Comparative Constructions: An
Introduction
Yvonne Treis
CNRS-LLACAN
1. Preliminaries
Comparison is a
mental act by which two or more items are examined in order to assess
similarities and differences between them. The comparison can be made with
regard to a certain gradable, one-dimensional property, and the items are then assigned
a position on a predicative scale. This mental act of comparison finds its
linguistic encoding in comparison constructions, especially comparative
constructions for the expression of comparison of inequality or equative
constructions for the expression of comparison of equality. The assessment that
is made with regard to a multi-faceted notion (e.g. manner) finds its
linguistic correlate in similative constructions.
The linguistic
literature has especially been concerned with comparison of inequality and
comparative constructions, such as the English sentences in (1).
(1)
|
Mary
|
is
|
tall
|
-er
|
than
|
Peter
|
|
Comparee
|
|
Parameter
|
Parameter/Degree
Marker
|
Standard
Marker
|
Standard
|
|
Mary
|
is
|
more
|
intelligent
|
than
|
Peter
|
|
Comparee
|
|
Parameter/Degree
Marker
|
Parameter
|
Standard Marker
|
Standard
|
Comparative
constructions are also the focus of this special issue, which evolved out of a
two-day workshop titled “Comparative and Superlative Constructions: Typology
and Diachrony” convened on 16-17 June 2015 at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and organised by Lourens de
Vries (Vrije Universiteit
Amsterdam) and Katarzyna I. Wojtylak (James Cook University). The
workshop
aimed at taking a look at comparative constructions from a different
angle –
namely from the perspective of field linguistics. When attempting to
analyse
comparative constructions in a little-known minority language, a
fieldworker
who has built up a multi-purpose corpus for a grammatical description
of a
language may, firstly, be confronted with difficulties in finding
correlates to
comparative constructions in other languages – often because the
languages does
not have dedicated, grammaticalized constructions for the expression
of comparison.
Speakers may use comparative strategies that rely on contextual
implications of
juxtaposed utterances (e.g. ‘Mary is tall, Peter is not’). Secondly,
rather than finding the one and
primary comparative construction, descriptive linguists may come
across a
variety of comparative constructions, whose differences in meaning
and use have
to be teased out. Thirdly, comparative constructions in hitherto
little known languages may challenge existing typologies. The
workshop has been especially inspired by Dixon’s (2012) work on
comparative
constructions.
The study of comparative and related constructions has a long
and rich research tradition. There is a plethora of works on the expression of
comparison in the languages of the world – studies on comparison constructions of
individual languages, typological studies as well as formal-theoretical works
(some of which are summarized in §3). This special issue on comparison could
thus be said to stand on the shoulder of giants. After having laid out the terminology
used in this special issue, I review a selection of typological works on
comparison in Section 3. In Section 4 I present the questionnaire that has
inspired the contributors to this volume to investigate the expression of
comparison in their language(s) of expertise. In Section 5 I summarize what their
studies can contribute to typological research on comparison constructions. In
Section 6 all contributions to this volume are summarized.
2. Terminology
I have opted for
the following terms to name the constitutive elements of a prototypical
comparison construction, such as (1), in the contributions to this special
issue.
Note, however, the alternative terms found in the literature on comparison.
-Comparee = what is being compared against
some standard of comparison (Mary);
alternative terms used in the literature: Item
compared (Ultan 1972), Topic (Stolz & Stolz 2001, Gorshenin
2012)
-Standard of comparison = what the comparee
is being compared against (Peter)
-Standard Marker = marker of the grammatical
function of the standard (than), alternative terms used in the
literature: Mark (Dixon 2012), Marker (Greenberg 1966), Tie (Stolz 2013), Pivot (Cuzzolin
& Lehmann 2004), Relator (Gorshenin 2012, Stolz & Stolz 2001)
-Parameter of comparison = property of
comparison (tall, intelligent);
alternative terms used in the literature: Quality
or Quantity (Ultan 1972), Quality (Stolz
2013), Comment (Gorshenin 2012, Stolz & Stolz 2001), (comparative) Predicate (Heine 1997, Stassen 1985, Stassen 2013)
-Degree Marker or Parameter Marker marks the degree of presence or absence
of a property in the comparee (more or -er);
alternative terms used in the literature: Index
(Dixon 2012), Degree (Stolz
2013, Gorshenin 2012, Stolz & Stolz 2001), Comparative Concept (Heine 1994)
Of the five
elements, standard markers and parameter/degree markers
are often grammatical elements. Not all languages express all of the above
constituents in comparison constructions. It is common for languages not to
have a degree marker. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out in the
literature (see e.g. Ultan (1972: 127)), it may be
difficult to identify degree markers and standard markers in comparative
constructions of certain languages. In languages of the ‘exceed’-comparative
(see §3.1 below), the degree and standard marking function is taken over by one
structural element, the ‘exceed’ verb.
Most of the papers
in this volume focus on comparative constructions in the narrow sense of the
word, i.e. on constructions expressing inequality. However, the term
“comparative” is potentially ambiguous and is also used in the literature as a
general label for comparison constructions of all kinds. We have therefore
opted to use “comparative” only in its narrow sense. For labelling other types
of comparison we propose the terms discussed in the remainder of this section.
In traditional
grammar, four degrees of comparison of the adjective are distinguished. The
labels for these morphological forms of the adjective are also applied to the
whole comparison construction in which they are used (see also Cuzzolin & Lehmann 2004, Ultan
1972, Andersen 1983: 100).
-Positive degree: basic form of the
adjective; Susan is tall → positive
construction
-Equative degree: parameter is ascribed to
the comparee and the standard to the same extent; Susan is as tall as Peter → equative construction
-Comparative degree: parameter applies to the
comparee to a higher extent than to the standard; Susan is tall-er than Peter → comparative
construction
-Superlative degree: shows the highest degree
of the parameter applied to the comparee; Susan
is the tallest of her family → superlative construction
Most contributions
to this volume examine languages that do not mark degree morphologically on the
adjective and, unsurprisingly, some of the languages discussed here do not even
have an adjectival word class.
Inspired by Fuchs
(2014), we subdivide and label the subtypes of comparison as follows:
|
-Quantitative
comparison
|
|
|
◦Inequality
|
|
|
|
▪︎Superiority
|
|
|
|
|
•Relative
Superiority (→ comparative)
|
|
|
|
|
Susan is taller than Peter
|
|
|
|
|
•Absolute
Superiority (→ superlative)
|
|
|
|
|
Susan is the tallest of her family
|
|
|
|
▪︎Inferiority
|
|
|
|
|
•Relative
Inferiority (→ comparative)
|
|
|
|
|
Peter is less tall than Susan
|
|
|
|
|
•Absolute
Inferiority (→ superlative)
|
|
|
|
|
Peter is the least tall of his family
|
|
|
◦Equality
(→ equative) Peter is as tall as Susan
|
|
-Qualitative
comparison
|
|
|
◦Real)
Similarity (→ similative)
Peter runs like a hare. / Peter is like
Susan.
|
|
|
◦Simulation
(Unreal/Pretended Similarity) (→ simulative)
Peter behaves as if he were a child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several caveats apply to these terms:
The use of “absolute”
above is different from the use of “absolute” in collocation with
“superlatives” in other works on comparison. Ultan
(1972:125), Gorshenin (2012: 82), Bobaljik (2012: 2)
and Cuzzolin & Lehmann (2004: 1213), for
instance, distinguish between “relative superlatives” and “absolute
superlatives”, with the first type expressing ‘more [parameter] than all others’
and the second type expressing an excessive degree, ‘[parameter] to a very high
degree’, e.g. a most interesting tale.
“Absolute superlatives”, in their sense, lack a specific standard of
comparison. They are also called “elatives” in some
traditions.
The term “equative” used for a construction expressing equality should
not be confused with the same term often used for a
type of copular clause in which two entities are equated, e.g. Susan is our president. To avoid
confusion, I suggest using “equational” for this type of copular
clause.
Finally, it needs
to be pointed out that not all ambiguities regarding the term “comparative”
have been resolved, as it can still be applied to constructions that express
relative superior or inferior inequality.
3. Literature Review
Stolz (2013)
provides a very detailed and informative review of earlier studies of
comparative constructions to which I have little to add and which I encourage
the reader to consult. In the following, I thus only summarize the comparative
typologies by Stassen (1985) and Dixon (2012). Subsequently, the major works on
superlative, equative and similative constructions are discussed in order to
lay out the state of the art.
3.1. Comparative
The earliest cross-linguistic works on comparative constructions are Ziemer (1884) and Jensen (1934). Based on a world-wide
sample of 123 languages, Ultan (1972) investigates
universals in comparative, superlative and equative constructions worldwide.
Most modern typologies of comparison constructions take Ultan’s
groundwork as a point of departure and review, test and refine hypotheses that
he has brought forward.
Stassen’s (1985, 2013) comparative types are predominately identified by
the type of standard marker used. On the highest level, Stassen makes a
distinction between derived-case comparatives and fixed-case comparatives, i.e.
between constructions in which the case of the standard NP is dependent or
independent on the case of the comparee NP. Fixed-case comparatives
are then subdivided further according to the type of case form employed.
