involving extraposition improves if the PP is preceded by an intonation break. The ungrammaticality of (168c) follows naturally from the claim that the PP is not part of the AP but an independent adverbial phrase, since the complementive adjective must be left-adjacent to the verb in clause-final position; cf. Section 6.2.2, sub I.

168

Op Peter na is Jan het best.

a'.

Jan is op Peter na waarschijnlijk het best.

Op Peter na het best is Jan.

b'.

Het best is Jan op Peter na.

dat Jan het best op Peter na is.

c'.

dat Jan het best is *( , ) op Peter na.

The PP in (166) also differs from the PP in (161b). First, (169a) shows that topicalization of the PP op Peter na in isolation is fully acceptable. Pied piping of the PP under topicalization of the noun phrase, on the other hand, is entirely excluded. Topicalization of the noun phrase in isolation is acceptable, but only if the PP in clause-final position is preceded by an intonation break. As is shown in (169b), placement of the PP to the right of the noun phrase is impossible, but extraposition gives rise to a reasonably acceptable result.

169

Op Peter na is Jan de beste student.

a'.

Op Peter na de beste student is Jan waarschijnlijk.

a''.

De beste student is Jan waarschijnlijk ?( , ) op Peter na.

dat Jan de beste student op Peter na is.

b'.

dat Jan de beste student is ?( , ) op Peter na.

On the basis of these differences we can conclude that the PP op NUMERAL na modifies the superlative, forming a constituent with either the superlative or the noun phrase that includes the superlative, whereas the PP op NP na is not part of the AP, but acts as an adverbial modifier of (some other element in) the clause.

[+] 3. Verreweg'by far'

The superlative can also be preceded by verreweg'by far'. This modifier specifies the distance on the implied scale between the entities that are compared; cf. the cases of modification of the comparative in (151). Despite the fact that the constituency test in (170a') clearly indicates that the modifier and the superlative form a constituent, the modifier cannot be adjacent to the superlative in attributive position; it precedes the definite determiner. Still, the constituency test in (170b') shows that verreweg forms a constituent with the complete noun phrase.

170

a.		Jan is verreweg	het best
		Jan is by far	the best

a'.

<Verreweg> het best is Jan <*verreweg>.

b.		Jan is <verreweg>	de <??verreweg>	beste	kandidaat.
		Jan is by far	the	best	candidate

b'.

<verreweg> de beste kandidaat is Jan <*verreweg>

[+] 4. Some special cases

There are no other cases of modification of the superlative, which is probably due to the “absolute" nature of the superlative. It should be observed, however, that the superlative can be emphasized by morphological means, namely by affixing the superlative with the prefix aller-. It should be noted, however, that the form aller-A- st need not be interpreted as a superlative: it can also be used as a non-comparative adjective that does not denote the highest degree but a very high degree. This use of the form aller-A- st is occasionally called the elativus, but since this term is also used for locative case, we want to introduce the term pseudo-superlative. Some examples of this use are given in (171a&c).

171

a.		een	allerààrdigste	jongen	(*van de klas)	pseudo-superlative
		a	very.nice	boy	of the group

b.		de	àlleraardigste	jongen	(van de klas)	emphatic superlative
		the	nicest	boy	of the group

c.		Jan is allerààrdigst	(*van de klas).	pseudo-superlative
		Jan is very.nice	of the group

d.		Jan is het àlleraardigst	(van de klas).	emphatic superlative
		Jan is the nicest	of the group

The pseudo-superlatives differ in various respects from the emphatic superlatives in (171b&d). First, the attributively used pseudo-superlative in (171a) is preceded by the indefinite article een'a'; if the article is replaced by the definite article de'the', as in (171b), the adjective is interpreted as an emphatic superlative. Second, the predicatively used pseudo-superlative in (171c) is not preceded by the element het; if het is added, as in (171d), the adjective is necessarily interpreted as an emphatic superlative. Third, the pseudo- and emphatic superlative differ with respect to the placement of word accent; the pseudo-superlative has word accent on the adjective ( allerààrdigst), whereas the emphatic superlative has word accent on the prefix ( àlleraardigst). Finally, the emphatic superlative can be combined with a comparative van-phrase just like the regular superlative, whereas this is excluded in the case of the pseudo-superlative.
The superlative form best can also occur as a pseudo-superlative without the prefix aller-. Some examples are given in the primeless examples in (172); again the adjective does not express the highest degree but a very high degree of some property, which is partly contextually determined in this case. Observe that the pseudo-superlative best cannot be used as a complementive, unlike the true superlative het best, as shown by the primed and doubly-primed examples in (172). Finally, note that the pseudo-superlative best is often used in salutations of letters: beste Jan'dear Jan'.

172

a.		een	beste	kerel
		a	very.nice	chap

b.		een	beste	wijn
		a	very.good	wine

a'.	*	Peter is best.
		Peter is very.nice

b'.	??	Deze wijn	is best.
		this wine	is very.good

a''.		Peter is het best.
		Peter is the best

b''.		Deze wijn	is het best.
		this wine	is the best

References:

Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: ComparativeElativusEllipsisEmphatic SuperlativeExtrapositionFixed ExpressionModificationN-EllipsisPseudo-SuperlativeQuantifierSuperlativeUniversal Quantifier

Version: 1.0, December 2015

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis	December 2015

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles