For Trudy
Comparison and Universal Grammar LEON STASSEN
U, F. Pr,
CCPGL
Basil Blackwell
)() n(i...!}o - eo"' s. ~e.' ~A"" co ~
c.z
~
.z,qo, 4Xl
t&.or.~i
©Leon Stassen 1985 First pubhshcd 1985 Basd Blackwell Ltd 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 ljF, UK Basil BlackweJIInc 432 Park Avenue South, Suite 1505, New York, NY 10016, USA AI! nghts reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpNes of cntKISm and rev1ew, no part of th1s pubhcatJon may be reproduced, stored m a retrieval system, or transmitted, tn any form or by any means, electromc,
mechamcal, photocopying, recordmg or otherwise, without the pnor permiSSIOn of the publisher. Except m the USA, thts book IS sold subJect ro the condmon that It shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, h1red out, or otherwise cm:ulated Without the pubhsher's prior consent many form of bmding or cover other than that tn whtch It IS published and Without a s1milar conditiOn mdudmg this condition being Imposed on the subsequent purcl\aser. Brtltsh Library Catalogumg m Pubilcatmn Data Stassen, Leon
Companson and umversal grammar: an essay in umversa! grammar, J. Grammar, Comparative and general I. Tn:le 415 P201 ISBN 0-631-14058-1
Ltbrary of Congress Catalogmg m Publtcahon Data Stassen, Leon. Companson and umversal grammar.
Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Companson (Grammar) 2. Grammar, Comparauve and general. I. T1de. P255.S7.1 1985 415 84-28247 ISBN CHi31-14058-1 (hb. bdg.)
Typeset by Freeman Graph1c, Tonbndge, Kent Prmted m Great Bntam by T.J. Press Ltd, Pad&tow, Cornwall
BIBLIO.II)(:A
< ;-,-;_ ',\t
f"~"-'7<<~J I;1"5>&>,, 1.?..?-s:-gf-1
I
Sm'I'OR DE Cl1tNCI;\S HUMANAS, LET~tAS
8F.TOR
L'E
8 A, TES EDUCACA.G----
OntelltS
Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations Part One: A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives 1 1.1
Introduction General background
1.2 Stages in a umversalist research project 1.3 Issues in universahst methodology 1.4 Outline of the following chapters
2
The Typology of Comparative Constructions
2.1 The definition of the concept ·comparative consuuctton' 2.2 Parameters in the typology of comparatives 2.3 Five major types of comparative constructions 2.4 Particle Comparatives
2.5
Mtxed cases
3 In Search of a Determinant Factor 3.1 Word order as a poss1ble determinant 3.2 Spatial relations as a possible derermm3nt 3.3 Temporal chaining as the determmam of comparative types 3.4 Preliminary data
4 Types of Syntactic Chaining 4.1 Introduction 4.2 The definition of the notion ·consec:uttve chatn' 4.3 The formal expresston of consecutive chaining 4.4 Aspects of consecunve deranking 4.5 The formal expression of stmultaneous chaining 4.6 Summary: syntactic types in temporal chaimng 4.7 Language types in temporal chatnmg
Contents
vi 5
Comparative Type and Chaining Type
5.1 Introduction 5.2 The set of chaining-based universals 5.3 Further remarks on the umversals
Part Two: Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals 6 The Separative Comparative 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6
Introduction Direct corroboration from SOY-languages Indirect corroboratiOn from SOY-languages Corroboration from non-SOY-languages Counterexamples Conclusion
7 The Allative and the Locative Comparative 7.1 Introduction 7.2 The Allauve Comparative 7.3 The Locauve Comparative 7.4 Indeterminate cases 7.5 ConclusiOn
8 The Exceed Comparative 8.1 Introduction 8.2 The Exceed-1 Comparative: serialization 8.3 Other types of the Exceed Comparative 8.4 Factors m the surface variation of the Exceed ComparatiVe 8.5 Conclusion
9 Derived-case Comparatives 9.1 Introduction 9.2 The Conjoined Comparative 9.3 Particle Comparatives 9.4 The comparative construction in Dutch and English 9.5 Conclusion
10 An Examination of Secondary Chotces 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6
Introducnon Secondary denved-case comparat::tves Secondary Exceed Comparatives Secondary Locative and Allative Comparatives Secondary Separative Comparatives Conclusion
Contents Part Three: Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
11 Theoretical Background Assumptions ILl IL2 11.3 IL4 llS •
12 12.1 12.2 12.3
Introduction
Three levels of linguistic structure Further remarks on cognitive structure Structural levels for comparative constructions
Conclusion
Cogmtive Strategies in Comparative Formation Introduction
Bas1c features of cognittve strategies Three cognttive strategtes
12.4 Conclusion
13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4
Grammatical Procedures in Comparative Fonnation Introduction Functional aspects of grammatical procedures Derankmg and identity deletion Opttons in identity delet1on 13.5 Conclusion
14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4
254 257 259 261 266 267 267 171 276 277 277 278 182 289
Optimal and Non-optimal Language Types Introduction
290
The Principle of Procedural Depcr-,dency The Pnnaple of Optimal Harmony Opttm.al and non.-opnmal procedure types
291 29S
15 An Explanatory Model of Comparative-type Choice 15.1 Introduction 15.2 The prediction of comparative· type occuaaence 15.3 The predlction of language distributions 15.4 The predict10n of double options 15.5 An evaluation of the new model Notes Appendix A: Alphabetical Listing of the Sample Appendix B: Genetic and Areal Stratification of the Sample Bibliography Index of Topics Index of Languages
298 304 305 319 32! 334
336 347
352 356 367 371
Acknowledgements
Th1s book is a rev1sed version of my doctoral dissertatiOn, which was presented at the University of Nijrnegen in November 1984. Part of the research contained in it was conducted during a stay at the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NlAS) m Wassenaar, The Netherlands. My dissertation was supervised by Pieter Seuren, who played an active part in the development of my ideas, and who possessed the priceless quality of insisting on those changes which he knew would be for the better. I am also mdebted to Melissa Bowerman, Joan Bybee, Herbert Clark, Bernard Comrie, John Hawkins, Remmert Kraak and Lachlan McKenzie, for their valuable comments on the manuscript at various stages of its complenon. This does not imply, of course, that any of these kind people can be held responsible for the facts or the fiction put forward m this study. I hope that this book, whatever its further merits may be, will be accepted as a tribute to those linguists who, far from the turmoil of theoretical debate, devote their lives to a minute description of the facts in what is called 'exotic' languages. Writing a book like th1s simply would not have been possible if these specialists had not been willing to share their knowledge with me. In the course of my investigation, I have also become deeply impressed by the profundity of the insights of older, often long-forgotten, descriptivist grammanans. Hanoteau (1896), Hoffmann (1903), Taylor (1921), Lafitte (1944) or Lukas (1953) are not exactly household names in current linguistics; but they have become my friends, and their work has an enduring value, to which this essay may bear testimony.
Abbreviations
In the glosses of the example sentences the following abbreviations have been used:
ABL ABSTR ACC ADESS ADHORT ADV AG AOR ART ASS CAliS CLASS
ablative case abstract form ' accusative case adessive case adhortative mood adverbial marker • agenttve case aorist tense amcle assertive marker causative marker
classifier
COMPLET completive aspect CONCESS
COND CON) CONT CONY COP OAT OEM DEP
DET DIS) DUAL OUR ELAT
concessive mood conditional mood conjunctive mood • • contmuanve aspect converb
copula dative case demonstrative dependent mood determiner disjunctive mood
dual durative aspect dative case
EMPH
ERG FEM FliT
GEN GER GOAL HAB !NAN IMP !NO INDEF !NESS INF LOC MASC MED
emphasis marker • ergative case
feminine gender future tense genitive case gerundial marker goal case habitual aspect manimatc marker Imperative mood
indicative mood mdefinite marker • messtve case infinitive
locattve case masculine gender mediative case
MOMENT momenranous aspect NARR narrative mood
NEG NOM NONFUT NOUN PASS PAST PCP PERF
negative marker •
nommatlve case non-future tense nominalization marker passtve votce past tense parttctpial marker perfect marker
Abbreviations
X
!PL., 2PL, 3PL 1st, 2nd, 3rd person
plural POSS PRES PROG PRT Q REFL REL REM 1SG,2SG,3SG
Possessive Present tense Progressive aspect Particle (unspecified function) question marker reflexive relative marker remote past tense
1st, 2nd, 3 rd person singular
SER. MARK SUB) SUB)CT SUBORD SUP TEMP TOP TNS TRANS UNSPEC
serial marker subject marker subjunctive marker subordination marker supplementary element temporal mood topic marker tense marker transitive marker marker of non-
specificity VN
verbal noun
Part One A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
1 Introduction
1.1
General background
The present essay must be placed Within the framework of Typological Universal Grammar) a trend in linguistic investigation which is relatively young, but wh1ch constantly increased in importance throughout the sc. venties. Taking the pioneering research on word-order by Greenberg (1 963, 1966) as a starting point, universalist authors have begun to tackle a variety of topics, such as coordinate ellipsis (Sanders, 1976; Harries, 1978), relative-clause formation {Keenan and Comrie, 1977, 1979; Downing, 1978; C. Lehmann, 1984), reflexivity (Faltz, 1977), causative formation (Comne, 1975, Shibatani, 1975), the expression of grammancal functions and the phenomenon of ergativity (Keenan, 1976a, !976b; Schachter, 1977; Comrie, 1978a; Plank, 1979; Hopper and Thompson, 1982), verbal a.pect (Comrie, 1976) and word-order variation (W. Lehmann, 1973; Vennemann, 1974; Steele, 1978; Hawkms, 1979, 1980, 1984); in all these cases, new dt!.coveries and dluminanng ms1ghts into the nature of human language have been brought to hght. The history of this new umversalist trend has been documented in Ferguson (1978). Basic principles of the approach, and discuso;;Ions of the result~ m some of the betterRknown areas of universalist research, can be found m the textbooks by Comne (1981) and Mallinson and Blake (1981). As I see it, the goals of TypologiCal Universal Grammar do not d1ffer essenuaHy from those of other forms of lmguisuc mquiry. Universal Grammar, too, tnes to c:ontnbute to a solution of the problem of how to define the nonon 'human language' In terms of a set of restrictive principles; that is, like any other approach m theoretical ltngUistics, Umversal Grammar IS in search of the essennal features of the rule system (or rule systems) known as 'natural human language'. The differences between Universal Grammar and other schools w1thm the field of
Introduction
3
thcorcnc.lllinguiMks arc, in my opmion, mninly a mattrr of method and perspective. I think it is safe to ~ay that most of the recent research in theoretical linguistics {e.g., the research conducted withtn the framework of the Extended Standard Theory; see Chomsky, 1981) has tried to arrive at the underlying basic principles of human language by means of an indepth investigation of a very small set of languages; usually, English is the sole language which is taken into consideration. While universalist authors do not deny the validity of this type of 'narrow' approach, they nevertheless feel that a broadening of the scope of linguistiC investigation is in order; therefore, Universal Grammar bases its inquines on data from an extensive sample of (preferably unrelated) languages. It is expected
that, by a comparison of the structural properties of a large variety of languages, new generalizations as to the nature of human language may come to be formulated. These generalizations may then be used as a supplement (or, as the case may be, as an evaluation measure) of the regularities which have been discovered in the study of single instances of natural language. lr will be obvious that the broad, survey-type perspective adopted by Typological Universal Grammar calls for a specific type of methodology, which differs from established lingwstic practice in a significant number of respects. Therefore, the remaining part of this chapter will be devoted to an exposition of the way in which a universalist linguistic investigation is conducted, and a discussion of a number of methodological problems which may be raised in connection with this type of research. Through· our this chapter, it should be kept in mind that universalist methodology is still in its infancy, and that therefore no hard-and-fast rules of proper conduct can be prescribed. However, notwithstanding this rather early stage of development, there are a number of issues which must be clarified before any universalist research proJeCt can be undertaken; and the least that can be asked of any universalist grammarian is that he state explicitly what solutions he has adopted towards these preliminary methodologicaJ questions.
1.2
Stages in a universalist research project
From a methodological pomt of view, the conduct of a umversalist research project can be split up in a number of successive stages. As a first step, one must establish a language sample, which forms the empincal basts of the research project at Issue. The choice of an adequate language sample for a given descriptive purpose is not without its problems; I will say more about this point in section 1.3.1. For the moment, however, I
4
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
will assume that we can succeed in setting up a language sample which meets at least some general requirements of representativity. Once a more or less adequate language sample has been assembled, one arrives at the stage of typology. At th1s stage, the languages in the sample are investigated for one or several structural features, which form the parameter of the typology, and which must have been defined beforehand in a language-independent fashion (see section 1.3.2). When this basic feature has been attested and documented in all of the languages in the sample, a number of different situations may arise. On the one hand, it may turn out that none of the languages under investigation has the features for which the survey was undertaken. In that case (given that the sample which is used has some degree of representativity), one may formulate one's findings in a statement of the following general form: No human language exhibits feature/property X. Statements of this form are known in the literature as absolute negative
universals of language. The oppos1te Situation may also be encountered. That 1s, it is also possible that all languages m the sample exhibit the feature upon which the typological survey was based. In such a case, the results of the investigation may be summarized in a statement of the following general form, a so~called absolute positive universal of language: All human languages exhibit feature/property X.
It will be obvious that absolute universals, whether they be positive or negative, tell us something about the restrictions on the notiOn 'possible human language' m a very straightforward way; they formulate conditions which any rule system must meet if it is to be called a natural language, and as such they can be viewed as the ultimate and optimal research result for any form of linguistic inqmry. Recently advanced instances of absolute universals include, among others, the island constramts established by Ross (1967), the Subjacency Condition proposed by Chomsky (1973), and the Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy put forward by Keenan and Comrie (1977). All of these are abstract princtples whKh are meant to constrain the structural possibilities of natural language systems m a non-trivtal way. Absolute universals, however, are not the only kind of results to be produced by universalist inquiries, nor are they necessarily the most uucresting ones. When searching for absolute umversals, one deliberately abstracts from the highly characteristic and stgnificant phenomenon of variation among languages, and it is, more ohen than not, this variation
Introduction
5
which is particularly revealing as to the restrictions that are imposed on natural language systems. It is for thrs reason that, at least up to now. some of the more excitmg results of universalist research have come from cases m which a 'real' typology could be established, that IS, cases m which the parameter X had been defined m such a way that the following descriptive result could be obtained: Feature/property X is exhibited by natural languages m n different ways.