Fixed-case comparatives fall into Exceed Comparatives and Adverbial
Comparatives (= Locational Comparatives in Stassen (2013)). In Exceed Comparatives (1985: 42ff, 159-82)
a transitive verb meaning ‘exceed’, ‘surpass’ or similar takes the standard as
its object and the comparee as its subject. In the first Exceed Comparative
subtype, the parameter and the ‘exceed’ verb form one non-overtly marked serial
verb construction (‘A big exceed B’). In the second subtype, languages derank either the ‘exceed’ verb or the parameter and
express it in a subordinate form; cf. the secondary comparative construction in Muna (4) discussed below.
The mono-clausal Adverbial /
Locational Comparatives encompass three subtypes. They all have in common
that the standard NP is expressed by a phrase that is in an adverbial relation
to the parameter. The three subtypes are based on three semantic models. The Separative Comparative (Stassen 1985:
114-35), which 30% of the languages in Stassen’s sample use as primary option,
is characterized by a standard NP that is marked by a separative (source,
origin) morpheme (‘from’, ‘up from’, ‘beyond’, ‘behind’, ‘after’); see the
ablative morpheme marking the standard in comparative constructions in Kambaata
(2). Alaskan Athabascan comparatives (Tuttle this volume) marked by the postpositions nonłe (Koyukon), yontha (Tanana) or yits’ae (Ahtna) ‘beyond’ would also categorize as Separative Comparative.
(2)
|
Kambaata
(Afroasiatic, Cushitic)
|
|
Bóq
|
Makkeeb-éechch
|
qeráa’rr-u-a
|
|
PN.mNOM
|
PN-fABL
|
long-mPRED-mCOP2
|
|
‘Boqe is taller than Makkeebe
(lit. Boqe is tall from Makkeebe).’
(Treis this volume)
|
In Allative Comparatives
(Stassen 1985: 40f, 136-45), the standard NP is marked like a goal (‘to’, ‘up
to’, ‘on this side of’, ‘in front of’, ‘before’). Comparatives in which the
standard combines with a direct object or benefactive morpheme are also
subsumed under this type.
Finally, Locative Comparatives
(Stassen 1985: 41f, 146-52) mark the standard NP in an adverbial phrase with an
element that indicates contact (‘on’, ‘at’, ‘on top of’, ‘beside,
next to’, ‘against’). As Wojtylak (this volume) shows, the Witotoan language
Murui has a set of complex nominal standard markers, which all derived from
locational adverbs, ‘ahead’, ‘inside’, ‘above’, ‘below’, ‘outside’, and are
marked for a locative case.
(3)
|
Murui
(Witotoan)
|
|
nai-ñaiñovcs
|
(eo)
|
jano-ñaiñovcc
|
kue
|
baaɨ-fe-mo
|
|
ana.sp-clf:pr.f
|
very
|
small-clf:pr.f
|
1sg
|
ahead-clf:side-loc
|
|
‘She is
smaller than I am (lit. she - very small (female), ahead of me).’ (Wojtylak
this volume)
|
Derived-case comparatives are of two very different types. Conjoined Comparatives (Stassen 1985:
37f, 44f, 184-88) consist of two independent and structurally parallel clauses,
one of which contains the comparee, while the other contains the standard. Comparee
and standard have the same grammatical function in their respective clauses, and
the parameter is expressed twice. The semantic relation between the clauses is
one of adversative coordination: ‘A is big, (but) B is small’ or ‘A is big,
(but) B is not big’; cf. the discussion of comparatives in Ese Ejja and Turkish
Sign Language below.
The second derived case comparative is the mono-clausal Particle Comparative (1985: 38f, 45ff,
188-98), in which the standard is accompanied by a comparative particle, which
does not influence the case form for which the standard is marked; instead the
standard derives its grammatical function from that of the comparee. The Particle
Comparative is a fairly heterogeneous residual category in Stassen’s typology;
apart from being used as standard markers, the particles are used as
‘and’-coordinators, as temporal adverbs (‘then’), as adversative conjunctions
(‘but’), negative coordinators (‘nor’), disjunctive coordinators (‘or’), a
similative ‘like’ or a relative/interrogative pronoun (cf. French que). Most languages with a Particle Comparative
are members of the European sprachbund.
This volume discusses several languages whose comparative constructions can
only be tentatively categorized into Stassen’s typology. The Austronesian
language Muna (van den Berg this volume) marks the standard
by a comitative morpheme bhe ‘with’ (4) – which is typologically
fairly rare. Comitative marking is tentatively subsumed under Separative
Comparatives in Stassen (1985: 37) but then not discussed any further.
|
Muna (Austronesian)
|
(4)
|
No-tugha
|
kontu
|
bhe
|
wite
|
|
3sg.su.real-hard
|
stone
|
with
|
land/soil
|
|
‘Stone is
harder than soil.’ (van den Berg this volume; glosses adapted)
|
The Ladakhi comparative (Zeisler this volume) could be classified – again only tentatively – as Particle Comparative.
The standard marker -basaŋ expresses a relation of difference or contrast and of ‘beyond’ or addition (see
section 4 in Zeisler’s contribution for details) and
its multifunctionality is reminiscent of the standard markers of Particle Comparatives,
as elaborated on in Stassen (1985: 188-98).
Note, however, that Muna and Ladakhi can easily be integrated into Dixon’s typology,
which is discussed further below.
Except for the
Particle Comparative, all of Stassen’s types find direct equivalents in Heine’s
Action, Source, Goal, Location and Polarity type (1997: 109-130). Heine
proposes the following additional, though minor comparative types: Sequence (‘X
is Y, then Z’ for ‘X is Y-er than Z’), Similarity (‘X
is Y like Z’ for ‘X is Y-er than Z’), which replace
Stassen’s Particle Comparative, and Topic (‘X and Z, X is Y’ for ‘X is Y-er than Z’).
The problems associated with establishing a (heterogeneous) type of Particle Comparative are discussed in Stolz
(2013: 20ff). Along the lines of Heine, Stolz proposes to split up the Particle
Comparative into several sub-types. In addition to Heine’s Sequence and
Similarity Comparative, Stolz introduces a Pure Comparative for constructions
in which the standard is marked by a dedicated comparative case and a Contrastive
Comparative for constructions in which the standard marker goes back to a
negative or adversative morpheme (2013: 22). Topic
Comparatives are said to be little attested (Stolz 2013: 13f, fn. 23) – note,
however, that in Turkish Sign Language (Özsoy & Kaşıkara this volume) the two participants of Polarity and Location
Comparatives are often first introduced as topics (5).
<
The descriptions of comparative constructions in this volume mostly
refer to Dixon’s (2008, 2012) typology. Unlike for Stassen and Heine, the
etymology or multifunctionality of the standard marker in comparative
constructions is of little relevance for the establishment of his types.
Instead, the types are defined according to morphosyntactic parameters. Important
features for the categorization seem to be (i) the mono-/bi-clausality of the construction, (ii) the syntactic functions
of the primary components of a comparison scheme (parameter, comparee,
standard, degree/parameter marker, standard marker), and (iii) the degree
of grammaticalization of the construction. Compared
to other typologies, Dixon gives more weight to non-canonical and little
grammaticalized types – the eight main
types are summarized in the following.
Type A1 is a mono-clausal comparative construction, in
which the parameter, expressed by an adjective (or noun) that functions as the
head of a copula or verbless clause complement. If degree is expressed overtly,
the degree marker is usually a modifier to the parameter. The standard is an
oblique NP; the standard marker can be a dedicated morpheme or have other
functions in the grammar (e.g. as ablative, locative, genitive morpheme) (Dixon
2012: 345-349). Type A2 differs from
A1 only with respect to the word class of the parameter; here the parameter has
verbal properties and functions as the head of an intransitive predicate (Dixon
2012: 349-353). Type A comparative constructions are attested in several
languages of this volume; see, for instance, Kambaata
(Treis), Muna (van den
Berg), Murui (Wojtylak) (3) and Turkish Sign Language (Özsoy
& Kaşıkara) (5).
(5)
|
Turkish
Sign Language
|
|
[[NP N IXa] [NP N IXb]] [aIXCOMPb
ADJ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
______eo
______ebr
|
|
|
[[JALEa
|
IXa]
|
[DERYAb
|
IXb]]
|
[aIXCOMPb
|
STUBBORN]
|
|
Jale
|
SHE
|
Derya
|
SHE
|
IXCOMP
|
stubborn
|
|
‘Derya is more stubborn than Jale.’
(Özsoy & Kaşıkara this volume)
|
Type B (Dixon 2012: 354ff)
comparatives are serial verb constructions, in which a verb expressing the
parameter and a verb ‘exceed’, ‘(sur)pass’ or ‘defeat’ function together as a
single predicate. The comparee is the transitive subject, the standard the
object of the construction (lit. ‘This girl pretty exceed
that girl.’). No Type B comparatives are represented in this volume.
Type C (Dixon 2012: 356)
differs from Type B in the syntactic function of the parameter. As in Type B,
the ‘exceed’-verb in C expresses the degree and takes comparee and standard as its
arguments. The parameter, however, is expressed in a peripheral, post-predicate
constituent. Type C is represented in this volume by the secondary
‘exceed’-comparative in Muna (van den Berg this
volume) (6) and the bi-clausal comparative constructions in Nivacle
(Fabre this volume).
(6)
|
Muna
(Austronesian)
|
|
Ina-ku
|
a-liu-e
|
ka-langke
|
|
mother-1sg.poss
|
1sg.su-surpass-3sg.obj
|
nmlz-tall
|
|
‘I am taller than my mother (lit. My
mother, I surpass her [in] tallness).’ (van den Berg this volume)
|
In Type D (Dixon 2012: 357) the degree is
also expressed by a transitive ‘exceed’-verb. However, it takes the parameter
as subject and object arguments; the comparee and the standard are the
possessors in these argument NP (lit. ‘The box’s width exceeds the car’s
width’). No language in this volume is reported to have comparatives of Type D.
