在漢語及臺灣閩南語的比較句之中，比較詞素可為隱性或顯性成分。隱性比較詞素及顯性比較詞素如漢語的「更」及臺灣閩南語的「較」在比較句中皆為必要的成分，因為比較詞素主要功能是在比較句中提供比較的語意概念，故不能省略。顯性與隱性比較詞素具有功能上之差異；具體來說，隱性比較詞素只在比較句中表達單純的比較語意，而顯性比較詞素情況較為複雜。某些顯性比較詞素如臺灣閩南語「較」，只有提供比較語意之功能，其他顯性比較詞素則包含其他功能，例如，漢語的「更」不僅能表達比較語意，還能傳遞隱含的前提意味。舉例來說，在「張三比李四更高」之中，「更」帶有一個前提為「張三和李四都是高的人」(C.-S. Liu 2010b)。 而漢語「還」同樣也不只具有比較語意，「還」在文獻上也分析為反預期標記 (Wu 2004, Wu 2009, Tsai 2013)，且帶有主觀性 (Wu 2009, Tang 2009)。根據以上敘述，我們認為當漢語使用者不只想表達比較語意，也想表達其他額外的語意時，他們傾向採用顯性比較詞素；否則，他們將選擇使用隱性比較詞素來表達比較語意。因此，漢語比較詞素在中文通常為隱性成分，而臺灣閩南語比較詞素通常為顯性成分。

The comparative morphemes in both Mandarin Chinese (MC henceforth) and Taiwanese Southern Min (TSM thereafter) can be either covert or overt. Crucially, in both MC and TSM, either covert comparative morphemes or overt comparative morphemes such as geng ‘even-more’ in MC and khah ‘more’ in TSM are required in the comparative constructions to express the comparative semantics. Overt comparative morphemes differ from covert comparative morphemes in terms of function. On the one hand, the covert comparative morpheme only expresses the comparative meaning in the comparative constructions. On the other hand, while some overt comparative morphemes such as khah ‘more’ in TSM only convey the comparative meaning, others such as geng ‘even-more’ in MC not only provide the comparative meaning but also carry some presupposition. For instance, in ‘Zhangsan bi Lisi geng gao.’ (Zhangsan is even taller than Lisi), geng ‘even-more’ presupposes that both Zhangsan and Lisi are tall (C.-S. Liu 2010b). Moreover, hai ‘even-more’ in MC not only provides the comparative semantics but also functions as a counter-expectation marker (Wu 2004, Wu 2009, and Tsai 2013) and bears some sense of subjectivity (Wu 2009 and Tang 2009). Given these, it is found that the overt form of the comparative morpheme in MC is usually preferred when the speaker wishes to indicate the additional meanings besides the comparative construal. Otherwise, speakers tend to use the covert comparative morpheme in MC to merely express the comparative meaning. Therefore, while the comparative morpheme in MC is often in a covert form, the TSM counterpart is usually in an overt form.

Chang, J.-L. 2012. Analysis of types of comparative clauses in Taiwanese Southern Min. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Chen, F.-J. 1982. Minnan Fangyan de Liangzhong Bijiaoju [Two kinds of comparative constructions in Southern Min]. Zhongguo Yuwen [Chinese Language] 1: 62-65.
Cheng, Y. & You, M.-T. 2010. Cong fangyan jiecu kan tongyi binglieshi de cihuihua. [The observation of the lexicalization of the synonym-coordinated constituent from the perspective of dialects contact] Proceedings of the 22nd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACLL-22) & the 18th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics (IACL-18).Vol 1. Clemens, L.E. & C.-M. L. Liu, eds. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 1-16.
Chung, H.-J. 2006. Syntax of the Bi Comparative Construction in Mandarin Chinese. MA thesis, National Chung Cheng University.
Erlewine, M. 2007. A new syntax-semantics for the Mandarin bi comparative. M.A. Thesis, University of Chicago.
Grano, T. 2012. Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 30.2:513-565.
Grano, T. & Kennedy, C. 2012. Mandarin transitive comparatives and the grammar of measurement. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 21.3:219-266.
Hsu, C.-C. & Ting, J. 2007. The light verb COMPARE in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the 5th Conference of the European Association of Chinese Linguistics (EACL-5), Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig.
Huang, C.-T. 2006. Resultatives and unaccusatives: a parametric view. Bulletin of the Chinese Linguistic Society of Japan 253:1-43.