In cases where such a situation holds, the linguistic manifestations of the parameter X across languages can be classified into a number of different types; these types represent the possible optzons wh1ch languages may select in the formal expression (or encoding) of the parameter X. Related to the classification of (construction) types, the languages m the sample can also be classified into a number of categories, on the basis of difference and similanty m the ways in which various groups of languages select their options for the encoding of the parameter X. ln short, a cross-linguistJc typology consists of tv.:o related categorizations, viz. the typology of a certain construction type and the classification of the sampled languages in relation to the types attested in the typology of the parameter. Typologies, in the sense defined above, are tnterestlng for a number of lingmstic and non~lingurstic reasons. Their main lingutsttc importance lies in the fact that such typologies can be used as data for a further exploration into the non-rmzdomness of linguistic encodrng. That natural languages show variation in their encoding propernes ts an Irrefutable empirical fact; but it is a basic assumption m all universahst work that languages do not vary in unpredictable ways and that, therefore, typological vanarion can be subJect to explanation. Of course, this pomt of vtew IS a matter of faith; it cannot be refuted by single counterexamples, and It will be abandoned only tf the research which is based on tt does not y1dd sufficient results. In other words, the assumpnon that typological variation among languages is non-random belong-; to the core of the research programme 1 of Universal Grammar, and is therefore immune to direct falsificatiOn. If we accept the basic premise that lin gUts tiC encoding across languages is (at least Ln pnnaple) non-random, we may conclude (following Sanders, 1976: 15) that the major functiOn oftypologtes ts 'to serve as the raw materials for explanation, the most refined and manageable raw materials that are available concerning the nature of the objects they typologize'. Thus, typologies are adequate to the extent that they 'generate significant questtons that are dear, explicit and likely to be
6
A Cross~ling1niltc Tyfmlogy of Com{utratirJt•s
p10Ju~..11vdy .llbwcr.lhlc' (~.mJcr.,~
d)JJ.). Now, g1ven thJt our JJta* sampling results m a typology m wh1ch the languages in the sample are classtfied mto a number of different categories, the explanatory questions that can be a~ked are at least of the following two distinct types. The first explanatory questiOn with regard to a typology concerns the question of the occurrence of attested and non-attested categones. When a typology has been established, it w11l generally be the case that It is not immediately dear why that typology contains just these attested types, instead of other, non-a nested but also imaginable, alternanves. Thus, it ts perfectly JUstifiable to ask the question: 'Why ts the typology as a whole the way it is' (Sanders, 1976: 15). Clearly, a pnncipled answer to this question wiH lead to a further understanding of the restrtctwns which delineate the concept of 'possible human language'.
The second, and related explanatory question concerns the attested distribution of languages over the types in the typology; that is, it is a quesuon about the explanation of type-membership. One might phrase this question in the following form: why should it be that certain languages in the sample are members of category X, and not of category Y? In other words, typological analysis assumes that the grouping of languages in the typology reflects a division into natural classes, and attempts to formulate a bas1s for the explanatiOn of this naturalness.
In summary, then, we may say that Typological Universal Grammar wtll try to discover a set of statements which predict attested and nonattested types, and which can account for the attested distribunon of languages over these typologtcal van ants. Among the strategies which are employed m Umversal Grammar to solve the explanatory problems posed by a multi·categorial typology, a natura) and widely used strategy involves the identification of a determining 'outside' factor, that is 'some additional common distinguishing property or set of properties of all members of a given type' (Sanders, 1976: 15), In practice, this strategy leads to the formation of a second typology, which ts based on a new parameter; this additional typology should be set up in such a way that its categorizatiOns provide a match for the distinctions which were attested in the o:.ginal typology. If >uch a new parameter (or set of parameters) can be identified, it should be possible to formulate so-called tmpltcational untversals of language, whu:h have the followmg general form: If a language belongs to category X m typology A, it belongs to category Yin typology B. In statements of this form, one of the properties mentwned refers to the 'outside factor' or 'determmant', which is used a!. the basis for the
lulrmlItt' trun
7
predoctton of the other typological property; this latter property commonly refers to the category in the origmal typology to which the language in question belongs. In this way, various typologically relevant structural properties of languages can be brought together in a cluster of implicattonal relations.
It should be pointed out immediately that implicational unj,crsals cannot, in themselves, count as an explanation of the attested facts in the
first typology. As they stand, universals of this kind merely state a correlatron between two different rypologi
certainly a valuable contribution tn the progress of linguistic theory, and one of the most nrgent tasks of Universal Grammar is to state such clusters of properties as precisely as possible, and for as many properties as is feasible. However, it will also be clear that, if such implicational statements are to transcend the level of pure description, some further requirements should be imposed on them, in order to ensure their status as an explanatory framework. The concept of explanation is far from clear in linguistics in general, and even less so in a relatively young field such as Universal Grammar. As I see it, linguists commonly employ a more or less intuitive notion of explanation; they would say that a ccrtain analysis explams a body of facts if that analysis leads to a deeper and hitherto unformulated insighr, which esrablishes regularity m a seemingly irregular phenomenon. Thus, explanation presupposes the demonstration of a non~randomness, or regularity, in the data, by means of principles which are, m some intuitive
sense, viewed as the causal factor of that regularity. Now, 1f we apply rh1s intuitive notion of explanation to the version of Universal Grammar
which is adopted in th1s study, we can single out at least three conditions which the second typology m (a set of) 1mplicational umversals must meet if it is to be rated as the exp/anans of the first typology, rhe explanandum. The firs< condition on explanarory typologies wh1ch I would like to advance is the following. In order for a typology A ro count as an explanation of a correlared typology B, ir should be rhe case that the categories in typology A exhaust rhe theoretically posSJble variations in the expression of the linguistic parameter upon which
It
is based. That is,
if A is tn count as an explanarion of B, ir should be the case that the categories of which A consists can, in some exphat way, be shown to cover all the possible categories for this typology. (An example of a typology which is exhaustive in th1s sense would be a typology in which
8
A Cross-lingwsttc Typology of Comparatives
languages are classified on the basis of whether or not they have the possibility of Eqm-NP~Deletion. 2 Given this particular parameter, it will be clear that such a rypology will maximally consist of only two categories, one contammg the languages which do have Eqm-NPDeletion, and another which contains the languages without Eqm-NPDelet!On. Thus, a two-category typology 15 exhaustive of the theoretical possibilities of variation for this particular parameter.) I take it to be a defensible conclusion that, tf a certam typology B is correlated with a typology A whtch is exhaustive in this sense, we can say that typology A explains typology B. In such a situation, the attested occurrence of types in B is no longer a matter of chance; it can now be shown to be nonrandom, by virtue of the fact that these type~ in Bare in correlation with a typology whtch contatns all possible variations of its parameter, and 1s therefore by definition non-random. Apan from this notion of exhaustiveness, there is a second condition which, if met, will mcrease the credtbility of a certain typology as an explanans for another typology. This condition has to do not so much with the explanans-typology itself, but rather with the kind of correlation which exists between the two typologies at issue. I think it is justifiable to say that a rypology A will stand a better chance of being accepted as the explanation of a correlated rypology B if the match between the categones m the two typologies is optzmal. That is, it should nor be the case that only some categories in A can be correlated to categories m B, while other categories in A do not have their match tn B; conversely, one may require that all, and not just some, categories in B have thetr counterpart in ~orne category (or categories) in A. If such an optimal match between the two typologies can be demonstrated, we are in a position to say that the facts in the explanandum-rypology Bare fully and exhaustively predtctable from the facts in A. In other words, m such a situation there is a sense in which we can say that typology B is the way It is because typology A is the way it is, and this formulation corresponds largely to the intuitive notion of explanation outlined above. The two conditiOns on explanatory adequacy discussed so far can both be regarded as formal requzrements on explanans-typologzes; they mvolve properties of typologie~ which are independent of the actual parameters on whtch these typologies Jre based. In addition, there ts also a conceptual factor which determine!:. the explanatory value of addttwnal typologtes. In order for a typology A to count as the explanatton of a typology B, one will generally reqmre that the parameter of A represent some 'deeper-lymg', 'more elementary' or 'more fundamental' lingUistic property than che parameter upon which typology B is based. Of course, the notion of 'degree of fundamcntallty' which is mvolved here ts very
Introduction hard to operationabze; moreover, any claim as to the 'fundamentality' of one linguistic feature over another is bound to meet with controversy,
since such a claim will inevitably be tied up with a priori ideas about the aims and methods of linguistics in general. Nevertheless, there are at least some areas of linguistic theory where the fundamemahty of certain
concepts over others has been exphcitly advocated. To be specific, 7
gramn1arians of the so-called 'localist school have da1med that various types of constructions m natural language~ (such as possess1ve constructions, existentials, aspectual expressions and types of case marking} t-an
be shown to be derived from the expression of spatia-temporal relatrons. Accordmgly, this latter type of relations may be advanced a. a candtdate for the status of 'fundamentallinguisttc feature'. 3 As woll become cleao m the followmg chapters, my own approach to the explanatton of the omplocatoonal universals which I will propa.e can be said to be •ympathcnc to the localist viewpoint. It must be understood, however, that I do not necessarily adhere to all the opinions and analyses that have been put forward by authors who work within a localist framework. Needless to say, the above three condition~ are not intended to provtde
a full and explicit account of the concept of explanation in TypologiCal Universal Grammar. They are meant as a first approximation, which
should gove us at least some foothold in deciding upon the explanatory value of implicational universals. If one or more of these conditions are met by an additional typology, I think we have some extent of JUStification for the claim that this second typology is more than just a correlate of the first; it can now be viewed as the determinant of that first typology, that is, as a deeper-lying causal principle by wh1ch the non·randomneS& of variation in the original typology can be predicted and explained. Naturally, implicational universal• of the kind discussed above cannot be the la•t word on the subject of human language, even if some degree of explanatory validity can be attached to them. As IS the case in Jny worthwhile form of scientific investigation, the statement of regularities of the kind that are latd down m 1mplicational umversals gives ri-;e to
further problems of explanation. Clearly, on pursuong these problem• one will inevttably reach a point where the mvesttgatiOn must tran~J~o:end the boundaries of lingms[lcs proper; the ultimate explanation of hngutst!c umversals, 1f It can ever be reached at all, will have to be found by a oombmation of efforts from variou~ scientific branches, such as lmg~tisncs,
psychology, neurology, biology and perhaps even physics. Therefore, to require of Umversal Grammar that 1t have a definitive explanation foJ' all the regularities 1t dtscovers would be too much to ask. What can be asked, though, IS that Umversal Grammar make a thorough and exact inventory of these regularities, and that it play an active role tn the
10
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
,.rltH t' tt • li11d pnn1.1 plcJ cxpl.1n.1tlon~ lor them. In the followmg chapters, I w1ll apply the methods of Typological Umversal Grammar to the description of one structural feature of human language, viz. the various possibilities which languages possess to express comparison of inequality. I will present a rypology of comparative conmucnons which IS based on a sample of 110 languages, and followmg that l w1ll propose a set of implicational umversals from which the typological varaation in the encoding of comparison can be predicted. However, before presentmg the actual rypological data I would like to pomt out a number of methodological considerations which determine 111tc' dI\\, llliiiM ry
the framework within which the cross-linguistic invesriganon of com·
par.ltive constructions ts gomg to be conducted.
1.3 Issues in universaliss methodology The above sketch of the conduct of a universalist research proJect is of course very much an ideahzat1on. In reality, every stage in the process
w1ll confront the researcher with specific problems, both of a theoretical and a practical nature. Now, as I pointed out ..,rJier, the methodology of universalist lingu!Sttc research has not yet reached a state of such matunry that generally applicable guide-lines for the proper conduct of an mvesrigation can be derived from it. As a matter of fact, I think it can be said that the methodology of recent universalist grammar, in as far as It exists at all, is a by-product of actual descriptive work, rather than a prehmmary framework in which all research has to be fitted; universalist me1hodology is developed 'aloug the way', so to speak. This is not necessanly a bad tlnng. In my opmion, a new development in a science
should not be stilled beforehand by all too rigorous requirements on me1hod. As loug as some general conditions on representativity and repeatabiliry are met, I think it is best to give universalist grammar, at lea" for the ttme being, a generous amount of freedom to develop its own standards. In the end, of course, it is always the significance of the research results whJCh makes a specific branch of science worthwh1le; nobody needs a rype of hngmstics which, for all its methodological impeccabdtty, comes up wtth conclusions that are ultimately boring. All thts, however, must not be taken to imply that universalist
researchers should be totally free to make any methodological decis10n wh1ch happens to suit them, nor that they should be absolved from the obligation to provide ample JUsnfication for such decisions. The very least one may expect Js that a universali~t grammanan be w1lhng to state
exphc1tly the pros and cons of the solutions he has adopted, so that the
Introduction
11
potl'lltl.ll ~trcngth or Wt'tlk!H.'~.'! ol ]11.'! .1ppro.H.:h c.m bt• .1\:0.t'.'!M.·d from the out~et. In the following sections, I Intend to meet thts minimal requirement: I will deal with a number of methodological problems which I have encountered in the course of my project, and I will dtscuss the solutions whtch appeared to me to be the most appropriate.