A particular type
of comparative construction attested in Ponapean (Austronesian) makes Dixon
(2012: 357f) establish Type E, which
does not seem to correspond to any type in typologies by other authors. In Type
E the parameter serves as the head of the predicate (as in Type A); the degree
marker, however, is a (transitivizing) suffix to the
parameter. The language is analysed as not having a standard marker. Note
that a parallel equative type (with a transitivizing
equative suffix) is attested in Ese Ejja (see §3.3 below).
Dixon’s Type F (2012: 358f) stands for
bi-clausal comparative construction of three sub-types. In all sub-types, the
parameter, the standard and the comparee are distributed across two clauses,
e.g. as in Hua (Nuclear Trans New Guinea), where ‘He is taller than me’ is
expressed literally as ‘He exceeds me, he is tall’. For reasons not further
elaborated on, Dixon distinguishes the bi-clausal Type F from the equally
bi-clausal Type S (Dixon 2012:
359f), which is labelled a “comparative strategy”. The examples of Type S
comparatives all involve the juxtaposition of two (or more) complementary
properties, e.g. ‘X is big, Y is small’. A degree difference is usually not
overtly encoded and has to be inferred from the juxtaposition of the
contrastive clauses.
Dixon’s Type S, which corresponds to Stassen’s Conjoined Comparative, is
represented in this volume by Ese Ejja and Turkish Sign Language. Vuillermet
(this volume) discusses several types of bi-clausal comparatives, i.e. clauses forming
antonymous pairs, positive-(lessened) negative pairs or (intensified) positive-‘slightly’ pairs (7). Özsoy &
Kaşıkara
analyze several (sub-)types of bi-clausal comparatives in Turkish Sign
Language. The antonymous subject comparative construction is exemplified in (8).
(7)
|
Ese Ejja (Takanan)
|
|
’Beka
|
kia-kemo-nee~nee
|
peyo
|
y-ani,
|
’beka
|
iye-kemo
|
|
some
|
pos-big-very~rdp
|
snake
|
exs-sit
|
some
|
slightly-big
|
|
‘There
exist some snakes that are bigger than others (lit. there sit some very big
snakes, some not so big).’ (Vuillermet this volume)
|
(8)
|
Turkish
Sign Language
|
|
[NP NUM N] [CLa ADJ1] [CLb
ADJ2]
|
|
[TWO
|
MEN]
|
[ONE
|
TALL]
|
[ONE
|
SHORT]
|
|
two
|
men
|
one man
|
tall
|
one man
|
short
|
|
‘(There
are) two men. One is tall. One is short.’ (Özsoy
& Kaşıkara this volume)
|
Three of the languages described in this volume constitute a major
challenge for the existing comparative typologies. No type seems to fit the
Nivacle ‘all in one’-comparatives (Fabre this volume). In dedicated
mono-clausal comparative constructions of this language, the parameter is a
verb, the standard and comparee can be personal affixes to this verb, and the
standard marker is a verbal suffix that goes back to an associated motion
suffix.
(9)
|
Nivacle (Mataguayo)
|
|
na-tʔun-ʔin-ji-kʔoja
|
|
2SUBJ-be.strong-INT-1-STD.M.THAN
|
|
‘You (sg.) are much stronger than me.’ (Fabre this volume; glosses
adapted)
|
The categorization of Yalaku comparatives is
equally difficult. As elaborated on by Aikhenvald (this volume), the language
employs the directional verbs ‘go up’ and ‘go down’ for the expression of
comparison. This is reminiscent of the use of ‘surpass’ verbs in Type B of
Dixon’s typology; however, the Yalaku comparatives juxtaposed contrasting
clauses and are in this respect similar to the strategies of Dixon’s Type S.
(10)
|
Yalaku (Ndu)
|
|
[padi
|
tada-d],
|
[tu
|
wore-d],
|
[semi-d]
|
|
child
|
go.down-3masc.sg
|
man
|
go.up-3masc.sg
|
tall/long-3masc.sg
|
|
‘The child
is smaller than the father, (the father) is tall.’ (lit. ‘Child goes down, man
goes up, (he) is tall’) (Aikhenvald this volume)
|
Finally, the categorization of the Japhug comparative construction (Jacques this volume; Jacques 2016) is unresolved. The
postposed standard marker sɤz ‘than’ is a dedicated comparative morpheme, and the
construction could qualify as a Particle Comparative (or Pure Comparative in
Stolz’s (2013) terms). However, the comparee is marked by a postposed
ergative/instrumental morpheme kɯ. The typological oddity of using the same marker for the
A argument in a transitive clause and the comparee in an intransitive
comparative construction and possible historical explanations are discussed in
Jacques (2016).
(11)
|
Japhug
(Tibeto-Burman)
|
|
ɯ-ʁi
|
sɤz
|
[ɯ-pi
|
nɯ]
|
kɯ
|
mpɕɤr
|
|
3sg.poss-younger.sibling
|
comparative
|
3sg.poss-elder.sibling
|
dem
|
erg
|
be.beautiful:fact
|
|
‘The elder
one is more beautiful than the young one.’ (Jacques this volume)
|
The absence or presence of a degree marker on the parameter and its
morphological status are not relevant for the establishment of types in Stassen’s
and Dixon’s typologies. Degree marking is the central topic of Cuzzolin & Lehmann’s small paper (2004) on comparison
and gradation, and it plays a major role in Bobaljik’s
work on comparatives and superlatives (for details see §3.2). Cuzzolin & Lehmann (2004) distinguish four comparative
types based on the degree marking strategies: 1. no degree marker (as in
conjoined comparatives), 2. optional lexical morpheme (‘more’, ‘very’), 3.
degree affix, 4. ‘exceed’ verb. Affixal degree marking is only attested in the
comparative constructions of one (group of) languages in this volume, namely in
Alaskan Athabascan (Tuttle). Some languages, e.g. Murui (Wojtylak) and Kambaata
(Treis), can optionally use intensifiers (‘very’) in their comparative
constructions. Turkish Sign Language (Özsoy & Kaşıkara) has
two degree marking options in locational comparatives; it either uses
independent lexical signs or it incorporates the degree into the parameter
sign. Muna (van den Berg), Nivacle (Fabre) and, possibly,
Yalaku (Aikhenvald) fall into Cuzzolin
& Lehmann’s Type 4.
While many languages, especially in Eurasia, have morphological means to
express a superior degree (e.g. German -er as in klein-er ‘smaller’
and wichtig-er ‘more important’), no language is known
to mark inferior degree synthetically (see Bobaljik 2012:
209-213 and §3.2 below). There
are, however, languages that use parallel non-synthetic means for the
expression of superiority and inferiority; see the degree adverbs plus ‘more’ and moins ‘less’ in French (12).
(12)
|
French
|
|
La
|
nouvelle
|
équipe
|
est
|
plus
|
forte
|
que
|
l’ancienne
|
|
DEF.F
|
new.F
|
team
|
is
|
more
|
strong.F
|
than
|
DEF.F_old.F
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
La
|
nouvelle
|
équipe
|
est
|
moins
|
forte
|
que
|
l’ancienne
|
|
DEF.F
|
new.F
|
team
|
is
|
less
|
strong.F
|
than
|
DEF.F_old.F
|
|
‘The new
team is stronger / less strong than the old one.’
|
Furthermore, as reported by Dixon (2012: 362) with respect to the Chibchan language Teribe, the
type of inequality relation between comparee and standard – superiority vs.
inferiority – can also be encoded in the standard marker, with ‘above’
postposed to a superior standard and ‘below’ to an inferior standard. Languages
with ‘exceed’ comparatives (Dixon’s Type D) may have a parallel construction
with a transitive verb ‘fall short of’. Aikhenvald (this volume) shows how
Yalaku makes use of the verbs ‘go up’ and ‘go down’ to indicate an increase or
a decrease of a quality in comparatives of Type S.
Dixon (2012) discusses schemes of comparison that are rarely considered
in grammatical descriptions or typological works, namely property comparison (John is more loyal than intelligent) and
other complex comparatives as well as correlative comparatives (The riper the cheese, the stronger the smell)
(2012: 367ff). This discussion has encouraged Jacques (this volume) to investigate
property comparison in Japhug and van den Berg (this
volume) to analyze correlatives comparatives in Muna.
There are indications that comparative constructions have a
relatively high degree of borrowability and potential to diffuse. In linguistic
areas traditionally poor in dedicated comparative constructions, dominant
languages of wider communication may supply speakers of minority languages with
grammatical models through calquing (Dixon 2012: 371, e.g. Malay, Turkish,
English models). Areal patterns of
the expression of inequality have been studied by Heine (1994) based on
Stassen’s (1985) word-wide sample and by Heine & Zelealem
(2003) with respect to Africa. The contact influence of Spanish on comparative
constructions of various Amerindian and Austronesian languages is examined in Stolz
& Stolz (1995, 2001). Chamoreau (2012) investigates Spanish influence on
comparatives in Purepecha (isolate, Mexico); Wojtylak (this volume) discusses how Spanish impacts
comparative constructions in Murui (Witotoan). The most detailed areally oriented study of comparative constructions is
Stolz (2013), which examines the coexistence of formally distinct
morphosyntactic constructions for the expressions of comparison of inequality
in European languages and the influence of language contact.
