Перевести научным языком,так как текст научного стиля.
The key distinction between explicit versus implicit comparison is that the former makes use of
dedicated morphology to express the comparison relation, while the latter uses only the positive unmarked
form, and a comparison between two objects is inferred. The prediction is that a language
has no explicit comparative morpheme should use only an implicit comparison strategy.
According to Kennedy (2007a), there are at least three tests that distinguish explicit from implicit
comparison. These tests target the semantic differences between the comparative and positive
forms of gradable predicates. Importantly, what we find is that the semantics of implicit
comparison reflects that of the positive form, in particular with respect to vagueness and contextsensitivity,
which is expected since there is no dedicated comparative morphology present. The
three relevant tests are the following: (i) (non-)acceptability of the comparison in crisp judgment
contexts; (ii) (non-)acceptability of the comparison with minimum standard predicates; and (iii)
(non-)acceptability with differential measure phrases.4
Crisp judgments: Since the positive form of relative gradable predicates are vague, implicit
comparisons should also display these properties, since they are based on the positive form. In
particular, their use is subject to the Similarity Constraint in (22): if one object counts as tall, then
it is difficult or impossible to judge another object as not-tall if there is only a very slight difference
in their heights. This makes a prediction about implicit comparisons: since they are based on the
positive form, then should also be subject to the Similarity Constraint. It should therefore be
impossible to use them in situations where two objects differ only slightly in the amount they hold
a property. Such an operation would mean that we would have to claim that one object ‘stands
out’ in the extent to which holds a property while the other one does not, contrary to the Similarity
Constraint. The contrasts in (39)-(40) show that this prediction is borne out. A 3-word difference in
essay length is not enough for the longer essay to ‘stand out’, and the intended implicit comparison is infelicitous.
(39) Context: A 600 word essay and a 200 word essay.
a. This essay is longer than that one.
b. Compared to that essay, this essay is long.
(40) Context: A 600 word essay and a 597 word essay.
a. This essay is longer than that one.
b. #Compared to that essay, this essay is long.
Explicit comparisons do not give rise to any difficulty here. As shown in section 2.2.3, -er/more
comparatives do not give rise to vagueness. They simply require a non-zero difference between
the two objects being compared. The explicit comparative in (40a) is thus true and felicitous even
in a crisp judgment context.
Absolute standard predicates: As we have already noted, absolute-standard gradable predicates
do not show the context-sensitivity and vagueness of relative-standard predicates. The standards
for evaluating the positive form are fixed to a scalar endpoint and do not depend on a comparison
class. The prediction is therefore that implicit comparisons with absolute-standard predicates
should be infelicitous. Kennedy claims that this is because they crucially require narrowing down
the comparison class, and this operation has no semantic effect on the interpretation of absolute
gradable predicates. But in fact the problem runs deeper than that. If, as Kennedy claims, the function
of an implicit comparison is to claim that one object counts as holding the property, while the
other does not, then an implicit comparison with absolute predicates will always be false, except
in the limiting cases where one object holds the property to the maximum or minimum value.
Explicit comparisons, however, should be fine, since once again, they only require a non-zero
difference in the amount the objects being compared hold the property. These predictions are borne
out, as shown in (41):
(41) Context:
45