1.3.1
The construction of the language sample
A first problem which is certain to be raased m connection with any kind of universalist linguistic research concerns the construction of the sample upon which the typology IS to be based. Given the fact that there are presumably more than 4000 languages in the world, It will be evident that, for practical reasons alone, any umversalist proJeCt will have to hmit itself to a selected subset of languages. It is also obvious that one wall have to make efforts to make this selected subset as representative as posstble, and that known sources of bias should be ehmmared from the sample. Unfortunately, however, at the present time the requirements which an adequate language sample must fulfil are still far from clear; there is not even general agreement among lingmsts about the size which typological samples should have. For some types of universalist projects, the choice of the sample is dictated beforehand by the theoretical question which the typology is expected to elucidate. To give but one example, a linguist who is interested in the variation in the distribution of labio-dental consonants across languages would be well advised to exclude languages which do not have such consonants from his sample. In survey-type universalist studies like the present one, however, no such a priori guide-line is given. Such studaes are of an exploratory nature: it is their very purpose to trace the limtts on possibilities of linguistic encoding, so that an a priori delineation of the languages to be considered would be detrimental to their utility. Notwithstanding the considerable amount of uncertainty as to what constitutes a good sample, there are some rules-of-thumb that have become generally accepted in recent Universal Grammar, For one thing, it is commonly taken as a prerequisite of language samples that they be as free from genetic and areal btas as possible; that is, the languages in the sample should be distributed evenly among the language families and linguistic areas in the world. If this requirement is met, and the sample IS constructed on the basis of genetic affiliation, this procedure will lead automatically to certain conditions on the size of the sample. If all the major linguistic families m the world are to be represented in the sample by at least one member, one arnves at samples which have a size that is
12
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
not below 80 languages. The examples of samples given in Bell (1978) all vary in size between 80 and 140 languages; samples which exceed this size are generally considered to be unwieldy. It should be remarked here that the criterion of genetic affihatwn in the construction of language samples can only provide a guide-line, and that it should not be taken too absolutely. For one thing, it is nor clear whether this cntcrion provides the only, or even the most important, factor to eliminate sources of bias from the sample. In the present state of universalist research, all kmds of different typological studieS are based on samples wh1ch have genetic affiliation as rhe1r defining term. This practice can be explamed from the fact that, of all possible sources of b1as, genetic biJ.s has the advantage of at least bemg known, so that it 1s a wise move to eltminate at least this factor from the sampling procedure. It may very well be the case, however, that by using genetic affiliation as a criterion for the stratificatiOn of samples other significant factors in thts stratificauon are overlooked; one may very well imagine a universalist study in wh1ch the sample has been stratified according to, say, the distnbution of word-order types instead of genetic affiliation. As Universal Grammar proceeds, it is easy to imagine that the criterion of genenc affiliation will come to be supplemented, or even superseded, by other criteria that provide a basis of sample construction. Apart from th1s matter of principle, there are also practical factors which tend to diminish the importance of genetic affiliation as a criterion of sample stratification. In practice, the major sources of informanon on the various languages m the sample are written grammatical descnptions and texts; only in a few cases can these data be supplemented by the use of native speakers as informants. Now, as every universalist grammarian is bound to discover, grammatical descriptions of various languages (if one is lucky enough to find them at all) differ enormously in their degree of explicitness and sophistication. Therefore, the sample in most surveytype universalist studies is, from sheer necessity, heavily influenced by consideratiOns of conveniencej one must s1mply make do with whatever data are a\'ailable, however scanty and unreliable they may be. It should be added that the specific subject to be investigated may have its own effect upon the construction of the sample. Quite often, one finds that grammars which are excellent m some areas of grammatical structure are insufficient in others; thus, for mstance, many grammatical descriptiOns are very informative as far as morphology is concerned, but fail to state explicitly the finer pomts of ~yntax. I assume that every universalist researcher will hJ.ve encountered the frustratmg Situation that a grammar fails to state some deta1led p1eces of mformation which are vital to the problem under investigation; m such a case, there is no other choice than
Introduction to cancel that language from the sample. In this connection, the 'centr.~hty'
of the information one looks for may also be a factor. Thus, for example, one will find that information on basic word order can be denved trom almost any grammatical description) no matter how general or amareuristic it may be. On the other hand, mformation on a rather ·margmal' construction type such as the comparative construction is often not to be found m even the most minute grammars. One may conclude, then, that the construction of typological samples wtll, at least for the time being, a.lways involve a certam degree of compromi~ and arb1trariness. [n VIeW of this general situatton, I have constructed my sample on the follow1ng guide-Lme&. I have tried to meet the requirements of genetic spreadmg and size by selecting a sample of 110 langnages, which are cho•en from all the important language fam1hes liSted in Voegelin and Voegelin (1977). An alphabetical h.r of the languages in my sample •• presented in Appendix A; also, I have md1cated there the source or sources from which information about these languages has been gamed. A grouping of the languages in the •ample on the basiS of rheir genetic affiliation is given m Appendix B. I am quite prepared to admit that the •ample used m th1s stud} has various weak pomrs. There remam~ some degree of generic b1as in my sample in that it cont•ms 12langnages of the Indo-European family. ThiS may be JUdged tu be a case of over-representatiOn; I have tried to minimtze this instdnce of bias by choo~ing Indo-European languages that from all the •ub-brancho of this family. Furthermore, one could the Amerind languages are somewhat under-represented; for the 150 gJ:"oups of Amermd languages, a total of 26 languages IS a meagre cho1ce, even given our restriction to a sample of th1s size, I can only agree to thts objection, and add that tt 1s a famiJiar dtfficulty wh1ch, at least for now, IS unsolvable. Despite the large efforts, made m the thirties and afterwards, to document Amencan Indian languages, one has to observe that the structural information contained m the grammars of these languages I!! very often mcomplete, or else is made irretnevable by the ldJOsyncl'atiC and tedious predilection for ragmem1c nota nons. Especially in the ca&e of Amermd langnages one often despairs of the fact that two days of deciphering a grammatical text has not resulted in findmg one good and clear example of the comparative construction. All m all, though, while the sample used in this essay IS far from perfcc~ I am of the opinion that tt does not compare too unf.wourably with samples employed in other c.a.se studJcs in Universal Grammar. As long as a scandardlZarion of survey samples is sttll out of reach, the practice followed m previous research must be one's pnmary gu1de-hnc; in this respect, I feel that the sample used in thts study is reasonably adequate. 4
••Y
14
A Cross-Jm~-:uzstzc Typ~»logy of ComflaratiVes
/. 1.2
l11c dc{llutzun of the ty{JulugiCal basts
At the very stan of the actual eJ(ecution of a typological linguistic invunganon, the researcher ts bound to be confronted with a major methodological 1ssue, vtz. the problem of cross·lingutsttc identification. An example may help to 1llusttate the nature of this problem. Suppose that a umversalist linguist wants to set up a typology of the ways in which the concept of possession is expressed in natural languages. This hngu1st wtll then be immediately fared with the problem of how to decide which structural configurations m each of the languages in hi& sample mu~t be considered to constttute the primary expression of possesstvity. In other words, the lmguist wtll need some criterion for the crosshnguisnc tdennficanon of possess1ve structures, so that he will not compare incomparable items.
With regard to this problem, it " clear that a purely formal defirution of the notion 'possessive structure' cannot be completely satisfactory here. If one were to define the criterion for the not1on 'possessive structure m a natural language' ill purely formal term&, one would Identtfy only those possessive constructions wh1ch have a specified formal manifestation, while leaving out all those instances of natural languages 10 which a different formal way of encoding possessivity has been chosen. In short, the use of purely formal criteria for the identifi· cation of comparable construction& across languages makes this identification unst)lvable for all those cases in winch it is not tnvial. The reason why purely formal cnteria do not work as a method of cross-hngmsnc identificanon lies m the fact that such criteria are, by thetr very nature, language-dependent. However, tt is not the atm of Typolog••oal Universal Grammar to single out those languages m which a con•,tructlon type has a spec1fic formal express1on; Typolog~cal Umversal Grammar attempts co present a survey of all the different ways in which natural languages may encode some linguisttcally relevant property. Hence, It must be concluded that the definition of this propeny (that 15, the baSic feature wh1ch is to serve as the parameter of the typology) should be stated 10 terms wh1ch are mdependent of the characteristics of smgle languages or groups of languages. In recent umversalist studies which deal with lllOipbolog~cal or syntactic variation among languages, the common strategy has been to employ semantic (or perhaps better: cognitive) definitions for the parameter of the typology. That IS, the feature upon which the typology is to be based IS defined in terms of tts semantic content or function, rather than in terms of tts alleged structural characteristics. This semantic solutiOn to the problem of cros~-lmgu1sttc identification has been used m a number
IntroductiOn
lS
of prt•.,tigJ0\111 UlliVCI'""lll~t puh!lt...HIOII\, Mu.:h d~ Kccn.u1 .1nd Comrie ( 1977), where the typology of relallvization is based upon a semantic defi.1'l.it10n of the notion 'relative clause'. The semantic strategy is even-
though somewhat less explic1tly - adhered to in the early word-order studies by Greenberg (1963, 1966). It can be observed that Greenberg's universals refer to notions like 'verb', 'subject' and 'dtrect object', terms which cannot (or at least not exhaustively) be defined cross-linguistically by invoking formal characteristics alone. In conformity with this strategy currendy favoured among umversahst
linguists, I have chosen to use a cogninve cnterion for idennfying cases of the comparative construction across the languages m my sample. Stating, for the moment, the defimtion somewhat loosely and informally, I will say that a construction counts as a comparative construction (and will therefore be taken into account in the typology), if that construction has the semantic function of assigning a graded (i.e. non-identical) position on a predicative scale to two (possibly complex) objects.
Thu>, typical instances of the comparative m the languages of my sample will include those expressions which have a semantic function of the type exemplified by English expressions like john is taller than Bill or Harry is more cunning than brave. Fortunately, 11 turns out that a semantic definition of this kind can be used in practice without serious difficulties; there is a considerable amount of unanimity among grammarians of various languages with respect to the question of what counts as a comparative in their respective subjectwlanguages. In th1s conr.ecllon, let me add that a semantic or cognitive definition will be employed in this study not only m the definition of the notion ~comparative construction', but also m referring to several other nonons, such as 'separative construcnon' (chapter 2), 'temporal chaining' (chapter 3) and 'consecutive cham' (chapter 4}. The term 'separative construction', for instance, must always be taken to refer to any type of construction in a natural language which has the semantic function of indicating the source of a movement, regardless of whether this functiOn is expressed formally by mfAI"-"" of a preposition, a postposition, a case affix or some other syntactic or morphological device. It would, of course, be perfectly feas•ble to set up a typology of the various ways in which this 'separative'
meaning is formally encoded in natural languages. However, such a typology, interesting though it may be in its own nght, hes beyond the descriptive scope of the present investigation.
16
A Cross-lmguistic Typology of Comparattves 1.3.3
The construe/ton of a typology
Once the relevant data have been estabh~hed across the sample by means of some language·mdependent cntcrion of identification, one 1s m a posttion to start the actual work of typological investigation, vtz. the construction of a typology. At this stage, the languages in the sample are classified Into a number of categories, on the basis of differences and similariu~ in the way in whtch the parameter of the typology is formally
expressed by them. Accordmgly, the typology reflects the attested variation of hnguistic encoding among languages with respect to the basic hngm~tlc propeny under dtscussion.
Now, it might be thought that, once the set of relevant data has been assembled, the construction of d typology can be a fairly straightforward procedure. One mtght argue that the classific.ttion of languages mto categories, and the classification of constructions into types, should be the result of a mechamcal application of a series of decisions, which are motivated by empJCically attested dtfferences and similarities in the encoding properties of the languages under observation. In reality, however, such a 'bhnd', mechanical procedure seldom yields interestmg results. It must be kept m mind that the construction of a typology IS not a goal m itself; the whole business of constructing typologies derives its rheorettcal s1gmficance from the fact that these typologies function as 'the raw material for principled inquiry and explanation' (Sanders, 1976: 15). Thus, rhe adequacy of a typology depends on the extent to which it 'generates significant questions that are clear, explicit and likely to be productively answerable' (Sanders, ibid.). In other words, the categorization in which a typology results should be theoretically fertile. Given this central function of typologies, it will be clear that a typological categorizatiOn of languages or construction types must necessarily mvolve an evaluation of the theoretical significance and relevance of the criteria on whteh the division rests. In particular, It wt\1 be the case that not every observable formal difference between language<; or construction types 1s of equal Importance in the typology: the researcher will always be forced to assign relattve wetght to the various differences which can be obJectively observed m hts data. In some cases, a blind application of a divh.ion procedure on the basis of observable formal differences can result in a typology which is too detailed for the purpose for which It was constructed in the first place. To giVe an example, suppose that our data show a difference among languages with respect to the fact that some languages use prepositions in their constructions, whereas other languages prefer postposttions. Now, whether this observable formal difference is a significant fact that must be
Introductwn
17
reflected 10 a typologtcal distinction depends entirely on the use one wants to make of the typology for explanatory purposes. If, for mstance, the typology IS supposed to elucidate various regularit1e~ which arc hnked up with word-order variation, the difference between prepositional and postpositional languages might be judged to be a central fact, which may give rise to a divislOn of languages mto tv..·o !.>Cparatc categories. In other cases, however, one m1ght dectde that thts observed dtfference in word order 1s only a concomitant fact which has nothi11g to do with the central explanatory questiOn at issue. In that case, the researcher may choose to 1gnore this d1fference, and hence he will (other things being equal) lump prepo~ItiOnal J.nd po~tpo~itwnal IJ.ngu.:tges together mto one single typological category. While m some cases 'blind' apphcation of formal dtvision procedures can lead to typologies that are too detailed for our explanatory purpo~e, the oppo!.>ite situatiOn may also be encountered. That ts, one may also arrive at a situation in which a typology that is based on formal distinctiOns ts not mformative enough. Again, an example may help to illustrate this case. Suppose that our cro&&-linguisttc data on a certain construction type give nse to a division of constructions mto two groups with formally distinct characteristics: m one group, a certain relevant NP in the construction is m the nominative case, whereas in other constructions this same NP is put into an oblique case, marked by some adposition. Now, it is conceivable that a categorization on the bas1s of th1s observable formal difference does not go far enough for our explanatory purposes; it might be the case that it is of theorerical sigmficance for us to know whether the adpo~ition in the ~econd group of constructions is a locative marker, an ablative marker, a dattve marker, an mstrumental marker, and so on. In such a case, purely formal differences are no longer of any use, since notions like 'locanve' or 'ablative' can be defined cross~ltngUistically only m semantic terms. In other words, it is not only the case that observable formal differences are not always relevant to our division of languages and constru..::non typeb; there are also cases in which such dtffercnce3 are not suffictcnr, .md where they must be supplemented by further div1~ional cntena of a • semantiC nature. Thus, in the end, typologies must be looked upon as data of an explanatory linguistic theory. Since it is a well-known fact of general methodology that, m all branches of sctence, data-gathenng 1s a proM cedure which is at least partially mfluenced by theoreucal consideration~, it will come as no surpnse that the constructton of hngUJstic typologtes will necessarily be guided by JUdgements (or premomttonb) of theoretical relevance and sigmficance.