3.2. Superlativity
While the
expression of relative inequality has been studied extensively, only few
typological studies are dedicated to constructions of superlativity.
Superlatives express that a comparee has a parameter to a higher degree than each
individual entity in a group of (normally) more than two. In his 1972 publication
on comparison, Ultan also discusses superlatives besides
comparative and equatives. He notes the strong formal resemblances between comparatives
and superlatives – which are significantly more pronounced than those between
comparatives and equatives. Frequently,
standard markers and, if present, degree markers of comparatives and
superlatives are the same or formally related; the parameters of comparatives
and superlatives may have identical or similar suppletive forms (see good – better – best) or morphological
patterns (see the so-called “elative” pattern in Arabic), and set comparatives
and superlatives apart from equatives. Ultan’s study is an important point of departure for the
two most detailed typological studies on superlatives to date, Gorshenin (2012) and Bobaljik
(2012). Both publications have occurred in the same year; the underlying
studies have been carried out in parallel and apparently without knowledge of
each other. Both authors have a very different take on the subject matter. Bobaljik
is primarily an in-depth analysis of the morphology of degree marking. Gorshenin’s working paper has a broader focus and develops
a typology of superlative constructions according to (morpho‑)syntactic
features that differentiate superlatives from the constructions they are based
on, i.e. comparative or simple positive constructions.
Gorshenin makes an important
distinction between languages in which the superlative constructions are
formally based on comparatives (and in which degree and standard markers are
shared across these constructions) and languages in which superlative and
comparative constructions are distinct (and in which degree or standard markers
are not shared, and where superlativity is primarily expressed
through a dedicated superlative degree morpheme) (2012: 79). Departing
from a semantic definition of superlative constructions, Gorshenin
classifies the construction types attested in the 55 languages of his sample,
firstly, according to their primary (obligatory) superlative marker and,
secondly, according to their derivational base (positive vs. comparative
construction) (2012: 83). His classification results in five major types, which
are named after the conceptual/semantic components that need to be explicit in
the surface structure.
1. Type A = Absolute Comparison Superlative (Gorshenin 2012: 87-110): Type A is
cross-linguistically the most common type. It
is based on a comparative construction with the standard expressed by a
universal quantifier all,
every(body/thing) or an
indefinite pronoun any(body/thing) as
head of the phrase or as modifier. Superlatives of Type A are hardly (if at
all) grammaticalised. They can be based on any comparative type: adverbial
comparatives (13), particle comparatives, ‘exceed’ comparatives, and (see Bobaljik
2012: 66) conjoined comparatives.
(13)
|
Khoekhoe
(Central Khoisan)
|
|
Ne
|
khoi-b
|
ge
|
hoa-n
|
xa
|
a
|
gei
|
|
D1
|
person-3SG.M
|
SUBJ
|
all-3PL.C
|
from
|
COP.PRES
|
big
|
|
‘This man
is bigger (taller) than anybody (or: is
the biggest of all).’ (Rust 1965: 37 cited after Gorshenin
2012: 88)
|
See also the Type
A superlatives in languages discussed in this volume: Kambaata (Treis), Alaskan
Athabascan (Tuttle), Ese Ejja (Vuillermet) and Murui (Wojtylak).
2. Type S = Scope Superlative (Gorshenin 2012: 111-122): Type S is characterised by the
explicit expression of the scope, i.e. the group of entities that the comparee
belongs to but from which it is singled out. It is either based on positive or
comparative constructions. Languages with Type S superlatives mostly mark the
scope-denoting noun by a locative adposition or affix; see the Kambaata Type S
superlative in (14).
(14)
|
Kambaata
(Afroasiatic, Cushitic)
|
|
Haqq-áan
|
fárr-u
|
m-áha-a-n?
|
|
wood-mLOC
|
bad-mNOM
|
what-mPRED-mCOP2-Q
|
|
‘What is
the worst wood(en thing)
(lit. Among wood, the bad (one) is what?).’ (Treis this volume)
|
The correct
interpretation of Type S constructions presupposes (extra-linguistic) knowledge
of the fact that the comparee is a member of the group identified by the
standard (Gorshenin 2012: 115). In the same way as
Type A, Type S is little, if at all grammaticalised. Furthermore, Type A and S
reflect a common cognitive scheme, which the author summarizes in the formula
[Topic is more Comment than A(1…n)]
(2012: 160), or according to the terminology of this volume: [Comparee is more
Parameter than A(1…n)]. A superlative expresses multiple comparison
of a comparee with all entities belonging to the scope. The scope is either
expressed by a universal quantifier or the group to which the comparee belongs
is named.
3. Type DEG = Conventionalized Degree
Superlative (Gorshenin 2012: 122-143): Type DEG
is characterised by the obligatory use of a dedicated degree marker, which accompanies
the parameter and can either be free or bound; cf. e.g. English -estas in great-estand most as in most important. The superlative morpheme ‑en in Basque (15) contrasts with the comparative
degree marker ‑ago. For a free superlative degree marker
see also Japhug (Jacques this volume).
(15)
|
Basque
(isolate)
|
|
Miren
|
d-a
|
eskola-ko
|
neska-rik
|
ederr-en-a
|
|
PN.ABS
|
3.ABS-COP.PRES
|
school-RLT
|
girl-PRTV
|
beautiful-SUP-ABS.SG
|
|
‘Miren is the most beautiful among the girls of the school.’
(Saltarelli 1988: 128, 249, cited after Gorshenin
2012: 128)
|
Most languages of Gorshenin’s sample add the superlative morpheme to the
positive form of the adjective. Note, however, that Hungarian prefixes the
superlative to the comparative form, e.g. leg-magas-abb SUP-tall-COMP
‘tallest’ (2012: 133), and that Yaitepec Chatino adds
the superlative after the comparative particle (2012: 139).
4. Type INT = Intensifier Superlative (Gorshenin 2012: 143-149): Type INT includes an overt degree
marker, which is, however, not restricted to the expression of superlativity but has a general intensifying function
‘very’, ‘by far’, etc. (16). Depending on the language, the intensifier is
added to the comparative or the simple positive predication.
(16)
|
Ese Ejja (Takanan)
|
|
Jikio
|
’beka
|
e-sowi
|
kia-pame-nee~nee
|
|
DEM
|
some
|
NPF-story
|
POS-good-very~RDP
|
|
‘There is
no other commandment greater than these (lit. these few words are very very
good).’ (Vuillermet this volume)
|
The following
cognitive schema is said to underlie the morphosyntactically
defined types DEG and INT: [Topic is especially Comment], or in the terminology
of this volume: [Comparee is especially Parameter] (Gorshenin
2012: 160). The comparee has a salient, intensive quality, which is either
expressed by a dedicated superlative morpheme (DEG) or elative morpheme or
lexeme (INT).
5. Topic (= Comparee) Prominence Superlatives
fall into two subtypes. Type DEF superlatives (Gorshenin
2012: 149-152) are characterised by the obligatory occurrence of a definiteness
morpheme in the predicative constituent (17).
(17)
|
French
|
|
Paul
|
est
|
le
|
plus
|
intelligent
|
|
PN
|
COP.3SG.PRES
|
DEF.SG.M
|
COMP
|
intelligent
|
|
‘Paul is
the most intelligent.’ (Gorshenin 2012: 150;
glosses adapted)
|
In the second
subtype, Type FOCUS, the comparee is singled out in a focus construction (lit.
‘It is A which is tall’ for ‘A is the tallest’) (Gorshenin
2012: 152f). Both subtypes reflect the cognitive scheme [Topic is salient with
respect to Comment], or said differently: [Comparee is
salient with respect to Parameter] (2012: 160).
Regarding the
determining internal factors for the choice of a certain superlative strategy, Gorshenin points out that “the way a language expresses the
Degree component in its comparative predications is much more relevant for its
choice of a particular superlative type than the way in which the Relator [=
standard marker] is expressed.” (2012: 161). Regarding external factors, Gorshenin emphasizes, like Bobaljik
(2012), the importance of areal factors for the choice of certain superlative
strategies (2012: 164-168). Type A Superlatives are common in the world except in
Europe. Languages of Africa and America prefer periphrastic/non-grammaticalised
ways of expressing superlativity, i.e. Type A + Type
S. Among languages having Type DEG constructions, almost three fourths are
spoken in Eurasia; synthetic superlatives are almost exclusive to Eurasia. Finally,
Type DEF Superlatives are concentrated around the Mediterranean.
Based on a much
larger survey of 300 languages, Bobaljik (2012) examines recurring
cross-linguistic regularities of comparative and superlative suppletion. In many languages, a handful of
adjectives base their comparative form on a root that is not related to the
root used for the positive, see, for instance, English good – better – best (pattern ABB) and Latin bonus – melior – optimus ‘good’ (ABC). When an adjective is marked for degree by suppletion, then it
is suppletive in both the comparative and superlative grade (2012: 27-31). In
the majority of cases, comparative and superlative forms use the same suppletive
root; suppletive triplets as in Latin are cross-linguistically rare (2012: 29).
