Jeanne,
I believe the answer to your question hinges on your theory of syntax. If the grammarian makes a distinction between surface structure and "deep structure" it seems that the "than" would have to be a preposition in the phrase, "than sedans." In my paraphrastic grammar I translate such comparative structures into sentences that express two propositions; thus there are two corresponding assertions:
2a) So many sedans are sold in some areas of California
and
2b) More pickup trucks are sold in those areas of California
that might be made in expressing the propostional content of your sentence. (Notice that the areas of California being referred to must be the same.) Preserving these expressions in a compound sentence might result in:
2) More pickup trucks are sold in some areas of California than are sedans in those areas.
This is unusually awkward (partly because of the reference to the same area, as mentioned above), especially when the reduced form with "than" as a preposition is available, as in your sentence. Ellipsis is useful as an explanation, if your theory allows you to relate the propositional meaning expressed in the assertion of a sentence to the formal logical argument of a proposition expressed in the object of a preposition. In my mind this is a question of "rank." But it requires a replacement (transformation) that is anathema to some theories. (The formal device of "transformation" can often be avoided by generating a null element.) I dare say that Reed & Kellogg and the grammarians of their age were not averse to appealing to ellipsis, if other explanations or other ways of understanding the structure were not available. There was no theory (or model of syntax) in their day in terms of whic!
h to seek
an answer. Even today there are grammarians who must remain satisfied with descriptions of surface structure (dependency grammar, etc.). I believe that there would be no place for them to relate the two distinct functions of "than" as two manifestations of the same word. I do not see how that can avoid being forced to allow two very different grammatical structures as objects of the same word.
Notice that the clausal structure associated with "than" is very much like a "relative clause," the adjective clause that is introduced by a relative pronoun such as "who." The conjunction "who" acts as subject (or object) in the clause as well as the connective for the clause. The same sort of thing is the function of "than" in (2); it relates to the comparative -er as a complement to the adjective. The connective "than" introduces an adverb (modifier of an adjective) clause. In this sense it is expressive of the "so" of (2a), and correlates (is co-"relative") to the -er comparative of "more" in (2b).
I think these arguments help to support a theory that allows for the ellipsis of a deep structure. These considerations can also be very helpful pedagogically, in that the student can exercise the various possibilities of expresssion in the logically related paraphrases, and possibly better understand why one structure can be preferred over another.
Bruce
How is "than" functioning in the following sentence, as a subordinating conjunction introducing an unconventionally placed ellipitical clause or as a preposition?
More pickup trucks than sedans are sold in some areas of California.
Jeanne Rodgers
CSU, Sacramento
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.htmland select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at
http://ateg.org/------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
and destroy all copies of the original message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------