18
A Cross-lmguzstrc Typ()/ogy of Comparatives Apart from tha~ m.lJHT mt:thodologJCal i!lMIC in the con~truct10n of
typologies, there are a few other pomts which need comment here. One que~tion concerns the admzsszbtlity of diachrontc and etymologtcal data in the construction of a typology. For a number of languages, rt can be established that changes in the1r encodmg properties have occurred m the course of their history; m such cases, one may argue about the 'true' typological status of those languages. One way to settle such a dispute is simply to bamsh all references to diachronic data from the typology; usually, such a strategy is motivated on the grounds that diachronic data are available for only a small subset of natural languages, so that no systematic use of this type of data can be made. Moreover) a decision to exclude all diachromc data is in line with the strict separation of synchronic and diachronic linguisncs, wh1ch was advocated by de Saussure and has been a longstanding article of faith in structuralist linguiStiC theory. In my opmwn, there 1s not much to be gained from an a prion rejection of diachromc data in typologtcal hnguistic research. On the contrary, I clunk that one might argue that such a reJection could even have harmful effects on the overall adequacy of a typology. In recent Universal Grammar, the insight has gained ground that natural languages are, with regard to their structural properties, often compromises betvleen various mterfering strategies, the balance between which may vary from language to language, and from one developmental stage of a language to another. s Diachronic change is one of the results of such a change m balance; another phenomenon which may be explained by taking this point of v1ew 1s the fact that many construction types in natural languages have 'hybrid' features, and can therefore be subject to 'multiple analyses, (Hankamer, 1977). If we accept this perspective, diachronic data are a valuable clue m findmg explanations for typological distinctions; they illustrate areas of linguistic structure where categones may blend into one another, and they can, therefore, be seen as indications of the underlying principles which are assumed to determine the distnbution of attested and non-attested language types. Related with this point is a second problem in the construction of typologies, which has to do with the indeterminacy of categortzation which one may encounter for some languages. I thmk we can safely assume that, in any linguistiC typology, one will come across at least a few instances of languages wluch cannot be categorized into one single class in a fully straightforward fashion. One of the causes of this mdeterminacy may be the fact that the language in questiOn has undergone (or is in the process of undergoing) diachronic change; another possibility IS that the language, in Its synchronic encoding
Introduction
19
pnK:cJurc, turns out to be J 11ttix' of two or more cru:oding po~~ibilitics. In such cases, I thmk the best way to act lS to accept this indeterminacy as an empirical fact, rather than to try forcing the language into one single category. Cases of indeterminate category status should, I feel, be treated as data in the same way as cases where the category status is straight~ forward; and the explanation one has for the typology as a whole should be able to handle not only the dear cases, but should also indicate why indeterminacy is possible. In this respect, I think there is a parallel with the view on idiolect vanation which is put forward by Eliott, Legum and Thompson (1969). These authors claim that Idiolect variation among native speakers (and, as a result of this, divergence of judgements of grammaticality) should be looked upon as a primary concern for linguistiC theory, rather than as a mere nuisance factor. ln therr view, cases of indeterminate grammaticality are empirical facts, which deserve explanation as much as those cases in which such indeterminacy is absent.
1.3.4
The evaluatton of universals
As I stated earlier, a first step in explaining the data which a linguistic typology offers us involves the formulation of implicational universals. In implicational statements, the defining characteristics of a particular typological option are linked causally or functionally to some mdependent characteristic of the languages in question; in this way, a correlation is formulated between the typological properties of a set of languages and some additional property, which serves as the basis of prediction for the observed typological features. As is generally the case in scientific inquiry, no sure-fire rules can be given as to the way m which such linguistic correlations are to be discovered. It is true that one may invoke a number of discovery techniques in th1s process (such as the use of a computer in testing a broad range of correlational possibihties); but, at least for the time being, one is forced to conclude that the procedure for discovering implicational universals is, in the words of Popper (1934), still very much a matter of •art, not science. Therefore, let us assume without further elaboration that the research project has resulted in the establishment of a set of implicational universals, which are intended to predict the typological variation that we have encountered in the sample. Obviously) such universals are, at this stage, nothing more than hypotheses about assumed regularities; they should be validated by·testing them against the facts of each separate language. At this point, we need to answer an rmportant question: what are the criteria of falsification for a universal? Or, to phrase this problem
20
A Cross-lingutstic Typology of Comparatives
in a slightly different way: how many counterexamples are we allowed to tolerate, before we must reject a universal as false? Regrettably, I thmk we have to admit that, for the moment, there
is no
linal and generally applicable answer to this question. Practice in recent Universal Grammar has shown that practically no universal of any significance is completely free of exceptions; by their very nature, lingu6ti< universals formulate tendencies rather than laws. From this general fact, it follows that universals, tf they are to have any theoretical fung~cal Grammar has produced in recent years, this would be too high a price to pay for methodological purity. One can agree with Comrie (1981: 20), who writes: 'To say that the universal has no validity because there are counterexamples to it, and to leave the discussion at that, would be to abrogate one's responsibility as a linguist to deal with significant patterns in language.' Nevertheless, even if we grant it that a universal may have at least some exceptions, we are still faced with the problem of the extent to which such a universal may be in coolhct with the facts. It may be useful to point out here that statistical evaluation measures, such as employed in physics and soc1ai science, seem to be of very limited use in current
linguistic typological research. Given the fact that there is no generally accepted evaluation metric for the representativity of the language samples from which the data 10 typological linguistic smdies are drawn, the computation of exact p·values for linguistic uruversals would be a fruitless, and even pompous, th1ng to do. Obviously, if a universal were to be verified in, say, only 50 per cent of all cases, nobody would reasonably mamtain that this universal shonld be COOSldered to be correct; the pomt is, however, that we lack the tools m typological linguistics to determine exactly what the maximum of counterexamples to a parnculor universal may be 10 relation to the total number of cases which it is supposed to cover. All 10 all, then, we are left With the uncomfortable, but nonetheless very real sttuanon that there lS In fact no straightforward procedure to evaluate the validity of proposed linguistic universals. Whether a umversal will be accepted as a correct generalization depends on a number of considerations which are hard to weigh exactly, and which are interwoven in ways that are as yet largely unclear. Among these
considerauons, we may hst at )east the following:
Introduction
21
(a) The number of counterexamples in relation to the total number of cases covered by the universaL In order for a universal to stand a chance, counterexamples should be iutnitively rated as 'inc1denral' devtations, which do not distort a dear over-all picture. (h) The extent to which a universal is significant, that is, the extent to which a principled explanatton for it IS available. A universal stands a better chance of surviving falsifications if It can be fitted into a general explanatory theory. (c) The extent to whrch a universal has proven to be theorettcally fertile. An example of such a universalist research result is the Noun Phrase Acccssibihry Hierarchy in Relative Clause Formation, formulated by Keenan and Comrie (1977). Since this hierarchy has turned out to be applicable in a number of different areas of grammatical structure, its immunity to falstfication by smg!e counterexamples has undoubtedly increased.
In summary, we may state that it is funle to think that lmgui.tiC universals can ever be pr()ven to be concct. Typological lingmst1c analysis should set itself a more modest goal: the best we can hope for IS to arrive at a certain degree of plausibility fur our uruversals, ro the effect that other researchers in the field are wtllmg to accept them a• a workmg hypothesis in thetr own investigations.
13.5 Model-neutralrty As a last methodological runark. I would like to comment briefly on the overall theoretical persjK!Ctive which wrll be adopted in thiS study. In particular, I want to make it clear from the outset that my general approach shonld be conceived of as being model-neutral. I am of the opmion that cross-Imgmstic work should not affiliate itself outright with any of tbe theuretical fr.uneworks cutrently in favour, such as Chomskyan GB-theory or Relational Grammar. For this reason, I have taken care to state my findings in terms which are largely uncontrovcrsial, and which belong to the common stock of tradmonal grammatical theory. Of some terms it should be understood that they are used here in a very general, almost metaphorical sense, and that no specific theoretical relevance should be attached to them. For example, when I use the term 'deletion', it should not be inferred that I claim that a specific procedure of stringdenvation by means of deletion rules should be part of a grammar (let alone universal grammar). The term 'delenon' Will be used as a matter of convenience, and must 'be taken as merely a recognition of the consistent syntactic and semantic relationships between ... ~entence types, not as
22
A Cross-lingutsttc Typology of Comparatives
..1n ,,.,lnowi.,·JgcmcntthJt one type docs J~,.•,·ivc from the othl'r (or, lube n1ore ex ace, shares an underfyrng structure)' (MaUmM>n and BJake, 1981; 36). 6 Of course, 1t may turn out later that my results are more m line WJth certain theorettcal alternatives than with others, but it 1s not my aim here to bring such deos1ons about. What I want to do is to estabhsh some charactensttcs of the comparative construction wh1ch must be incorporated tnto any theory of grammatical structure. This attirude, whach has been practised m the majonty of recent universalist studtes, ts
a healthy one, I think; It IS the best posSible guard agamst theoretical myopia, and it frees the empmcal work from the dogmatism which bas marred quite a large amount of recent theoretical linguistic discussion. It goes without saymg, of course, that I do not want to advocate the
po>ttion that universaltst grammar should be opposed to the formulation of theories, and that it should confine itself to mere data-gathering. Like all other forms of scientific actiVity, typological linguistic studies are a waste of time if they do not lead to theoretical progress, and the only way to achteve this goal is by means of the testing of theories. I do feel. however, that linguistic theories ha~re of late reached the point of nearsterihty, due to the fact that their empmcal baSis IS kept too narrow. Therefore, I agree wholeheartedly w1th Comrie's (1978b) dictum that, first and foremost, 'hnguisua. 1s about languages,' instead of being mainly about the techmcalines of grammatical models. 1.4 Outline of the following chapters In the following chapters, I will present the results of a typologtcal
mvesngation of the ways in which the concept of comparison of mequaltty is encoded in natural languages. Chapter 2 contains a discus· Sion of the cnteria which have been employed in establishing a typology of comparative constructions, and presents the actual typology of comparatrve opttons which results from the application of these criteria. In chapter 3, three candidates for the function of determinant of the typology of comparative constructions are considered; the conclusion ts that, of these three parameters, the parameter of temporal chatntng is the most promising. Consequendy, chapter 4 deals with the construction of a new typology, m which the various ways of codifying temporal chaining are laid down. In chapter 5, a set of impltcational universals is defined, in wluch the categones in the second typology are explicitly matched with the categories that have been attested in the typology of comparative constructions.
The chapters in part two of this study (i.e., chapter 6 to chapter 10)
IntroductiOn
23
lont.untbt• t•mtnrl(a/ data upon wh11.h tlu.· lll\IL'~t1g.lt1on n·-.t~. In ca~.:h of the~e chapters, one of the umver~~tls wh1ch have been formulated in
chapter 5 as examined for tts empmcal validrty, by re,-,ring It against the actual facts of the relevant languages in the sample. As a general conclusion, it can be said that the set of proposed tmphcational universals can be shown to be confirmed to such a degree that they may rightfully be considered to express valid correlatiOns. Fmally, in part three we take a closer look ac the explanatory value of the proposed set of universals. Smce this set of universals is found to be wannng m this respect, a new model for the explanation of comparativetype choice is d~veloped, in whtch the anginal set of universals has been incorporated. In the final chapter of part three, the empirical and explanatory adequacy of thts new model is put to the test> and found to be superior to the earlier model of comparative-type choice developed in chapter 5.
2 The Typology of Comparative Constructions
In th1s chapter, 1 will apply the methods of Typological Universal Grammar in the construction of a cross~linguisttc typology of comparative constructions. First, r will discuss the definitiOn of the concept 'comparative construction', and deal with some practical limitations and decision~ which I have made in my investigation. Next, I will present an outline of the criteria whtch have been used in the categorization of comparative constructions into types. The last sections of this chapter wtll be devoted to a discussion of each of the individual categories that have been established m the typology~ and a presentation of a few cases in which such a categonzation seems to be indeterminate.
2.1
The definition of the concept 'comparative construction'
In the preceding chapter (see section 1.3.2), the conclusion was reached that the basiS of a cross-linguistic syntactic typology should be defined in language-independenr terms. Accordingly, I proposed a semantic definttion of the notion 'comparative construction', which I repeat here for • convemence:
Definitzon: a construction m a natural language counts as a comparative construction (and will therefore be taken into account in the typology) if that construction has the semantic function of assigning a graded (i.e. non-identlc.tl) position on a predicative scale to two (possibly complex) obrects. Thus, a case of comparison of inequality rmmmally involves three things: a gradable predzcative scale, whtch represents the property on which the comparison is made, and two concepts, one of which represents the standard against which the other is measured and found to he unequal. The conceptual content of a comparative construction is elegantly phrased hy Small (1929: 12-11), who writes:
-.
...........
~
The Typology of Comparatrue Constructions
.!5
the speaker who uses compartson as a means of mdtcatmg the Intensity of a gJVen quality man object castl> about in hts mind for a second obje(t well known to the hearer which has that same quahty, perhaps m a greater or lesser degree. If he JS fortunare enough to htt upon a ~cond ObJeCt that, to the best of h1s JUdgement, ha!. the qu~hty m exactly the same degree as the object he IS dt.!.CU!>Mng, he may md1cate the mtensity of the qualtcy b)· equating the first object wtth the secor·d, thus: john ts as tall u the gate·poSt, or, The dog runs a.!o rapidly J~ the b1rd fl1cs. Instead of a second obJect of companson the speaker may also refer to a seco·1d rondttton of the first object ttself, thus: john 1s JUSt as accurate as he was m the
r1fle match a year ago. Th1~ wa.y of pomnng out the mtensny of a gi\'Cn J.ttr&bute may be termed the compamcm of equality. Should the hypothctic.1l speaker be unable to h1t upon J. ~ccond obJect or condltlon that exactly matche!t the firSt tn the qnabty observed, or !:>hould he desire to contrJ.St the fir!:>t ob1ect with the second, he w1ll call up to the: aucnnon of the hearer another ob1cct havmg the same quahty, but e1ther m a h1gher or a lower degree of mtens1ty. Thuo,: John IS taller than Maryi Dog!:> J.rc fncndbcr than cats; The patient JS now weaker than he was; I he poet wrote more Vlv&dly than the arust pamted. Tins sort of thmg may be~t be referred to a~ the compmtson of mcqualtty.
In what follows, we will be concerned exclus1vely with cases of the comparison of mequahty. Hence, I will usc the term 'comparative construction' or 'comparative' for the more accurate, but also more cumbersome term 'coru.truction wh1ch represents the companson of inequality'. Given th1s semantiC defimoon of the comparative, we should be able to identify the croS>·lmguistic codilicatton of thiS concept, thereby cstabh,h· ing the data base of the typology. However, before I can present an exposition of the attested typological vanants of the comparative construction, I must first pomt out a number of complications wh1ch .ue connected with the definitwn of the notton 'comparative consrrucnon', and mention several practical decisions whtch further restnct the M:OJX of the mqulfy. First, I have found it useful to confine my typology co those cases of comparatiVe constructions m whtch two obJects or mdtviduals {typzcolly expressed in the form of NPs) are being graded agam>t each other. The reason for this decision is entirely pracncal; whereas all grammars of the languages in the sample indicate the way m which NP-comparatlve are formed, they do not, in general, prov1de for sutfic1ently reliable clara on constructions in which other elements (say, adJecnves, verbs or clau~es) are involved. Thus, the prototypical sentence for our mve~ngatton will be a sentence along the lines of those in (1), and not of tho•e m (2):
A Cross-itngtllstrc Typology of Comparatwes
26 i/) 11.
/NI,fl\/1,
b.
f'he tree ts taller tha11 the house Jltkc J'aml'la better than J.ucy
(2}
ENGI./Sll:
,,
The general was more cunmng than brave
'
~I he team
b.
plays better than last year The prestdent ts smarter than you think
..