Virtually unattested are cases in which an adjective in a language has only a
suppletive comparative (hypothetical pattern: *ABA) or only a suppletive
superlative (*AAB). Bobaljik counts about one hundred distinct cognate
suppletive triplets in the languages of his sample (2012: 111-112). The most
common suppletive qualitative roots mean ‘good’ and ‘bad’; the most common suppletive
quantifiers are ‘many/much’ and ‘few, little’ (2012: 128f), e.g. German viel – mehr – (am) meisten ‘much’ and Latin paucus – min-or – min-imus ‘few’.
Bobaljik draws other important
generalizations from his data: No language has morphological (synthetic)
superlatives (A-est)
but only periphrastic (analytic) comparatives (more A);
and if a language has suppletive degree forms, they are limited to
morphological (synthetic) comparatives, i.e. suppletive roots are not used in
analytic comparatives (hypothetical *more
bett for better
(2012: 70). The strongest empirically supported generalization concerns the
expression of inferiority: Unlike comparison of superiority, comparison of
inferiority is never affixal in languages (2012: 209-213).
|
analytic
|
synthetic
|
superiority
|
more ADJ
|
ADJ-er
|
interiority
|
less ADJ
|
*
|
(Bobaljik 2012: 210)
Bobaljik finds morphological marking
of comparative and superlative degree around the globe, but comparative and superlative
suppletion remains an areal phenomenon. Suppletive
marking is limited to about 70 European languages and its close neighbours,
i.e. Indo-European, Finno-Ugric, Kartvelian, Northwest Caucasian and Basque
(2012: 17, 41f).
Given the
different foci and theoretical backgrounds, Gorshenin’s
and Bobaljik’s works complement each other. They seem
to disagree, however, in one important aspect of their analysis. Embedded in
the framework of Distributed Morphology, Bobaljik states in his most central
hypothesis that “[t]he representation of the superlative properly contains that
of the comparative [in all languages that have a morphological superlative]”
[Containment Hypothesis] (Bobaljik 2012: 73). The embedding of the superlative
in the comparative is shown to be transparent in the overt synchronic (or
diachronically reconstructable) morphology in many
languages, in which a superlative morpheme consists of a comparative morpheme
and a superlative morpheme proper. Additional important evidence comes from
shared suppletive comparative-suppletive patterns.
The universal claim that superlatives always contain comparatives is even
maintained when this relation is not morphologically transparent, i.e. seen on
the surface (Bobaljik 2012: 108). In contrast, Gorshenin
emphasizes that, although superlatives can be assumed to be a semantic subtype
of comparatives, not all superlative constructions are formally based on
comparative constructions – see his prominent distinction between positive and
comparative derivational bases (2012: 78, 80).
The information on
the distribution of superlative types in Gorshenin’s
and Bobaljik’s works has been assembled in a database
and visualized on an interactive map by Coppock (2016).
The languages in
this volume all lack morphological superlative marking on adjectives or other
property words. Only Japhug, a Tibeto-Burman language
(Jacques this volume), has a dedicated free superlative degree morpheme and is
hence the only language of this volume that can be said to have grammaticalized
superlativity. The contributions assembled here
provide additional evidence for Gorshenin’s and Bobaljik’s observation that superlativity
is infrequently grammaticalized in the languages of the world.
3.3. Equality
Comparison of
equality has been studied in a cross-linguistic perspective by Haspelmath &
Buchholz (1998), based on a sample of European languages, Henkelmann (2006) on 25
languages worldwide, and Haspelmath et al. (2017) on 119 languages worldwide. Equatives
are contrasted to comparatives in Ultan (1972);
equative degree marking is also briefly discussed in Cuzzolin
& Lehmann (2004) and Dixon (2012: 361f).
Haspelmath et al. (2017: 14f, 18-22)
divide the equative constructions into six primary types with reference to the
five core components of comparison constructions (cf. §2). The six primary types
differ in whether equative degree is overtly expressed or not, whether the
notion of equality is expressed in a primary predicate (with the parameter
backgrounded) or in a secondary predicate (with the parameter foregrounded),
and whether comparee and standard are encoded in separate phrases or in one
unified phrase. Unlike in many typologies of comparative constructions, the
etymology and/or multifunctionality of the standard marker is not considered
relevant for the establishment of types. Likewise, the morphological status of
standard and degree markers is not decisive for their categorisation.
-Type 1: Only equative standard marker - “Kim is tall [like] Pat].”
-Type 2: Equative degree-marker and standard-marker - “Kim is [equally tall] [as Pat].”
-Type 3: Equative degree-marker unified - “[Kim and Pat] are [equally tall].”
-Type 4: Primary reach equative - “Kim [reaches/equals Pat] in height.”
-Type 5: Primary reach equative unified -
“[Kim and Pat] are equal (to each
other) in height.”
-Type 6: Secondary reach equative - “Kim is tall [reaching/equaling Pat].”
Type 1, which lacks a
degree marker, is the most common type in Haspelmath et al.’s (2017) sample and
also represented in this volume; see (18) from Ladakhi,
where the standard is marked by the suffix -ʦek, while the parameter is not
marked for degree.
(18)
|
Ladakhi, Shamskat dialects, Domkhar
variety (Western Tibetan, Tibeto-Burman)
|
|
l̥ʧaŋma˖o
|
naŋ-po-ʦek
|
thonbo
|
duk
|
|
tree.DF
|
house-DF-as.much
|
high
|
VIS.be
|
|
‘The tree
is as high as the house (visual evidence).’ (Zeisler this volume)
|
The morphological
status of the standard marker can, of course, vary from language to language; in
Murui (Wojtylak this volume) and Alaskan Athabascan (Tuttle this volume), for
instance, the equative standard markers are postpositions rather than suffixes.
In some languages of the world, the equative standard marker is a special case
morpheme; see, for instance, the equative case in Ancash Quechua (Cuzzolin & Lehmann 2004: 1219, Haspelmath &
Buchholz 1998: 285) and Siberian Yupik (de Reuse 1994: 34, cited after Schulze
2017).
Type 1 is
represented in this volume by Ladakhi (Zeisler), Kambaata (Treis) and Murui (Wojtylak).
Type 2 is very common in Europe.
The so-called “correlative constructions”, a subtype of Type 2, is characteristic
of the European Linguistic Area, but not attested outside of Europe (Haspelmath
et al. 2017: 19). In these particular constructions, a demonstrative (see tam in (19)) is used as degree marker
and a formally related adverbial relative morpheme ‘how’ (quam in (19)) as standard marker.
(19)
|
Latin
(Romance, Indo-European)
|
|
Claudia
|
tam
|
docta
|
est
|
quam
|
Julius
|
|
Claudia
|
[so
|
learned]
|
is
|
how
|
Julius
|
|
‘Claudia is
as learned as Julius.’ (Haspelmath et al. 2017: 12)
|
Even though
correlative constructions are not found outside of Europe, one also finds on
other continents languages that use both a degree and a standard marker in
their equative constructions. It is no clear whether Type 2 is represented in
our volume. The only possible representative seems Alaskan Athabascan (Tuttle);
note, however, that the degree marker d- used
in equative constructions is also used in comparative constructions.
In the languages
of the world, analytic is more common than synthetic equative degree marking.
In Europe, synthetic equative degree marking is restricted to Celtic,
Finno-Ugric and Kartvelian languages. Synthetic equative degree marking is also
attested in some non-European languages, such as Indonesian, Tagalog and
Greenlandic Eskimo (Cuzzolin & Lehmann 2004: 1218;
Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998: 283). Apart from Alaskan Athabascan, this
special issue includes another language with synthetic equative degree marking,
namely Ese Ejja (Vuillermet). This language does, however, not qualify as a
Type 2 language for reasons elaborated below.
In Type 3, the comparee and the standard
are conjoined in a noun phrase. In Type
4, which is common in African languages, equality is expressed by a verb
meaning ‘equal, reach’. In general, the verb is transitive and takes the
comparee as subject and the standard as object. One of the equative
constructions of the Tibeto-Burman language Japhug (Jacques this volume) might also classify as Type 4, as it is a serial verb
construction of a similative verb ‘be like’, which takes the comparee and the
standard as arguments, as V1 and a quality verb as V2.
In Type 5, comparee
and standard are conjoined in a noun phrase with ‘equal, reach’ as the main
predicate. In this special issue, Type 5 is represented by the second equative
construction of Japhug (Jacques). Finally, in Type 6,
the parameter is the primary predicate, while equality is expressed in a
secondary predicate.
Haspelmath et al. (2017: 25) have found
little evidence for languages that have only degree-markers but no standard
markers in their equative constructions (“Kim is [equally tall] Pat”), but the description by Vuillermet (this
volume) shows that Ese Ejja could be a language with such a equative construction type. In (20), the adjectival parameter ‘big’ is marked
for equative degree by a morpheme ‑jja, which enables the adjective to take a second
(incorporated) semantic argument. The Ese Ejja example is very reminiscent of
the only potential counterexample presented by Haspelmath et al. (2017: 25), cited
after Olawsky (2006). In Urarina,
a handful of adjectives receive a transitivizing equative degree suffix and can then combine with an unmarked preposed standard.
(20)
|
Ese Ejja (Takanan)
|
|
’Bawapoji
|
Miguel-kemo-jja
|
|
Alejandro
|
Miguel-big-EQU
|
|
‘Alejandro is as tall as Miguel.’ (Vuillermet this volume)
|
After a discussion
of the primary types, Haspelmath et al. (2017: 23f) also mention some
infrequently attested other types in their data (see also Henkelmann 2006), among
these minor types are conjoined (biclausal) equatives
(“Kim is tall, Pat is like that, too”) and
equatives in which nominalized parameters are the primary arguments (“Kim’s
tallness is like Pat’s tallness”). One of the Nivacle equative constructions
could qualify as a biclausal equative (see
construction 6 in Fabre’s description). Equative constructions in Muna, an Austronesian language described by van den Berg in
this volume, resemble the second minor type of Haspelmath et al.’s. But while
the parameter is nominalized in Muna equative
constructions, the comparee and standard are conjoined.