Kayne, R. S. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Larson, R. K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19.3:335-391.
Li, J.-C. & Lien, C.-F. 1994. Lun Minnanyu bijiaoshi – leixing ji bishi de tantao [Comparative Construction in Southern Min - A Diachronic and Typological Perspective]. Minnanyu Yantaohui Lunwenji [The Symposium Collection of the Southern Min], ed.by Tsao, Feng-Fu. & Tsai, Mei-hui. 23. 1-3 Hsinchu: National Tsing Hua University.
Li, L. 2003. Xiandai hanyu fangyan chabiju de yuxu leixing [The word order types of the comparatives in contemporary Mandarin dialects]. FangYan [Dialect]. 2003.3:214-232
Lin, B.-Q. 1992. Minnanhua Jiaocheng [A course in Southern Min]. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press.
Lin, J.-W. 2009. Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters. Natural Language Semantics 17.1:1-27.
Liu, C.-M. 2010. Mandarin Chinese as an Exceed-type Language. Proceedings of the 22nd North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-22) & the 18th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics (IACL-18). Vol 2. Clemens, L.E. & C.-M. L. Liu, eds. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 271-286.
Liu, C.-S. 1996. A note on Chinese comparatives. Studies in the Linguistics Sciences 26:215-235.
Liu, C.-S. 2007. The weak comparative morpheme in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 33.2:53-89.
Liu, C.-S. 2010a. The positive morpheme in Chinese and the adjectival structure. Lingua 120.4:1010-1056.
Liu, C.-S. 2010b. The Chinese geng clausal comparative. Lingua 120.6:1576-1606.
Liu, C.-S. 2011. The Chinese bi comparative. Lingua 121.12:1767-1795.
Liu, C.-S. 2012. Two notes on the Chinese bi comparatives. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 38.1:69-91.
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Sawada, O. & Grano, T. 2011. Scale structure, coercion, and the interpretation of measure phrases in Japanese. National Language Semantics 19.2:191-226.
Su, W.-C. 2011. Comparatives without Bi. MA thesis, National Chiao Tung University.
Su, C.-C. 2011. Comparative Deletion: A Comparative Study of Chinese and Taiwanese Southern Min. Ph.D. dissertation, National Tsing Hua University.
Svenonius, P, and Kennedy, C. 2006. Northern Norwegian degree questions and the syntax of measurement. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli. Vol. 91 Studies in generative grammar, 133-161. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tang, M. 2009. Fuci hai de fanyuqi yuyong gongneng ji fanyuqi de yiyuan zhuisu [The pragmatic function and the semantic origin of counter-expectation of the adverb hai ‘even-more’]. Journal of Jiangsu University. 11.4:69-73
Tsai, P.-F. 2013. A corpus-based study of Chinese adverb hai and geng in the bi construction from the perspectives of syntax and pragmatics. MA thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Tsao, F.-F. 1989. Comparison in Chinese: A topic-comment approach. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies 19.2: 151-189.
Tsao, F.-F. 1989 Cong zhuti-pinglun de guandian tantao zhongwen de bijiaoju [The discussion of the Mandarin comparatives from the perspective of Topic-Comment]. Hanxue Yanjiu [Chinese Studies]. 151-189.
Tsao, F.-F. 1990. Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese: A Functional Perspective. Student Book Co., Taipei.
Wu, F.-X. 2004. Shi shuo ‘X bu bi Y Z’ de yuyong gongneng [The discussion about the pragmatic function of ‘X bu bi Y Z’]. Zhongguo Yuwen. 3:222-231.
Wu, G. 2009. Fuci hai de zhuguanxing yongfa [The subjectivity usage of the adverb hai ‘even-more’]. Shijie Hanyu Jiaoxue [Chinese Teaching in the World]. 3:322-331.
Xiang, M. 2005. Some topics in comparative constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.
Xiong, Z.-R. 2007. Analyses of the syntactic structure of comparative sentences in Mandarin Chinese and its dialects. Language and Linguistics 8.4:1043-1063.
Yang, H.-F. 1991. Taiwan Minnanyu yufagao [The draft of the Taiwanese Southern Min grammar]. Taipei: Daan Press.
Zhang, Z.-X. 1989. Taiwan Minnanyu fangyan jilue [Notes on Taiwanese Southern Min]. Taipei: Wenshizhe Press.
Zou, C.-J. 1991. Minnanhua yu Putonghua [Southern Min and Mandarin Chinese] Beijing: Language and Culture Press.