•'
Constructions hke those m (2) will be taken mto account only when we look at ~ome languages in detaiL In particular, they will provide evidence for our analysts of the comparative construcnons m Engltsh and Dutch (st c chapter 9). G1ven thJs hmJtauon to cases of NP-companson, the followmg termm-
ology wtll be adopted throughout the dtscusston. The lmgmsuc coddicaoon of the predicattve scale in a cornparat1ve construction wtll be termed the comparatzve pred:cate or stmply the predicate; in the maJOrity of examples, the comparative predicate wiH have the form of a predicadvely used adJective. Ot the two NPs m the construction, the NP which mdtcates the object that serves as a yardstick for the comparison (that ts, to use Small's terms, 'the second object') will be referred to as the standard NP. The other NP in the constructwn, whtch refers to the objective of the mental operatiOn of companson, will be called the comparee NP, Thus, in a ~entence hke (3), the NP Mary IS the standard !SP, and the NP John the comparee NP: (3)
ENGLJS/1:
John is taller than Mary The predtcat!ve adJeCtive tall, whtch names the scale on wh1ch the comparison takes place, Is the comparative predKate m this parncular comparanve construcnon. As a second prehmmary pomt, it must be realized from the outset that my typology of comparatives may suggest a d1v1sion among languages whtch looks more defimte and neat than tt actually IS, For one thing, I must concede that a number of languages m my sample have comparatives which do not seem to fit neatly mto one of the established categories. These language~ appear to have a 'mtxed comparative', that IS, a comparative m whtch the fundamental characteristics of two typological variants are combmed; I w11l say more about these cases m sectwn 2.5. Another phenomenon wh1ch weakens the strictness of the typology IS the fact that quite a few languages appear to have more than one alternative to express NP-comparbon. An example of a language in whtch thts is the
case
IS
Latm. In this language, the gradmg of two objects
agam~t
each
The 'typoiot,'Y of Comparatwe Constructions othl:r ~,., typtcally expresst:d by mc;1ns of a constructton like the one in (4)~ whtch con tam~ the comp,n..aivc p,trucle (flhlllt:
(4)
LATIN:
est eloquentror quam Cicero C.-NOM is more-eloquent than C.-NOM 'Cato is more eloquent than Cicero' Cato
However, as is noted m Kiihner-Gerth (1955), Latm has also the posstbility of a comparative like the one in (5). In th1s case, the particle quam 1s no longer present, and the standard NP 1s put mto the ablattve case: (5)
LATIN:
Cato
Ctcero-ne
eloquentwr est C.-NOM C. -ABL more-eloquent is 'Cato is more eloquent than Cicero' Faced wtth this double opnon for comparative-type chotec, I have chosen to categorize the languages m my sample in tw"o d1fferent ways. I take 1t that for each language there is a primary comparative construction, whiCh is somehow more 'natural' or 'unmarked' than its posstble alternatives. In the typical case, this primary comparative can be used more widely than any of its alternative options; 1 thus, for example, we will see in section 9.4.1 that the ablative comparative in Latm is restricted m tts use by certain spectfic conditiOns, whereas the quam-comparattve ts not. For this reason, Latin will be classified pnmarily as a language of Type 6 (a so-called Parttcle Comparative), and the ablative comparative wt!l be rated as a secondary comparative option for this language. Later on, I wtll argue that a language i:. not completely free m the choice of tts ~econdary comparanve(s); this choiCe can be shown to be governed by the same principles which determine the selection of its primary comparative form. To conclude these prehmmary remarks, one final pomt needs to be mentiOned. As can be easily observed, 1t would be possible to split up the languages in the sample into tw"o groups, on the basts of the fact that some languages require an overt marking of the predicate in their comparative constructions, whereas other languages do not. Restnctmg ourselves to predicanve adjectives, we find that a ma)onty of the languages under investigation do not use such an overt marking; m these languages, predicanve adjectives m comparatives retain thetr unmarked, 'positive' form. Some languages, however, mark a prediCative adjective m a comparative construction by means of a special affix (e.g., -er m English, German and Dutch, -ior m Latm, -bb m Hungarian, -ago m
BU:MA!i/d LBTRAS E AHTB', c .f}f;
F:Of>C/' f'' l
28
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
Basque) or a special adverb (more in English, plus in French). I have not been able to find a principled way to account for this phenomenon of morphologic•! marking; that is, I have not succreded in finding an explanatory prmctple on the basis of which the presence or absence ol th1s marking can be predicted. 2 Hence, I will assume that the phenomenon of comparative~markmg IS Irrelevant to our typology of comparative constructions, and that it must be explained eventually in terms of (as yet unknown) regular~ ties which are independent of those that detennme the choice of a particular type of comparative construction. Therefore, I wtll not mdicate systematically whether or not a given language requires morphological marking of the comparative predicate; I will, however, refer to the comparative morpheme of mdividuallanguages at various
points in the dtscussiOn. 2.2 Parameters in the typology of In the following ;ecttons, I wtll dtscuss the parameters of my typology ol comparatives, that IS, those features of comparative constructions wh1ch constitute the basts of a categorization mro typeS. As I observed m sectton 1.3.3, the choice of such parameters is not completely theory-independent: objecnvely poShlble parameter> will always have to be weighed agamsr one another for their theorencal relevance and ut1iity. In my case, tlus evaluatiOn of possible starting points for a cross-linguistic typology of comparatives has led to a categorization in which the encoding of the standard NP (and the variation which can be observed in that encoding) is taken to constitute a highly significant factor. 2.2.1
Case assignment of the standard NP
Wnh regard to the encodmg of the standard NP in comparatives, a first dichotomy mvolves a split between derived-case comparatives and fixedcase comparattves. The parameter upon which this first distinction IS
based has to with the procedure by whtch grammatical case is assigned to standard NPs. In one group of constructions, this case assignment appears to be non-unique; that is, the standard NP is not put into one single case in all the instances of the comparative construction. Instead, the standard NP appeares to derive its case assignment from the case mto wh1ch the comparee NP m the construction has been put. Thus, if the comparee NP in the construction happens to function as a sub1ect, and IS therefore put mto the nominanve case, the standard NP in that construenon w11l also have nominative case; 1f the comparee NP IS 10 rhc
The Typology of Comparatrve Constructions
29
accusative case, they standard NP wJII also be marked for accusative, and so on. In short, we can observe here a parallehsm in case assignment to the two NPs m the construction, to the effe~t that the case assignment of the comparee NP appears to determine the case a~stgnment of the standard NP. Comparative constructions in which this ~ituation obtains will be termed instances of derived case. In contrast to this, other comparative con~tructions are more singleM minded, in that they employ one particular case form for the standdrd NP. That is, these constructions put the standard NP into one and the same obltque case form in all instances of companson, no matter what the case form of the comparee NP in the construction may be. In other words, the case assignment to the standard NP IS independent of the case assignment to the comparee NP in th1s type of construction. Comparatives
which exhibit this feature will be called instances of fixed case. The opposition between instances of denved case and fixed case can be illustrated by the two comparative constructions in Latin, which we briefly mentioned above. The Latin quamMcomparative can be shown to be an instance of derived case. Thus, tn sentence (6) the standard NP (that is, the NP following quam) IS marked for nommat1ve case, whereas 111 (7) the standard NP has received accusative marking: (6)
LATIN: • Brutum ego amo non mtnus quam tu love-lSG than you-NOM B.-ACC I-NOM not less 'I love Brutus no less than you (Jove Brutus)
(7)
LATIN: • Brutum ego amo quam te non mtnus B.-ACC I-NOM not less love-!SG than you-ACC '!love Brutus no less than (I love) you'
The variation in case marking of the standard NP m the~e two Latm sentences corresponds with a difference in interpretation. The Hrst sentence tn the pair must be translated as 'I love Brutus no less than you love Brutus', while the other sentence means 'I love Brutus no less than I love you'. Thus, m the first sentence it is the subJect NP ego (marked by nominative case) which must be interpreted as the comparee NP, and the scale on which the comparison is based can be phrased as 'the vanous degrees of intensity With which people love Brutus'. In the second sentence, the direct object NP Brutum (marked for a<:cusative c.tse) functions as the comparee NP; here the ~calc of comparbon m1ght be described as 'the various degrees of intensity With which I love various individuals'. We can see, then~ that in thi.., Lnin comparative thC' l a<.,c
A Cross-lmgutSttc Typology of Comparatives
30
the . . 1.1mL1rd NP mil\\ lw 1ur.1lld to thl'l';\\C.' form wlul.'h ha\ bt.'Cn as~1gncd to the- compJ.rce NP. In additiOn to Its quam-comparative, Latm has also a comparative whtch must be looked upon as an instance of fixed case. In this construction, the standard NP •s mvariably put 1nto the ablative case, regardless of the case form of the comparee NP. As a result, a sentence like (8), which IS the fixed-case counterpart of the sentence (6) and (7), IS ambtguous, due to rhe fact that It call be eith.er the subject NP ego or the obJect NP Brutum whtch may be taken as the comparee NP; the fixed ablanve form ofrhe standard NP does not g1ve us any clue as to the right choice of the comparee NP for this construction. In other words~ sentence (8) may have cirher the readmg whtch we assigned to (6) or the reading of fo1m
!)J
(7): (8)
LATIN:
non mmus te amo B. -ACC I-NOM not los you-ABL love-ISG Brutum ego
Accordmg to Kuhner-Gerth (1955: vol. 2, 466), it IS because of this amb1gmty that the ablanve comparative is avoided in Latin constructions ,.here rhere are rwo poss•ble candtdates for the function of comparee NP.
2.2.2 Subcategorizat10n affixed-case comparatives Within the category of fixed-case comparatives, rhere is a further typological criterton which read1ly presents itself. Given rhe fact rhat all these constructiOns share the feature rhat rhey encode rhe standard NP in a fixed-case fotm, one may try out a further division of rhese constructions, whtch IS based on the particular type of case form employed. As it turns out, the quest1on of the nature of this case assignment to rhe standard NP provides us with a useful typological parameter, in that it gives rise to a number of comparative rypes which can be defined m a relatively straightforward fashion. A first dichotomy m the category of fixed-case comparatives concerns a chstmctlon between constructions in wh1ch the standard NP is encoded as a dtrect obJect, and constructions in which the standard NP is a
The Typology of Comparative Constructions
31
NP c,l!l be governed; thi~ rcquu·cmt·nt become~ pilrttcularly prcs~ing if the ~.:omparativc predtcarc lt~cH t~ nut a tr.Hl'litivt• verb, but, sny, .111 mtransttive predicative adJective. The typical solution to tlus problem of government as the inclusion of a speczal transitzve verb m the comparative construction, wh1ch has the general meaning of 'to surpass', 'to excel', 'to exceed' or 'to be more than', and which may be looked upon as the signal of a case of comparison of inequality in that particular language. 3 Thus, in comparatives of this type, the surface structure typically contains two predicates, one of which represents the scale of companson, and another whach provides the syntactic means to represent the standard NP as a direct object; the comparee NP in the construction ts encoded as the subject of this latter transitive verb. There 1s~ wuhin this type, a cenam amount of variatiOn in the way m which these two predicates are formally expressed in surface structure; we w1ll present a global discusSion of these variants m section 2.3.4, and postpone a more detailed exposition of this variation to chapter 8. For the moment, I will confine myself to a single 1llustrauon of this particular type of comparative, by way of a random example: (9)
DUALA:
Nin ndabo e kolo buka nme this house it big exceed that 'This house is btgger than that'
In opposition to fixed-case comparatives in which the standard NP has the syntactic function of a direct obJect, a second group of fixed-case constructions represents the standard NP as a constituent of an adverbial phrase. Obviously, since adverbial phrases do not 1mpose any structural requirements of government, the addttion of a spectal predicate to the construction is unnecessary here. Hence we find that, in the typical case of this category, the comparative pred1cate is the only predtcative form in the construction, and that it is modlfied syntactical1y by the adverb1al phrase containing the standard NP. Comparative constructions of this type will be called adverbwl comparatwes. While direct-object comparatives constitute a termmal category in our typology (i.e., a category that cannot be split up mto further subclasses), adverbial comparatives do allow for further subcategorization. The parameters of thts subcategorization will be discussed in the next section.
2.2.3
Subcategonzation of adverb tal comparatives
As tt turns out, a large maJOnty of the languages wh1ch possess an adverbial comparative choose to represent theu standard NPs in the form
32
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
of an adverbial phrase which has a clearly recognizable locational inter-
pretation. In other words, most languages in this category model the codification of thetr standard NPs on one of the options which they have in the formal expression of the semantic system of spatial relations. Given tills fact, it becomes possible to introduce a further typologtcal div1sion withm the category of adverbial comparatives, based upon the
particular Iocattonal option which a language selects for the representation of its standard NP. In order to be able to appreciate in full th1s
sigmficance of locational parameters for the typology of comparative constructions, we wtll first have to make a few general remarks on the semantics of spattal expressions. The semantic system of spatial relations (that is, the semantic network of the ways in which two obJects are conceived of as being related to one another with respect to their locat1on in ~pace) ha~ been a continuous subject of inquiry for several generat10ns of linguists and psychologists,4 and, despite the con~>iderable progress made in thts area, it must be concluded that the stratification of thts system is still not fully understood. Evidently, the present study cannot pretend to be a contribution to thJs speafic field in semantic theory; I will deal with spatial notions only in as far as they are needed for an understandmg of certain typological decisions which I propose for the classlficanon of adverbial comparatives. A first major semantic distinction w1thm the kinds of spatial relations that two objects may mamtain concerns the notion of contact. Thus, in one set of spattal relations, the two objects involved are conceived of as being so closely together in space that rhey are thought of as forming a spatial unity. The ser of spatial relations which share the semantic feature of implymg that the two objects are in contact will be called locative relations, and the linguistic elements which are used to encode such locative relations wtll be referred to a~ locattve markers. Languages may employ different devtces for the formal expression of locative relations, mcluding case affixes, adpositions and verbal infixes; however, as I pointed our earber, the exact morphological procedure for the marktng of locative (and other spatial) relations will not concern us here. Opposed to the set of spatial relations wh1ch imply contact between objects we find a set of spatial relations in which the two objects are conceived of as being in two dtfferent places; that is, these relations tmply a spatial dtstance between the two obJects involved. Now, 1f two objects are stated to be distant from each other, it 1s often the case that a movement of one of the objects is implied. If such is the case, a further classification can be made: on the one hand, relatiOns which imply that the movement IS intended to extend the distance between the two objects and, on the other hand, relations which imply that the movement ~~
The Typology of Comparattve Constructions
33
mtended to dimimsh that d1stance. If the movement of one of the objects has the effect of creating a larger distance between the two obJects, the second object m the pair can be looked upon as the source or orzgm of tht movement of the other objtct. Spatial concepts which imply that one ot the objects IS moving away from lts source w11l be called separattvt relations, and the formallingutsttc means to express them wtll be termcc
separative markers. The mtrror·irnage of a separative spatial notion IS an al/atwe nonon.ln the case of allative relattons, it IS undcr~tood that the movement of one of the objects has the effect of reducing the dlstance between the two objects, and, accordmgly, the ~econd objeCt can be seen as the goal w which the movement of the first object is directed. The formal medn') wh1ch language~ employ to encode these all.\ttvc relations wtll be referred to as allat1Ve markers. Now, if we look at the various ways In which languages With dl1 adverbtal comparative encode their ~tandard NP~, we can ob~erve .1 reflection of the tripartite spatia) distmction between focatlve, separanve and allative relanons. It turn~ out that a large majonty of the languages at issue selects one of these three f..emantJC options as a model m the codification of 1ts comparative constructiOns. If a language chooses to codtfy its standard NP by means of a separatwe marker, the prototypical cho1ee appear:, to be a marker with a meaning wh1ch IS equivalent to that of Enghsh from. Semanncally speaking, one might say that m these languages comparison seems to be 'metaphorized' as a movement m whtch the object represented by the standard NP JS taken as the pomr of origm. Apparently, a marker with the meaning 'from' IS the most unmarked or natural codtficanon of th1s separatJVt"' comparative. We do find, however, occasiOnal in:;,unce~ of languages m wh~eh a dtfferent separative marker has been cho<>en 10 encode standard NPs. Thus, for example, there are languages m whl< h the marker at ISSue has the meaning of 'up from'; m tht~ case, a rno1rker has been chosen which refers exphc1tly to the vertical dimenston of the space in which the separative movement takes place, as opposed to the use of 'from', which is essentially neutral w1th respect to sp.tcc dimensionality. Also, we find a few cases where the separattve marker on the standard NP must be glossed a~ •beyond'. In these cases, 1t seems that an additional parameter is introduced mto the separative relatiOn, namely, the position which the speaker or the observer occupies relative to the two objects involved in the separative relation. Agau1, this is in contrast with the use of 'from', whtch IS essenttally neutral a~ to the spatial position of the ob~erver. Lastly, we come acro~s one or two examples of separative comparative~ where the marker of the standard NP b translated
A ( :ro~s-ltnguJ~!JL 'l'yfJt,/ogy of ( :ompttrti/W('S .l~ 'bl'htnd' or \dt~t ', ~lKh L.I~C:C. llllght bl' 'l't'll ,1, lll,1.11h:t•~ ol '\C..')l.tf.ltiVt' reianons winch mdude an observer~onentauon, but m wh1ch the aspect of the ~eparative predicate IS perleccve rather than imperfective.