(21)
|
Muna
(Austronesian)
|
|
Sau
|
aini
|
bhe
|
sau
|
aitu
|
no-pototo
|
ka-wana-no
|
|
wood
|
this
|
with
|
wood
|
that
|
3SG.SU.REAL-same
|
NMLZ-long-3SG.POSS
|
|
‘This piece of wood and that piece of wood
(near you) are equally long.’ (Lit. ‘… its length is the same.’) (van den Berg this volume; glosses adapted)
|
To summarize, some
equative constructions discussed in this special issue can easily be
categorised into one of the types proposed by Haspelmath et al. (2017), but for
many constructions it is difficult, if not impossible to decide to which type
to associate them. The primary Muna equative
construction (van den Berg) resembles one of the proposed minor types, Ese Ejja
(Vuillermet) seems to be an example of an unattested type, the various Japhug constructions (Jacques) are only remotely similar to
the established types. Finally, one of the Nivacle equative constructions, the
“all-in-one equative” (construction 5 in Fabre’s paper), defies categorization,
too. Given that all descriptions are primarily based on fieldwork corpora, some
of which contain only few equative examples, the question of how generalized
attested expressions of equality are (a problem that is also addressed in
Haspelmath et al. 2017) must remain open in many cases.
3.4. Similarity
Expressions of similarity, a comparison with regard to
the manner in which actions are carried out, are usually not included into
typological works on the expression of comparison. A
notable exception is Haspelmath & Buchholz (1998), based on data from 43 European
languages. In their contrastive study of equative and similative constructions,
they show that in the majority of Standard Average European languages the
standard marker in equative and similative constructions is identical or
formally related, notable exceptions are English (as vs. like), three Roman
languages including French (que vs. come), and nine non-SAE languages (1998:
313ff). English is thus a fairly exceptional SAE language making a formal
distinction between equative and similative constructions (22)-(23); note
especially the use of as [2] vs. like
has standard marker.
(22)
|
English (Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998: 278)
|
|
Robert
is as
[1] tall as [2] Maria
|
|
|
(23)
|
He
sings like a nightingale
|
The use of one and the same standard marker in both
types of comparison constructions seems common all over the world (a
large-scale typological study has yet to be carried out). If equative degree
is not marked overtly in a language (unlike in English where as [1] is used), and if no formal distinction is made between lexemes
expressing properties and action/processes (unlike in English where the
adjectival predicate is tall is
formally different from a verbal predicate sings),
then equative and similative constructions don’t display any formal differences
at all.
Formal resemblance between equative and similative
constructions are also observed in the languages discussed in this volume. In
Kambaata, for instance, the enclitic morpheme =g, which goes back to a noun meaning ‘manner’, marks standards of equative (24) and similative
constructions (25).
(24)
|
Kambaata
(Cushitic, Afroasiatic)
|
|
Zoobb-ée=g-a
|
xalig-á
|
ik-kumbóochch (…)
|
|
lions-mGEN=G-mOBL/ACC
|
strong-mACC
|
be-2sNREL.ABL
|
|
‘Unless you
are strong like/as strong as lions, (…).’ (Treis this volume)
|
(25)
|
{Adan-ch-ó=g-a}
|
gá’l-a
|
agg-óomm
|
|
cats-SGTV-mGEN=G-mACC/OBL
|
shard-mOBL
|
drink-1sPFV
|
|
‘I drank
from a shard like a cat.’ (Treis this volume; glosses adapted)
|
In Japhug (Jacques this volume), the first of
three equative construction is analyzed as a particular type of the similative
serial verb construction; both constructions include the verb ‘be like’. In
Alaskan Athabascan (Tuttle this volume), the equative standard marker is
glossed as ‘like’ – which could imply that this morpheme is also used for the
expression of similarity. In Murui (Wojtylak this volume) and Ese Ejja
(Vuillermet this volume) there are possibly etymological links between the
grammatical morphemes used in similative and equative constructions. With
respect to Nivacle, Fabre (this volume) states explicitly that “[t]here is no
clear-cut morphosyntactic distinction between equatives and similatives”. Many contributions to Treis & Vanhove (2017) that compare
the encoding of equality and similarity in individual languages also note straightforward
formal connections between equative and similative constructions.
4. Questionnaire
The following
analytical questionnaire has been shared with the contributors to this volume
as an aid to examine comparison constructions from various angles. The
questionnaire has been inspired by but is not congruent with Dixon’s
questionnaire (2012: 372f), which the reader is also encouraged to consult.
Part 1
-Is there a dedicated comparative
construction? If so, what is its typological type(s) in the various well-known typologies
(e.g. Stassen 1985, Heine 1997, Dixon 2012)? If not, does the language have
other periphrastic means of expressing comparison (so-called “comparative
strategies” in Dixon 2012: 359f)?
-If there are several means/constructions for
expressing comparison of inequality (e.g. several constructions expression
superiority), what are the semantic, pragmatic or morphosyntactic factors
conditioning their use? Are there differences in frequency?
-What is the form and structure of the constitutive
elements of the comparative construction?
◦What is the grammatical
status of the parameter of
comparison (e.g. adjective, stative verb, verb)? Does the parameter belong to a closed word class?
Is the parameter expressed by
lexemes that are considered to be gradable in this language/culture?
◦What
is the syntactic status of the constitutive elements of the comparative
construction/strategy (e.g. core, peripheral arguments)? Are they overtly
marked?
◦Are any of the elements of the comparative
construction/strategy optional? If so, what are factors conditioning their use?
◦Does the language allow for the comparison
of properties (e.g. He is luckier than he
is stupid)?
-What type of clause construction do comparative
constructions involve (e.g. copula clause, verbless clause)?
-Which other functions do the grammatical
morphemes (standard marker, parameter/degree
marker) used in comparative constructions have elsewhere in the
language?
-Is there any indication of the possible
diachronic origin of the comparative construction/strategy (e.g. consider calques
or borrowings from superstrate languages under language contact or areal
diffusion of common patterns)? Is the origin of the grammatical morphemes used
in comparative construction/strategy traceable (to e.g. prepositions, adverbs,
intensifiers, verbs)?
-Does the language permit attributive
comparative constructions? If yes, how are they encoded?
-What types of intensifiers (augmentative,
diminutive) are used in the comparative constructions of the language (if any)?
-Are there any inherently comparative lexemes
(e.g. [be] better than, [be] taller than)? If so, what word class(es) do they belong to? Do they have any special properties
in comparative constructions?
-Are comparative constructions particularly
common in certain genres (e.g. language games and contests) and in certain
linguistics contexts (e.g. idioms)?
-Which methodologies were
applied to collect data for the analysis of comparative constructions (e.g.
analysis of a text corpus, elicitation, and non-verbal stimuli)?
Part 2
-Are there any structural similarities
between comparative constructions and other comparison constructions?
◦How is comparison of equality encoded?
◦How is comparison of absolute superiority (superlativity) encoded?
◦How is similarity encoded?
◦How is identity/equivalence (‘the same as’)
or difference encoded?
-Apply the questions concerning comparative
constructions also to other types of comparison constructions.
5. Contribution to typology of comparative constructions
Given that there
is such a vast amount of literature on comparative constructions, from a
typological perspective as well as in the form of descriptions of comparatives
in individual languages, how can this special issue still advance our
knowledge? First of all, most descriptions assembled in this special issue go
beyond a description of comparative constructions in the narrow sense and also
consider, as far as the data allows, superlative, equative, similative and
simulative constructions. This broad approach permits the authors to see
structural differences and commonalities between all types of comparison
constructions, e.g. which standard markers are shared or have the same
etymologies. While the existing typological literature is in large part explicitly
concerned with canonical comparison constructions,
which consist of a comparative predicate (parameter) and two noun phrases, one
denoting the comparee, the other denoting the standard of comparison, the
contributions in this volume do not exclude non-canonical constructions and
also examine (i) predicative constructions with
complex comparees and standards, (ii) attributive constructions, in which all
constitutive elements of a comparison construction are expressed in one noun
phrase (Treis, Jacques), (iii) constructions in which two properties are
compared (Jacques) and (iv) correlative comparative constructions (van den
Berg) and (v) inferiority constructions (Fabre). Inspired by Dixon (2008, 2012)
some contributions also consider inherently comparative lexemes, which is
another little studied feature cross-linguistically (e.g. van den Berg). Wherever
possible, authors point out areal marking patterns or contact influence (e.g. Wojtylak)
and discuss the diachronic origins of grammatical morphemes used in comparison
constructions (e.g. Treis). Finally, the present volume contains the first description
of comparative constructions in a sign language (Özsoy
& Kaşıkara).
Several languages
described in this volume do not have dedicated comparative constructions with a
grammaticalised standard and/or degree marker but use bi-clausal strategies for
the expression of comparison (Aikhenvald, Vuillermet, Özsoy & Kaşıkara). Typological rara that
are discussed in the individual papers include, among others, the use of
directional verbs in bi-clausal comparatives in Yalaku (Aikhenvald), all-in-one
comparatives (one-word comparatives) in Nivacle (Fabre), standards that are
incorporated in the parameter in Ese Ejja (Vuillermet) and equative
constructions with denominal adjectives (‘N-like’) in Japhug
(Jacques).
With regard to
methodology, most descriptions are based on fieldwork corpora collected in the
speaker communities and make little use of data collected through translation
elicitation. This has several important consequences: Firstly, the descriptions
do not concentrate only on primary, frequent comparison constructions but also
take many alternative constructions into account (see, for instance, the papers
by Fabre, Jacques, van den Berg and Wojtylak; see in this regard also Stolz’s
(2013) work on competing comparative constructions in Europe and Gorshenin’s (2012) work on primary and alternative
superlative constructions), some of which are attributable to certain genres
(see, for instance, the frequent use of the otherwise rare ‘exceed’
comparatives in translated Muna material). Secondly,
this focus on natural fieldwork data also uncovers problems of data collection
that fieldworkers face. As discussed in Tuttle’s paper, it may emerge that
certain speaker communities do not compare very much and that a description of
comparison constructions is then very difficult, and possibly little relevant. Thirdly,
the study of the use of comparison constructions in natural contexts may
challenge the crosslinguistic validity of established
concepts such as gradability and scalarity
(Zeisler).
Correlations
between linguistic and cultural traits are addressed in the papers by
Aikhenvald, Tuttle and van den Berg.
6. Outline of the volume
Seven out of eleven papers presented at the workshop “Comparative and
Superlative Constructions: Typology and Diachrony” (16-17 June 2015) at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam are
published in this volume, three additional papers have been included to ensure
some more geographical and typological variation. As a result, this issue consists of case studies of comparative constructions in
languages of the Americas (Murui, Nivacle, Ese Ejja, and Alaskan Athabascan), of
Africa (Kambaata), of East and Southeast Asia (Japhug,
Ladakh and Muna) and of New
Guinea (Yalaku) (see Map 1). It also contains the first ever analysis of
comparative constructions in a sign language, Turkish Sign Language.
In the first
paper, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald discusses the expression of comparison, contrast
and similarity in Yalaku, and Ndu
language of Papua New Guinea. Like most Papuan languages, Yalaku does not have
a dedicated comparative construction but two uncommon bi-clausal “comparative
strategies” in the sense of Dixon (2012: 341-61), each of which involves a
contrast. In the first cross-linguistically and areally
uncommon strategy, the directional verb ‘go up’ expresses superiority, while
the directional verbs ‘go down’ and ‘go down slope’ express inferiority, e.g.
‘Child goes down, man goes up, (he) is tall’ for ‘The child is smaller than the
father, (he) is tall’. Secondly, Yalaku employs an areally very common contrastive strategy, in which two antonymous
verbless clauses or a positive-negative pair are juxtaposed, e.g. ‘I thin, she
fat’ for ‘she is fatter than me’ (see also the contributions by Özsoy & Kaşıkara on Turkish
Sign Language, Vuillermet on Ese Ejja). Talking about similarity and equality
is shown to be a pervasive feature of Yalaku narratives and conversations. The
suffix ‑meki ‘like’
expresses similarity, resemblance and related notions. It is attached to different
constituents (including relative and co-temporaneous
clauses) to mark them as standards of comparison. Equality is expressed only
lexically in Yalaku.
Alain Fabre’s
paper deals with comparative and equative constructions in Nivacle, a language
of the Mataguayo family spoken in Paraguay and
Argentina. The language is known for its bewildering variety of typological
rarities, and comparative and equative constructions show cross-linguistic
peculiarities, too. Property concepts in Nivacle are verbs, on which the
standard maker is expressed as a verbal suffix and on which both comparee and
standard can be personal affixes. This results in cross-linguistically uncommon
“all-in-one” comparatives and equatives that are packaged into a single word. Equally
noteworthy is the etymology of standard markers in Nivacle: The associated
motion suffix ‑kʔoja,
which indicates the
anticipated coming of a non-subject participant in its canonical use,
introduces the standard in comparative constructions. The associated motion suffix ‑xuɬ, which indicates the simultaneous coming into the visual
field of a non-subject participant in its canonical use, serves to mark the
standard of comparison in equative and similative constructions. Fabre gives a
detailed overview of a large variety of mono-clausal and bi-clausal
construction types and sub-types that Nivacle people use to express inequality,
equality, similarity and difference.
Guillaume Jacques’s paper on Japhug, a
Tibeto-Burman language spoken in the Sichuan province of China, documents a
wealth of morpho-syntactically complex equative, similative,
comparative and superlative constructions on the basis of a corpus of
narratives. In the comparative construction, the standard is marked by a
dedicated postposition. For the expression of superlativity,
no less than three constructions are attested in Japhug,
the first one with a degree marker ‘most’, the second one with a possessed
subject participle (‘Y is the X one of …’), and the third one with a relative
clause with a negative existential verb (‘there is no X one like Y’). The main
similative construction involves an intransitive stative verb ‘be like (this)’
or a transitive verb ‘do like (this)’. The first equative construction is based
on the similative construction and uses the verb ‘be like (this)’. The second
is a complex nominalized degree construction, in which standard and comparee
are unified. The third construction leaves the parameter unexpressed and
contains a possessed noun ‘of the same size’. The fourth equative construction
is typological especially interesting because it does not fit any category of existing
equative typologies; it is built on denominal adjectives (‘N-like’). Despite
the lexical influence of Tibetan languages on Japhug
and the fact that some of the comparison constructions involve Tibetan
borrowings, none of them appears to be calqued from their Tibetan equivalents.
A. Sumru Özsoy & Hüner
Kaşıkara show that Turkish Sign Language has two distinct comparative
constructions, namely conjoined comparatives and locational comparatives.
Conjoined comparatives are made up of two independent clauses; one clause
contains the standard NP, the other one the comparee NP, both occur in subject
function in their clauses. In locational comparative constructions, a single
predicate expresses the parameter shared by the participants. The two NPs are
located in the signing space by indexing (IX) and body shift. Comparison
between the two arguments is encoded by IXCOMP (the index of comparison). Given
that directionality is one of the means that sign languages use to represent
the relationship between verbs and their arguments and that the direction of
the path movement of the manual sign is determined by the thematic roles of the
arguments from the R-locus of the SOURCE argument to the R-locus of the GOAL
argument in “backward agreement” contexts, the authors argue that the
directionality of movement in the comparative construction in Turkish Sign
Language is parallel to the verbal agreement of sign languages.
Yvonne Treis’s paper is an in-depth study of the expression of
comparison in Kambaata, a Highland East Cushitic language of Ethiopia. It
discusses not only quantitative comparison, i.e. comparison of relative and
absolute inequality and comparison of equality, but also analyses the
morphology and syntax of expressions of qualitative comparison, i.e. comparison
of similarity. Apart from canonical predicative constructions, the analysis also
takes attributive constructions into account. In the comparative construction
(lit. ‘X is tall from Y’), the standard of comparison is marked by the ablative
case, as in most languages spoken in the Horn of Africa. Kambaata distinguishes
between two superlative constructions, one of which is based on the comparative
construction (‘X is tall from all’), while the other is characterised by a
locative standard of comparison (‘X is tall among Y’). Furthermore, Kambaata
has two equative constructions. The first is based on the similative
construction (‘X is tall like Y’); the second is a periphrastic construction
(‘X is tall to the extent Y’). The paper argues that the enclitic morpheme
which marks the standard of comparison in the similative construction
originates from a noun meaning ‘manner’.
Siri Tuttle
surveys comparative constructions in three Alaskan Athabascan languages,
Koyukon, Ahtna and Tanana based on archived and published examples and
fieldwork experiments. Comparatives in these languages fall into Dixon’s (2008,
2012) Type A2, with parameters being expressed through adjectival neuter verbs
and standard markers in (spatial/temporal) postpositions. Superlatives are not
as well represented in lexical documentation as comparatives, which are
themselves rare in texts. In order to supplement her database, the author
resorts to the elicitation of expressions of comparison, assisted by non-verbal
stimuli. The results of her experiments in Ahtna and Koyukon support her
earlier observations that the rarity of comparatives and superlatives is
related to cultural norms in Athabascan communities, where comparison
(especially of people) can be considered rude, and superlatives evidence of
inappropriate pride.
René van den
Berg’s contribution takes us to Sulawesi (Indonesia), where he studies the
expression of comparison in the Austronesian language Muna.
The authors addresses a variety of comparative,
superlative and equative constructions and embeds their description in the
typological discussion. Of typological interest in Muna
comparative constructions are the use of a comitative preposition as standard
marker (lit. ‘he big-s with me’ for ‘he is bigger than me’) and the lack of a
designated lexeme ‘less’ for the expression of inferior degree. While ‘surpass’
comparatives are an infrequent alternative to the regular comparative with
‘with’, a participial form of ‘surpass’ serves regularly as the degree marker
in superlative constructions. In the most common equative construction, the
degree is expressed by an intransitive verb ‘be the same’ followed by a
nominalized stative verb expressing the parameter of comparison. One section of
van den Berg’s paper is specifically dedicated to Muna
correlative comparison constructions, in which two comparative clauses are
juxtaposed and introduced by the same conjunction (‘the more’). In an excursus
at the end of his paper, van den Berg relates the wealth of comparison
constructions to various aspects of Muna culture such
as the popularity of competitive games and the traditional social
stratification.