Languages which choose an allattve relanon as the metaphor for the cxpress1on of companson typ1cally select a marker With a meamng wh1ch IS eqmvalent to that of the English ptcposmon to. Thus, the prototypical form of the standard NP m thiS type of adverb1al comparative is that of a goal-phrase. As was the case w1th separanve comparanves, a hm1ted amount of dtversdication may be encountered m the choice of al1at1ve comparative markers. A few languages exphc1tly refer to the vertical d1mcns1on of spacey encodmg the1r standard NPs by a marker meanmg 'up to'. We also find markers of standard Nl's wh1ch can be translated as 'on this Mde of', thereby betraymg observer-onentat10n, or markers with the meamng 'm from or or 'before', which might be JUdged to be a case of observer-onented allauve movement in perfective aspect. lastly, there are languages winch model thm codification of compariSon on the expressiOn of /ocatwe spatial relations. The unmarked case here IS the use of a marker which resembles English at or on m meaning. Occastonally, however, locanve comparative markers are encountered whiCh refer to other possibilities of spatial contact, such as 'on top of', 'bes1de; next t0 1 or 'agamst'.
2.2.4 Problems m the c..atcgorrzation of adverb1al comparatives In connectiOn With the above class1ficanon of adverbtal comparatives mto three semantically defined types, I must point out a couple of t.onceptual and practical difficulties. Wlnle thts dassificanon turns out to he fa1rly straightforward m the maJOrity of the relevant languages, there are also several languages m which there may anse some uncertamty as 10 the correct class1ficat1on of the1r comparative consrrucrion. Tins uncertamty may be caused by various factors wh1ch I will briefly touch upon helow. F1rst, 1t can be observed that the formal codtficanon of the locational ·,ystem as a whole showc; considerable vananon across languages. In partlcular, languages vary m the degree of exphomess to which semanncally dtstmct locatiOnal concepts are mapped onto dtsnnctions m formal (t.e., lex1cal and/or structural) representanons. On one stde of the scale of exphcatness, we find languages hke Ubykh or Fmnish, where differences m locanonal shades of meamng are formally encoded m a very elaborate system of case d1stinct1ons. Ftnmsh, for example, ha!, different case forms to represent such locatlonal concepts as lllanve ('movement Within a closed space): mlmstde the house), elanve ('movement out of an enclosed
The Typology of Comparatcvc CcmstructHms
35
'P·11..L'': out of the lmus,·), llll'\.,lvc ('po.,.ltlon ol .111 obj(.'Ct m a do~nl space': msrdelwtthm the house), .u.k~')IVC ('po"tlliOII ol .m obJeCt on tht'
surface of another ob1ect': on/upon the table), ablative ('removal of an obfect from the surface of another object': from/off the table), allanve ('movement towards an object': to the house), and several more. Howc\'er, opposed to languages with this kmd of very fine-gramed system of locat10nal representations, we also find languages m whtch most, tf not all, spatial concepts are represented by one smgle formal mode of
expression. An example of a language in which this situation obtains is Mapuche (see de Augusta, 1903). In this South-Amencan language, the postposition meu functions as a very general locational marker, whtch may be glossed as "m', 'on', 'at',
--~----
36
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
m surface structure in the case of the preposition in, which can be used to express both a motion towards an object (lnj viel m de rwier: 'he fell mto the river') and a locat10n of an obJect mside another object {hiJ zwom m de rivier: 'he swam m the nvcr'). A case of a language in which this partiCular type of partial neutralization creates indeterminacy as to the correct classification of the comparative construction is Kanuri. In this language, the standard NP m comparatives is marked by a case suffix which has both an allanvc and a locative Interpretation (see Lukas, 1953). Parallel to cases m which general neutralization of locational concepts has taken place, these cases of parttal neutrahzation will be dtscussed individually, and for each case a spec1fic solutiOn (or, as thf' case may be) the admiSSIOn that there is no ready solution) will be stated. Apart from the more or less pracncal problem created by cases of neutralization, we should mentton one other source of indeterminacy m the classificatton of adverbial comparatives. This particular difficulty IS more of a conceptual nature: it stems from the observation that, in a limited number of languages, the standard NP m the comparative is part of an adverbial phrase which does not have a dearly recogmzable locJ.tional interpretation. Thus, we find standard NPs marked by elements which are to be glos·sed as an mstrumental marker ('by', 'with')) an agentrve marker ('by'), a comitative marker ('with', 'in the company of') or a benefact:ve marker ('to', 'for the sake of). One obvious way to deal with such cases would be to mcrease the number of subcategories into wh1ch adverbial comparatives can be divided; in addition to the three locationally defined subclasses mentioned above, one would then allow for a prohferation of other subclasses, which are modelled upon the formal expressiOn of non-locational relations. In this study, however, I will adopt a different approach, to the effect that the extstence of a few cases of non-locanonal adverbtal comparatives will not be taken to constitute a sigmficant typological factor. The point of view which will be defended here may be characterized as localistic. It re~ts upon the hypothesis that 'spatial expressions are more bas1c, grammatiCally and semantically, than VJ.riou\ kinds of non-spattal expressions ... Spatial expressions are lingUistically more bas1c) accordmg to the locahsts, in that they serve as structural templates) as it were, for other expressions; and the reason why this should be so) it is plausibly suggested by psychologists, is that spatial orgamzation is of central importance in human cogmtion' (Lyons, 1977: 718). Thus, the localist posltlon, whiCh has been defended by lmgu1sts and psychologists alike, ts characterized by the claim that non-~patial expresstons must be seen as ultimately denved from spatta1 exprc~1:!10ns, by means of processes of meanmg-expanston and abMracnon, An obvtous point in favour of thi<>
The Typology of Comparattve ConstructiOns
37
position is •the mcontroveruble fact that temporal expre&slons, in many related languages} are patently derived from local expresstons' (Lyons, ibid.). But apart from temporal expres&ions, there are also le~& obv1ous grammatical categones which may be candidate~ for a locahstlc analysts, such as tense, and various notions connected with the grammaCl\..J.! category of aspect (see Comrie, 1976). What makes the locahstic hypothest~ particularly relevant to the ~ubject of the present C!.~ay ~~ the claim that, on the one hand, agemive and mstrumental phrases can be locahsticaliy conceived of as source phrase&, and that, on the other hand, indtrect objects and benefactive phrases can be seen as the locJh!.tlc meaning-expansion of goal·phrases {see Anderson, 1971 i Anderson and Dubois-Charher, 1975). If we accept th1s locahsnc analysts, we are tn a position to categonze comparatives m which the standard NP l!:t encoded in an agentive or instrumental phrase as spectal mstances of the separative comparattvc. Conversely, comparattve& 111 whtch the ~tandard NP ha., thE fonn of an indirect object or a constitutcnt of a benefactiVe phrase can be classified as special cases of the allative comparative. Wtth respect to adverbial comparatives whiCh have a comttative Interpretation, it ~eem'> semantically plausible to classify them a!:t a (more or 1~::.) non-spaual meaning-expansion of locative comparative~. Ltke locattve phrases, comitattve phrases too tmply a dose contact between obJects or mdiv1duah. Furthermore, we may point out that comnattve phrase!. are common m the formal expression of the concept of posses!.iv1ty across languages. As has been argued in a large number of publicattons,S possessive construe· tions are structurally cognate to locative construction& m many unrelated languages throughout the world.
2.2.5 Subcategorzzation of dertved~case constructions With the distinction of direct-object comparatives and the three subtypes of adverbial comparatives, we have established the termmal categones of the class of fixed-case comparative conMructtons. To conclude our discussion of the parameters whtch we employ in our typology of comparatives, we must now pay attention to the other maJor cl.l!.!., vtJ.:. those comparattves m whtch the case of the Mandard NP can be Jenvcd or determmed from the case of the comparee NP. One mtght say that, Jn such constructions, the case of the standard NP 1s 'parasitiC' on the ca·,e ass1gnment which the comparee NP has received. Withm the class of denved~case comparatives, we can smgle out one highly typtcal subcategory, whtch can be tdcnnfied very east!y acro;s languages. For this category, a definmg characteristic I& that the comparat1 ,re constructwn consists of two structurally mdependent clauses; one of
A Cross-ling111stic Typology of Comparatrves
3h
1hc..,r ~ Llll'>l''! l o!!t.llll"
tln·
l'Olllp.m.T
NP, wlu.:n·,,.., tlw othrr
dauM·
<.:ont.tmo., the '>t.lntl.lrd NP. Furthnmorc. the two ci.HJ\(':-, llllJUl'\tlon ~how a .tmctural parallcltsm, to the effect that the grammaw.:.tl functton of the comparee NP Js one of the clau~:oe& IS reduplicated by the grammancal funcnon of the standard NP tn the other clause. If, for example, the comparee NP funcnom as the grammatical subject m 1ts clause, the st.lndard NP will also have :-,ubjcct c;;tatus m Its clause. Smce rhe comparanve con<>trucnon at issue com.ists of two mdependent cl.~uo;es, tt foHows that the construction wJ!l also have to contam two mdependent prediCates. In other word~, a further feature of this type of comparative 1s that the comparatwe predtcate is expressed twice. There arc vanotls different ways to formalize thts double reference to the scale ol compan~on; we will say more ahoutthts pomt in sectiOn 2.3.5. As a last pomt, we should note that the semantiC relation between the two mdependent clauses m this comparative construction is usually to be dt·scnhcd as adversatwe coordmatron; tts hteral mterpretation ts somethmg along the hnes of 'A is p, bur B is q.' Thus, one might say that, in tl- I!> type of comparative, there is no dtrect measurmg of the two objects agamst each other, but the non-equal gradanon of the obJects involved can be mferred from the fact that they are contrasted m an adversative coordmat10n. To quote JUSt one example of this type of conJotned comparattve, constder the following sentence from Samoan: (10)
SAMOAN:
Va loa /ener va'a , ua puupuu lena ts long thts boat IS short that
The Typology of ComparatiVe ConstructiOns
\l.lndard NP in th<.''>l' romp.tr.lltH'\
39
.Kromp.lnH·d by .m dement whtch Wl' HhiY ...:.tiii/Je <.OIIIJ•!Ir.llfi'C f'•ll/1(1('. In dw typtl.d l.l'.. t, thi~ p.~rtidr t.:Jnnot be idcnnficJ a~ J C.I~C m.1rker, ~nKc It\ prc'icncc ~~ mdependent of I'>
the particular case form whtch the standard NP happens to have. A der1ved-case comparative construction m which such a comparative partacle is present will be called an mstance of the parttcle comparative. Examples of particle comparative!3 whtch have already been introduced m the foregoing text are the Latm quam-comparattve and the Enghsh than-comparative. Some prehmmary remarks on thts type of comparative will be made in section 2.4. Chapter 9 will be devoted to a detailed dtscussion of the constructiOns m whtch a comparanve parncle IS present. 2.3
Five major types of comparative constructions
If we apply the above criteria to the cross-lingmsnc data base of our typology of comparatives, we arnve at a classtficanon mto five clearly identifiable vanants. In this section, I w1ll bnefly introduce each of these variants in turn, and list the languages whtch have a comparanve construction of the type at issue as their primary or secondary option. Furthermore, I have included some comments on the b~ic word order of the languages involved; as will become clear, we can observe some degree of correlation between basic word-order type and chotce of comparative type.
2.3.1
Type 1, The Separattve Comparatwe
The Separanve Comparative is an mstance of fixed-case adverbial comparanve constructions. NP-companson is, in this type, expressed m one smgle surface clause. In this clause the comparee NP can, in pnnciple, have any grammattcal functiOn. In contrast, the standard NP IS mvariably encoded as a consntutent part of an adverbial phrase with a (spatial or non-spatial) separative mterpretation. Examples of this type of comparative construction are the following:
(11)
MUNDARI'
Sadom-ete batt
mananga-i
horse-from elephant big -PRES. 3SG 'The elephant i!> bigger than the horse'
(12)
JAPANESE'
Nthon-go wa dozts-go yori muzukashz Japanese TOP German from difficult 'Japanese ts more dtfficult than German'
-·-~
-
-
--- -··-·-------
--
-
40 (13)
A Cross-ltngutstic Typology of Comparatives CARIB:
Kuliali a -kultalt kopo apoto-me mang canoe your-canoe from btg -one IS 'My canoe is bigger than your canoe' A hst of languages which exhibtt this comparative construction as thet primary option reads as follows: Amhanc
Eskimo
Manchu
Andoke Arabic (Class.) Aranda Aymara
Guarani Hebrew (Biblical) Hind• Japanese Jurak Kashmtri Khalka
Mundari Nama Piro Quechua
Bedauye
Btlm Burmese Burushaskt
Canb Cceur d'Alene
Korean Lamutic
Tajik Tibetan Tupi Turkish Vayu
Laz
A secondary separative comparative can be found in:
Albaman Basque Old English
.Finnish Old French Greek (Class.)
Latin Russian Tamil
From dus listing, we may conclude that the Separative Comparanve ~~ very wtdely spread indeed; almost 30 per cent of the languages in rht: sample choose thts type as their pnmary option. A striking charactensti<. of this category is that the languages wh1ch it contains appear to have:: strong preference for SOV word-order. Of the 32 languages wtth ; primary separative comparativej only four (viz. Arabic (VSO), Cceur d'Alene (VOS), Guarani (SVO) and Bibltcal Hebrew (VSO) are contra dictions to th1s tendency. 2.3.2
Type 2: The Allattve Comparative
Like the Separative Comparative, the Allative Comparative is an instanc of a fixed-case adverbial comparative type. It can rightly be regarded a the m1rrorMimage of the Separative Comparative. Again, we find NP comparison expressed m one single clause, with the comparee N appeanng in any grammatical functiOn. The standard NP, however 1doc not form a part of a source~phrase, but is invanably encoded as t'nnstin1cnt part of ;' (sp;:ltlnl or non~spaual) goal~phrase. Examples c th~; type indud<'.
The Typology of Comparative Constructions (14)
41
MAASAI:
Sapuk ol -kondi to I -kibulekeny JS-big the-deer to the-waterbuck 'The deer is bigger than the waterbuck' (15)
BRETON:
]azo bras-ox wid-on he btg -PRT for -me ·He is btgger than me'
Listing the pnmary languages m this class, we get: jacalrec
Maa.al Nuer
Kanun
Smslawan
Breton
Tarascan
An Allarrve Comparative as a secondary option can be encountered 1n Mandmka, Mangarayi and Tamil. We can note here that, at least as far at, the primary opuons a1·e concerned, the A1lat1ve Comparath.·e appears to be hm1ted almo,[ exclusively to languages which h•ve basic verb-rmttal word-order. Kanutl, an SOY-language, is the only exa:pnon here. Indeed, the relatively small size of the class may well be connected wtth the fact that a considerable number of verb-inittal languages prefer a ConJoined Comparative or a Particle Comparative as their primary option m comparative~type choice; for this, see sect10n 2.3.5 and secnon 2.4.
2.3.3
Type 3: The Locatzve Comparatwe
The third instance of fixed-case adverbial comparatives is the Locative
Comparative. In this construction, the standard NP is mvariably encod~d as a constituent of an adverbial phrase whrch is marked by an element that mdicates spatial or non-spatial contact. Apart from the marking of the standard NP, the Locative Comparative IS forntally >imil•r to the Separative Comparative and the Allative Comparative in all sign1ficanr
respects. That JS, the construction again cons1sts of one single clause, and the comparee NP ts free to fulfil any grammatical function. Examples of this comparative type include the following: (16)
CHUCKCHEE:
Gamga-qla'ul-rk qetvu -ci -um all ·men ·on strong·more·1SG 'I :un ~uongcr rhan all men'
A Cross-lmguist~e Typology of Comparatives
42 (I I)
1.11 INAl><:
Ragas-mo m luwa t1 -hek surely-you more man on-me 'You are more of a man than me'
The followmg 12languages are prtmary members of this class: (SOY) (YSO) (SOY) (SOY)
Chuckchce Cebuano Mandmka Mapuche ~condary
M1wok Naga Navaho Salman
(YW) (SOY) (SOY) (VSO)
Tamaztghr Tamil Tubu Ubykh
(YSO) (SOV) (SOV) (SOV)
Locanve Comparanves are documented for:
(SOV) B"'que (SOY) Dakota Gumbamggor (SOY)
Hungarian latvian Maon
(SOY?) (SYO) (VSO)
Nama
Samoan
(SOV) (VSO)
As for word order, the absence of SVO·languages in this class is a stnkmg fact, even 1f we make allowance for the relatively small size of the category. Thus, ot seems that a predtlection lor etther SO V or VSO order among the languages of thos category may be stated with some confidence. This tendency IS mengthened even further when the secondary members
of this type are taken mto account. 2.3.4
Type 4: The Exceed CompllTattve
The Exceed Comparatove IS the fourth and final varoant of fixed-case comparattve constructions. Its mam charactensnc ts that the standard NP os mvanably constructed as the direct object of a special transitive verb, the meanmg of wh1ch can be glossed as 'ro exceed, or 'to surpass'. Furthermore, the comparee NP always funcnons as the subJect of th1s ~exceed'-verb. hom a semantiC pomt of v1ew, the Exceed Comparative may be con~1dered as cognate to the Separate Comparative, in that both con~rrucnons
imply a movement of an obJect beyond or farther away from another obJect. formally, however, the two types of comparatJves are definitely dtstmct. As to the representatiOn of the comparatiVe pred1cate m th1s type, ~trateg1es may dtHer from language to language. Some language prefer a so-cal)ed 'sen a I verb '·constructiOn, m whtch the comparee NP is con-
.rructed as the sub)ect of a verbal complex whtch contams both the comparative pred1cate and the exceed-verb. We wdl dtscuss tlus variant 111 detail in sectiOn 8.1. For the moment, the fo11owmg examples of this Exceed-1 Comparatwe may suffice:
The Typology of Comparative Construe trans (IS)
YOHIIIIA: 0 tobr JU
43
u
he big exceed htm 'He IS btgger than htm' (19)
VIETNAMESE:
Vang qur
bon
bac
gold valuable exceed stlver ·Gold is worth more than silver' In other languages, such as Hausa, we find that the exceed·verb is the only main predicate m the constructwn. In thts vanant, whtch we wtll call the Exceed-2 Comparat1ve, the comparative predicate is expressed in a subordinate form which funcuons syntacttcally as an adverbial phrase: (20)
HAUSA:
Doki ya-fi rago grrma horse It -exceed goat btgness •A horse is bigger than a goat'
Sull other languages construct the comparative predtcate as the sole mam verb m the construction, while the exceed-verb receives some subordinate form (e.g., the form of a parriaple, or of an mfinltlve). An example of thts Exceed-3 Comparatwe can be found tn Swah1h: (21)
SWAHILI:
Mtr huu nr mrefu ku -shrnda ule tree this IS b1g INF-exceed that 'This tree is taller than that tree' We should emphasize here that, whatever the strategy in representing the comparative predicate and the exceed-verb may be, the main characterl~ttc of all the variants of the Exceed Comparanve ts that the constructiOn com1sts of one single sentence, and that It contains a transltlve exceedverb which takes the standard NP as Its duect object. My sample contains 20 languages which have some variant of the Exceed Comparative as their pnmary opnon. These languages are the followmg:
Banda Bari Cambodian Dagomba Dual a Fulani Gbeya
Hausa Igbo ]a bern Kuund1 Mandarm Marg1 Nguna
Swahili Thai Vietnamese Wolof
Yagan Yoruba
..
44
_
A Cross-lmguisttc Typology of Comparatives
A secondary Exceed Comparative can be found in:
Ayma.-a
Quechua
Maasat
Stka
Sranan Tamazight
As for word order, we can observe that for this set of languages SVO order appears to be mandatory, at least as far as the prtmary members of tlns type are concerned.
23.5 Type 5: The Con,omed Comparatwe The Conjoined Comparative is the most conspicuous manifestation of
derived-case comparative constructions, ln this type, NP-comparison is typically effected by means of the adversative coordmation of two clauses; one of these clauses contains the comparee NP, and the other clause contains the standard NP. Furthermore, there is a structural
parallelism between the two clauses, to the effect that the grammaucal function which the comparee NP fulfils in its clause is matched by the grammatical function of the standard NP in liS clause. As a result, thiS type of comparative mvolves two g.-ammancally mdepeudent clauses, which are connected in such a way that a gradation between the two objects can be inferred. W1thin this category, we can distinguish two subtypes, on the baSis of the particular manner in which the double reference to the scale of comparison 1S effected. These two subtypes are:
-Type SA: conjoined comparatives in which the two clauses contain antonymous predicates; and - Type SB: conjoined comparatives m which the comparative predicates in the two clauses ex:hib1t a positive-negative polarity. An example of the first subtype IS the following sentence from Sika:
(22)
SJKA:
Dzarang ttca gahar , dzarang ret kesik horse that b•g horse thiS small 'That horse IS b1gger than this horse' Subtype 5B can be illustrated by the following example: (23)
HJXKARYANA:
Kaw-ohra naha Waraka, kaw naha Kaywerye tall -not he-is W. tall he-is K. 'Kaywerye is taller than Wnmka'
The Typology of ComparatiVe Constructions
45
A list of the 20 primary languages in this class reads as follows: (SYO) (OSY) (SOY) (SOY) Gumbainggir (SOY) Hixkaryana (OYS) Kobon (SOY)
Ab1pon Cayapo Dakota Ekagi
Mangarayt
Maon Menomini
Miskito Mtxtec Motu Monumbo
(SOY) (YSO) (SYO) (SOY) (YSO) (SOY) (SOY)
Nahuatl Pal a
(SYo: (SVO' (YSO· (SOY, (SYO• (SOY1
Samoan
Shipibo Sika Yavapai
A secondary option for a ConJoined Comparative can be found in:
Banda Kirundi
(SYO) (SYO)
llocano
Mapuche
(YSO) (SOY)
Nuer
Swahd1
A first thing to note about this class is that the
language~
(YSOJ (SYO) which
It
contains appear to exhibit a certam degree of geographtcal groupmg. Th~ primary languages in this class are predommandy Austrahan) Papuan or Polynesian, or else can be situated on the American continent. It thus looks as tf the choice for a Conjoined Comparative is (at least to a certain extent) influenced by the characteristics of certain linguistic areas. As regards basic word order, no definite statement can be made for this class. Basic word order does not seem to be a determining factor in the choice for or against a Conjomed Comparattve; afl maJor word-order patterns are represented in this category and, what is more, they occur in
proportions which do not dtffer greatly from those which one would expect to find in a random 7 selection of languages.
2.4 Particle Comparatives In the case of the five typological categone~ which we discussed 1n the preceding section, classification IS fa1rly straightforward; the languagt·~ which are h~ted under each of the respective he.:tdings are ea~ily recogni;able as instances of the type in question. However, I have already pointed out that, for a number of languages in my sample, das~ification IS a bit more problematic. In this section, I will deal With one set of such problematic cases, the so-called Partzcle Comparatwes. Followmg that. I will note a number of cases where classificatiOn seems to be indetermmate as a result of the ~mixing' of two comparative types.
Under the heading of 'Particle Comparatives' I have lumped together a number of constructions which have in common that the standard NP has derived case. However, these construction\ al ..o lack a numhcr 1}f
41.
A Cross-lmgu1sttc Typology of Comparatwes
fc tlllr<:~ whtch ch,tr.h.:t•.:ntc the m.un class of dcnvcd·ca~c comparatives, VII.. the CtHlJ(Illlt'd (,Oil1J1.ll'.l11Vf..', h1r one thtng, PJrt1de ('(lmp.tr.tllvc~ do n
structurally a& a constituent part of a phrase m the clause which also contams the comparee NP. In this respect, Particle Comparanves restmble (again, as far as thetr 'ynchronic form is concerned) adverbial comparatives rather than conjotned comparanves, where standard NP and comparee NP are constituents of separate and mdependent clauses. A typical characteristiC of all Particle Comparative is the presence of a
spec1fic comparatwe particle, wh1ch accompanies the standard NP. In the typ1cal case, thiS particle cannot be idennfied as some kind of case marker, since the case form of the standard NP in this type of comparative IS derived from the case assigmnent of the comparee NP. 8 Another feature of Particle Comparatives, which we may note in passing, IS that morphological markmg of comparative predicates seems to be exceptionally popular with them. Of the 18 language; with a Particle Compara-
nve, there are 13 languages in which morphological romparativemarkmg of the predicate IS obligatory. While Pamde Comparatives share at least one common feature
(namely, the fact that they are, or have been, instances of derived case), there are also mdicanons that the Particle Comparative IS l10t a homogeneous category. The internal diversificauon of th1s set of comparatives
is brought out by the fact that the comparative particles which are mvolved in the vanous constructions cannot be shown to have the same ongm or categorial status for all of the languages in this class. One gets
the impressmn that the class of Particle Comparatives (m as far as they can rightly be •aid to form a class at all) has assembled its members from a large vanety of sources and that, m languages with a Particle Comparative,. the formanon of the comparatiVe construction has, so to speak,
'gone wrong along the way'. A full d1scussion of the various forms which Particle Comparatives may have Will be presented in chapter 9. Examples of languages with a Particle Comparative are Latin and English, and also the followmg languages: (24)
HUNGARIAN:
Istvan
magasa-bb mmt Peter
L-NOM tall
-PRT
than P.·NOM
'Istvan is taller than Peter'
The Typology of Comparative Constructtons (2\)
47
JA VAm:IF.:
lit111k
dagtttg karo ttetlk
ts-good meat th;ul fi~h 'Meat is better than fish' (26)
MALAGASY:
Lehibe noho ny zana-ny Rabe tall than rhe son -his R. 'Rabe is taller than his son' A pr1mary Particle Comparative of some type can be attested for the following IS languages m the sample: (SYO) Albanian (SOY) Basque (SYO/SOY) Dutch (SYO) English (SYO) French (SYO) Finnish
Gaehc (YSO) GoaJiro (YSO) Greek (CL) (SOY) Hungar1an (SOY?) Ilocano (YSO) Javanese (SYONSO)
Latin Latvian Malagasy Russian Sranan Toba Barak
(SOY) (SYO) (VOS) (SYO) (SYO) (YOS)
Furthermore, a Particle Comparative occurs as a second opuon in Bari (SYO) and Classical Nahuatl (SYO). Looking at the hst of languages with a primary Particle Comparative, I think it IS safe to say that thts comparative type is, to a considerable extent, to be rated as an areal phenomenon. No less than 12 of the 18 languages at issue are members of the European 1 Sprachbund', while four others belong to the Austronesian family. As for word order, this list makes it clear that basic word~order patterns do not seem to constitute a determining factor in the choice for a Particle Comparative. As with conjomed comparatives, all major word orders are represented here, in roughly the proportions which one would expect to encounter m a random selection of languages. All in all, then, we may conclude that there is no correlation between derived-case companson and preference for certam word-order types, while for the vanous subtypes of fixed~case comparison such a preference can be established wtth some certainty.
2.5 Mixed cases As I pointed out earlier, there are certain languages in my sample for whtch the type of ~omparative construction is hard to determine uniquely. These languages appear to have a mrxed comparative, in which the essential features of two different types seem to have been combined.