Marine Vuillermet examines the expression of comparison in the
Amazonian language Ese Ejja (Takanan)
and explores both quantitative (relative (in)equality and superlativity)
and qualitative comparison (similarity and simulation). This broad perspective
reveals a clear asymmetry: while qualitative comparison is expressed via
morphemes well incorporated into the grammar of the language, i.e. dedicated
suffixes and enclitics, and is well represented in the corpus, quantitative
comparison is most often expressed by strategies (rather than dedicated
morphology) and is scarce in her corpus of spontaneous language. The
quasi-absence of dedicated morphology for the expression of quantitative
comparison is all the more remarkable when taking into account that the
language has a large class of adjectives with a rich paradigm of adjectival
affixes, which, for instance, negate, attenuate or question the adjectival
root. Comparison of relative inequality is expressed by the juxtaposition of
antonymous clauses, positive-negative pairs or positive-‘slightly’
pairs.
Katarzyna Wojtylak analyses the forms and
functions of different types of mono- and bi-clausal comparative constructions
in Murui, an endangered Witotoan language of
north-western Amazonia (Colombia, Peru). The most common comparative
constructions are characterised by five different standard markers that
originate in adverbs and demonstratives expressing distance, containment, and
position in the vertical space. The semantics of the standard markers allow a
division between two parallel types of comparative constructions, those that
express superiority (‘ahead’, ‘outside’, ‘high’), and those that convey
inferiority (‘inside’, ‘low’). Wojtylak shows that Murui comparative
constructions are undergoing change under the strong influence of Spanish. While
Murui elders still make use of a variety of standard markers, younger speakers
tend to restrict themselves to ‘ahead’ for a higher degree and ‘inside’ for a
lower degree. Furthermore, new comparative constructions and comparative
strategies are on the rise, by means of analogy with the Spanish preposition de ‘of, from, about’. The last sections
of Wojtylak’s paper are dedicated to the expression
of equality and similarity. In Murui mono-clausal equative constructions the
standard of comparison is marked by an independent postposition ‘similar’. In
addition, Murui possesses an equal size morpheme -ze, which is suffixed to nouns to derive
forms meaning ‘as big/small as N’.
Based on an
extensive corpus of data from a variety of sources collected during long
periods of fieldwork, Bettina Zeisler argues in her paper that West Tibetan
differentiating property ascriptions (what other authors would call
“comparative constructions”) might be best understood as categorical relations
of difference rather than comparisons imply a scale. In the literature on
comparison, non-equative comparison is typically interpreted in terms of degree
semantics. That is, the comparee is thought to have the same property as the standard,
but to a different degree. However, Zeisler introduces a different way of
conceptualising differences, namely categorical contrasting, where one focuses
more on the contrast than on the gradualness of the difference. Two items are
described as being essentially different with respect to a certain property,
and this can imply that the standard against which an item is contrasted lacks
the property in question. In order to show that this approach is more suitable
for the West Tibetan varieties spoken in Ladakh, Zeisler does not only discuss the standard ways of
expressing differences, but also some more marginal constructions at the limit
of acceptability.
Acknowledgements
I gratefully acknowledges funding from the federation Typologie et Universaux Linguistiques
(FR2559) of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) for
the project Expression des comparaisons d’égalité et de
similitude (2014-2018). I am
thankful to Kasia Wojtylak for her comments and discussions on the previous
versions of this paper. Thanks also go to Brigitta Flick for proof-reading the
entire volume.
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. this volume. Comparison, contrast and
similarity in Yalaku.
Andersen, Paul Kent 1983. Word Order Typology and Comparative Constructions.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bobaljik,
Jonathan David 2012. Universals in Comparative
Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structures of Words. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Chamoreau,
Claudine 2012. Contact-induced changes as an innovation. In: Chamoreau,
Claudine & Isabelle Léglise (eds.). Dynamics of Contact-Induced Language Change,
pp. 53-76. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Coppock,
Elizabeth 2016. Typological database of superlative constructions,
doi:10.7910/DVN/71WHWY, Harvard Dataverse, V3.
Cuzzolin,
Pierluigi & Christian Lehmann 2004. Comparison
and gradation. In: Booij, Geert, Christian Lehmann,
Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopeteas
(eds.). Morphologie. Ein internationales
Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, vol. 17.2, pp. 1857-1882. Berlin, New
York: W. de Gruyter.
de
Reuse, Willem J. 1994. Siberian Yupik
Eskimo. The Language and its Contacts with Chukchi. Salt Lake City, UT:
University of Utah Press.
Dixon,
R.M.W. 2008. Comparative constructions: A cross-linguistic typology. Studies in Language 32, 4: 787-817.
Dixon,
R.M.W. 2012. Basic
Linguistic Theory. Volume 3. Further Grammatical Topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fabre, Alain this volume. Some peculiarities of comparative
constructions in Nivacle (Mataguayo
family, Paraguayan Chaco).
Fuchs, Catherine 2014. La comparaison et son expression en français. Paris: Ophrys.
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universals of
grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In:
Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.). Universals of
Language, pp. 73-113. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gorshenin,
Maksym 2012. The crosslinguistics of the superlative.
In: Stroh,
Cornelia (ed.). Neues aus der Bremer
Linguistikwerkstatt: Aktuelle Themen und Projekte 31, pp. 55-160 Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Haspelmath, Martin & Oda Buchholz. 1998. Equative and similative
constructions in the languages of Europe. In: Van der Auwera,
Johan (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in
the Languages of Europe, pp. 277-334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haspelmath, Martin and the Leipzig Equative Constructions Team 2017.
Equative constructions in world-wide perspective. In: Treis, Yvonne & Martine Vanhove
(eds.) Similative and Equative
Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, pp. 9-32. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Heine,
Bernd 1994. Areal influence on grammaticalisation. In: Pütz, Martin (ed.). Language Contact and Language Conflict, pp.
55-68. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Heine, Bernd 1997. Cognitive Foundations
of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, Bernd & Zelealem Leyew 2003. Comparative
constructions in Africa: An areal dimension. Annual Publication in African Linguistics 1:
47-68.
Henkelmann, Peter 2006. Constructions of equative comparison. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung
59, 4: 370-398.
Jacques, Guillaume 2016. From ergative to comparee
marker: Multiple reanalyses and polyfunctionality. Diachronica 33, 1: 1-30.
Jacques, Guillaume this volume. Similative and equative
constructions in Japhug.
Jensen, Hans 1934. Der steigernde Vergleich und sein
sprachlicher Ausdruck. Indogermanische Forschungen 52: 108-130.
Olawsky, Knut 2006. A
Grammar of Urarina. (Mouton Grammar Library, 37.)
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Özsoy, A. Sumru & Hüner Kaşıkara this volume. Comparatives
in Turkish Sign Language (TİD).
Rust, Friedrich 1965. Praktische Namagrammatik: Auf Grund der Grammatiken von H. Vedder und J. Olpp (The School of African Studies University of Cape
Town, 31.). Cape Town: A.A. Balkema.
Saltarelli, Mario 1988. Basque. (Croom Helm Descriptive Grammars) London, New York: Routledge.
Schulze, Wolfgang 2017. Toward a cognitive typology of like-expressions. In: Treis, Yvonne & Martine Vanhove
(eds.) Similative and Equative
Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, pp. 33-77. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stassen, Leon 1985. Comparison and
Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Stassen,
Leon 2013. Comparative constructions. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath
(eds.). The World Atlas of Language
Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary
Anthropology. Available online at: http://wals.info/chapter/121
Stolz, Christel & Thomas Stolz 1995. Spanisch-amerindischer
Sprachkontakt: Die ‘Hispanisierung’ mesoamerikanischer Komparationsstrukturen. Iberoamerica 58/59, 2/3: 5-42.
Stolz, Christel & Thomas Stolz 2001. Hispanicised comparative constructions in indigenous languages of
Austronesia and the Americas. In: Zimmermann,
Klaus & Thomas Stolz (eds.) Lo propio y lo
ajeno en las lenguas austronésicas y amerindias. Procesos interculturales en el contacto de
lenguas indígenas con el español en el Pacifico e Hispanoamérica, pp. 35-56. Frankfurt: Vervuert.
Stolz, Thomas 2013. Competing
Comparative Constructions in Europe. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Treis, Yvonne this volume. Comparison in Kambaata:
Superiority, equality and similarity.
Treis, Yvonne & Martine Vanhove (eds.) 2017. Similative and Equative Constructions: A Cross-linguistic
Perspective. (Typological
Studies in Language, 117.) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tuttle, Siri G. this volume. Comparative and superlative constructions
in Alaskan Athabascan languages.
Ultan, Russell 1972. Some features of basic comparative constructions. Working Papers on Language Universals
(Stanford) 9: 117-162.
van den Berg, René this volume. More than most: comparative
constructions in Muna (Sulawesi, Indonesia).
Vuillermet, Marine this volume. Comparative, similative and simulative
expressions in Ese Ejja.
Wojtylak, Katarzyna I. this volume. Comparative constructions in Murui
(Witotoan, Northwest Amazonia).
Zeisler, Bettina this volume. Contrast instead of comparison: Evidence
from West Tibetan differentiating property ascriptions.
Ziemer, Hermann 1884. Vergleichende
Syntax der indogermanischen Comparation insbesondere der Comparationscasus der
indogermanischen Sprachen und sein Ersatz. Berlin: Dümmler.