48
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
Now, in section 1.3.3 I adopted the view thatsuch cases of indeterminacy must be conceived of as empirical data, wh1ch require explanation as much as cases m which this indeterminacy is absent. A framework m which the phenomenon of type-mixing in comparatives might find a principled explananon will be presented m chapter 15, For the present, I w1ll restrict myself to a brief presentation of the relevant cases. In the sample we find at least three languages with a comparative
which combines features of rhe Conjoined Comparative and the Exceed Comparative. In all three of these languages, the construction consists of an adversative coordmation of two structurally independent sentences; if we take this feature to be the determmmg factor in the classification of these constructions, we would have to categorize them as instances of the Conjoined Comparanve. Unlike the regular case of the Conjomed Comparative; however, m these constructions the second sentence does
not contain a negation or an antonymous predicate, nor is there a
structural parallelism between the two sentences with respect to the grammatical function of the standard NP and the comparee NP. Instead, the second sentence has an exceed-verb as its pred1cate, which takes the standard NP as its duect object and the comparee NP as its subject. We find this 'Conjoined Exceed Comparative' in Fulani and Achoh: (27)
FULANI:
Samba mawt , o buri Amadu S. is-big , he exceed A. 'Samba IS b1gger than Amadu' (28)
ACHOU:
Gwok mera dit ki kato men dog my big and exceed your 'My dog is bigger than yours'
In the above Fulani example, it is the comparee NP which is mentioned explicitly m the first clause of the comparative. We can, however, also find instances of the oppoSite possibihry, that is, cases of a Conjomed Exceed Comparative in which the first sentence has the standard NP as its subject. Examples of this state of affairs are provided by the (secondary) comparatives in Motu, Tamazight andTemne. Cp.: (29)
MOTU:
Una na namo , ina herea-ia
that is good this exceeds 'Th1s i~ better than that'
The Typology of Comparative Constructions (30)
49
TAMAZIGHT:
Aiis
ennek mularen , oua bin iou(i horse your IS-good that my exceeds
'My horse is betrer than your horse' (31)
TEMNE:
A -seth ane a fino , kere anan a thas the-house this it good but that It exceed 'That house IS better than this house' Qmte a different case of indeterminacy 1s presented by the classification of the comparative construction in GaoJiro. Part of the difficulty here IS that the two sources on this Arawakan language (Celedon, 187S;
Holmer, 1949) seem to contradict one another on an essential pomt. If we follow Holmer (1949: 146), we observe that the GoaJiro comparative obligatonly includes the presence of the Item aulaka, whtch m other contexts must be translated as 'and) or 'too'. Furthermore, the standard NP tn the construction is not only expressed by that NP Itself, but ts al'lo referred to by an adverbial phrase whtch consists of the postposition -Ita 'from' and a proclitic pronominal element whtch agrees wtth the standard NP m person, number and gender. The following sentences may tllustrate this constructiOn: (32)
GOA}IRO:
a.
Au/aka Rupeta mulia'u , hu -Ita Rafaela and R. big-is her-from R.
Faced with this situation, we may venture the hypothesiS that the GoaJlro comparatrve is a Conjoined Comparative in which, untypicaHy, the second clause has the form of a separative expression. Accordingly, we might rate thts construction as a case of mixing between the Conjoined Comparative and the Separative Comparative. In contrast to this representation of the GoaJiro comparattve, Celedon (1878: 20) notes an essentially different state of affairs. For one thing, Celedon does not mention the presence of the item au/aka in this construction. More importantly, this author state~ that the standard NP in Goajiro comparative~ is signalled by the presence of the element nOna; it is plausible to view this item as a phonological or orthographtcal vanant of the element nu-lra 'from himllt' mentioned by Holmer. 9 Now,
10
the C\'ll.:rltral polllt J,') th.ll, ,J(.I.orJurg to CclcJun\ JJt.l. the p.~rtrdc mma ~~ an mv.lnable clement; tt does not show any morphological agreement wtth the standard NP. Thus, Celedon quotes the followmg examples of the GoaJrro comparative: (33)
GOA]/ROc
''·
Kauzu
-sht
Pedro noria juan beatmful-MASC P. than J. 'Pedro rs more handsome than Juan' Kauza -se Marta nona Juana beautJful-FEM M. than ]. 'Mana rs prettier than Juana' Ooyor-shi taya nOna pw fat -MAIC I than you 'I am fatter than you'
If Holmer's analysis were followed here, the particle ndna in these semence~
would have to have the forms nu-na 'from h1m', hu-na 'from her', and pu-rta "from you', respectively. Since this vanation is not attested by Celedon, we must as!!tume that this author takes the Item norza to be a comparattve partiCle, which would make Goa]iro an
instance of a language With a Particle ComparatiVe. In considenng the case of Goajiro, I have dectded to follow Celedon's faces, and hence l have classified thts language under the heading of the Particle ComparatiVe. I thmk that the most plausible way to account for the vanous data on the GoaJ!rO comparative is to as~ume that, in this construction, the cr~tw'hile separative phrase '&om (which has been retamed as such Ill some dialects or by some native speakers) has gradually come to be reanalysed as an invariable adverbial element, in tts most neutral form, vtz. the form 'from 1t'. In other words, my suggestion IS that GoaJiro presents a case m which a Separative Comparative has elltered a penod of transmon mro another type, viz. the Particle Comparative; an mtermcdtate ~rage in this process may be seen in the bet that th1s construction has at least some features wh1ch pomt to a conJomed analysts. In this connection, it may also be useful to point out that a basic separative mterprctauon of the particle 1n a Particle Comparative is by no means uncommon; the comparative parncle asa in T oba Batak IS an adverb with the meaning 'after that', and the same IS true for the Dutch comparative particle dan. But it must be adm1tted, of course, that this solut1on to the problem with which GoaJlrO confronts us contams a high degree of speculation, and that this language remains a 'ase whtch seems to res1st straightforward classificatiOn.
x·
The Typology of Comparattl'e Constntctwns
51
hn.tlly, we mu~t 'Oil\Jdcr om.• r.ulwr pccuh.~r l'.l'>t' oJ 1111xcti NPcontparlson. Telugu, a Orav1d1an IJnguagc, markr, the o,t •.md:1rd NP m rt~ comparatiVes by means of the affixes -kanna or -kante: (34)
TELUGU:
I
-pandu a
this-fruit
-pa11du-kanna trpr -ga undr
that-fruit -llRT
sweet-one 1s 1 11us fruit is sweeter than that fru1t'
The suffixes -kanna and -kante arc not spatial postpasittons m Telugu; they mean ne1ther 'to' nor 'at' nor 'from', nor can they be 1dennfied as p
hke the followmg: (35)
TELUGU:
a.
Ramarav podugu-vadu ka -du R. tall -one not·IS 'Ramarav ts not tall'
•
I -pandu trpi -dt ka -du this-frutt sweet-one not-is ·Th1s fruit is not sweet'
To be exact, the element kanna is the Infinitive form of this negative copula, a fortn which " used to represent the predicate of subordmate temporal clauses. The element kante must be v1ewed as the Adverbial Conditional of the negative copula, a form which codifies the predicate of subordinate condinonal clauses. Hence, we might say that the compara-
tive construction in (34) has in fact the literal meamng: 'Wh1le/if that fru1t lS not (sweet', th1s frutt IS sweet.' In other words, the Telugu comparative migbt be taken to be a Conjoined Comparative of the polar subtype; as such, Telugu would be deviant only m that 1t has reduced one of che conjoined clauses in the constructiOn to a subordinate form, whereas the regular cases of the ConJoined Comparanve prefer to keep the structural coordmauon of the two clauses mtact. On the other hand, one m1gbt also maintain that Telugu is a language With a Particle
Comparative. The fact that the particle(s) 10 quesnon are verbal fortns w1th the meaning 1not being' cannot be regarded as an argument against this classification, Ill v1ew of the fact that, apparently, particles in such
•
52
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
comparatives are of a heterogeneous origin anyway. Given these alternatives, and the lack of argumentation to make a princ1pled choice between them, I have decided to treat Telugu as an indeterminate case which defies straightforward classification. The comparative construction in T elugu will therefore not figure in the discusston of the various comparative types that will be presented in the following chapters; its occurrence will not be brought up until, m chapter 15, a general framework for the explanation of the occurrence and distribution of comparative-types has been developed.
3 In Search of a Determinant Factor
Now that the description of the data on the comparative constructions in our sample has resulted in the establishment of a cross-lmgmstic typology, our next task will be to find a prmc1pled way to account for the distinctions which th1s typology offers. As I noted in section 1.2, such a principled account presupposes that we are able to find an explanation for the attested occurrence and non-occurrence of the categories which figure in the typology, and for the att.,ted d1stnbution of languages over the options wh1ch the typology offers. A natural way to provide answers to these questions is to search for a second typological parameter which can be identified as the determinmg outside factor of our original typology of comparatives. That is, we will try to categorize the languages in our sample in an additional typology, m such a wa} that categunzahOIIS m this second typology match the distinctions which we have attested m the typology of comparative&: this matchmg can be laid down in a set of implicational umversals. In as far as the parameter of the second typology can be argued to be more basic or fundamental to language systems than the first (i.e. than comparison), we can call this second typology the determinant of the typology of comparative constructions; it serves as the basis upon which the non-randomness of variation m the encoding of comparison can be accounted for, and hence It can, in some sense, be said to constitute an explanation for that varia non.
3.1 Word order as a possible determinant At first glance, It would seem to be evident from our data that ba.Mc word-order type is a likely candidate for the function of determinant m our typology of comparatives. As we observed, for at least four of the maJor categories in the t~·pology a specific cho1ce of word order b a very stringent, if not necessary, condition. We may express the relations whkh
A Cross-lmgurstu: Typology of ComparatiVeS
54
we h.wr founll lo l"CI\1 hrtwt•t·n word·ordt·r p.liH'IIl ,liH\ ~.-hml.'(' of cmnp.u.wvc type 111 the followmj!, tour gcncr.l\..,t.ttcnwnt~:
(1) a. If a language has a Separattve ComparatiVe, then its basiC word orderrs SOV. b. If a language has an Al/at1ve Comparative, then 1ts baste word order is verb~mrtral.
c. If a language has a Locative Comparattve, then 1ts b= word order ts etther SO V or verb-inittal. d. If a language has an Exceed ComparatiVe, then tts basic word order ts SVO. Naturally, these four statements should not be taken as absolute unlvcrsa\s of language; they formulate tendenctes, m the sense of Comne (1~81: 27). We may say, however, that, as tendenctes go, our statements seem to be fatrly sound. Restncnng ourselves to the pnmary choices of comparative type, we can observe that statement ( 1a) i& contradicted by only four out of 32 languages m the sample (vil. ClasSical ArabiC, Ca::ur d'Alene, Guaram and B1blocal Hebrew); statement (1 b) is contradicted by one language out of seven (v1z. Kanuri); and statement!; (1 c) and (1 d),
wluch concern 12 and 20 languages, respective-ly, are not contradicted at all m the sample. There thus seems to be some ground for posit1onmg tentatively a correlatiOn between baste word-order type and cho1ce of comparative type; this co1·relanon IS of the kmd wh1ch is expressed m the above four general statement!:!. In what follows, I will refer to the
statements in (1) as word-order-based unwersals of comparative type chotec.
Now, although the four statements m (1) dearly represent vahd umversal tendencte!) 1 one
13
nevertheless left wtth the unea!,y feeling that,
somehow, thts set of word-order· based umversals d<>elo not teD the whole Mory about the attec;ted occurrence of comparat1ve types. Th1::. susp1cton IS confirmed once we examme to what extent the parameter of word· order vanatton can be said to prov1de an explanatory framework for the choice of a pamcular comparative type. If we look at the three require· ments for umversal explanatiOns (see sectiOn 1.2), we can note thJt the parameter of baSic word order w11l, at its best, fulfil only one of these reqUirements, namely, the requirement of bemg the 'more basiC' hngmstic feature of the two parameters mvolved. Since the pubhcat1on of Green· berg (1963)) it has become a common assumption m Umversal Grammar that word order IS a fundamental charactenstic of natural languages, from which vanou~ other cases of cross-hngutsnc vanation can be deduced (for Instance, the order of elements m phrases, the direction of deletion and adjunctiOn procedures, and so on}. Hence, It IS Cl!rtamly
ln Search of a Deternmumt }<'actor
55
JUsttfiable to bring up basic word order as a 'deeper-lymg' causal factor 111 the l111guistk typology uf uunp.H.tdvc tOII..,II'lii..IIOil"· On the other two count~, however, the ~t of word-un.lcr-b.u,cd UI\IVCI'..,,l[~ c.m be !:>hown to fail as an explanatory framework. For one thing, It can be observed that the set of umversals stated in (1) does not exhaust all the theoretically possible cases of combmations of word-order types. It IS a generally accepted fact m Umversal Grammar that natural languages are distributed over three maJor word-order types, vtz. SOY, YSONOS and SYO; these three word-order types are correlated to comparative types m the statements (Ia), (!b) and (ld), respectively. In addition, however, statemem (lc) clauns that a speafic comparative type, viz. the Locative Comparative, 1s correlated with either SOY or VSO word order. Now, given that at least some comparatiVe types can be correlated to two word-order types to the exclusion of the third, we may expect there to be other comparative types for which a correlation with a dtfferent combmation of word-order types can be ancsted. As It is, however, our data show that It is only the SOV-VSO comb1nauon whtch correlates wtth an empirically documented comparative type; there are no comparatt\'e types for which a cho1ce for either SOY or SYO, or a choice for either SYO or YSO, IS prescribed. As It Mands, the set of word-order-based umversals formulated above offers no pnncipled account for this empmcally attested exclusiOn of theoretically poss1ble combinanons of word-order types, and Its explanatory value is considerably weakened by this fact. As a second pomt, It can be !!een that the set of word-order-based umversals covers only four classes of comparative type~ out of six; for the ConJomed Comparative and the vanous mamfestattons of Parnclc Comparatives no correlation whatsoever wtth a parncular type of basic word order can be established. One might argue here that the Particle Comparative is only a mmor class, 1f a das~ at all. But even if we grant this, we are still faced With the uncomfortable situation that the correlation of comparative type to word-order type breaks down m more than 35 per cent of our pnmary cases of comparative constructions; this situation gets even worse once secondary options are taken mto account. l\1oreover, by accepting word order as the primary determmant of the typology of comparatives, one highly typical and Important variant m that typology, VIZ. the ConJOmed Comparative, Js left without any explanation of Its occurrence at all. Constderauons of this kind suggest that the relation between basic word-order types and certain comparative types, while undoubtedly real, should nevertheless be thought of as bcmg of a more mdtrect nature. They suggeM that we should be able to track down a new typological
56
A Cross-lingutstic Typology of Comparatives
parameter whrch intermediates between these two typologies. Of this intermedtate parameter, it should be required that It lead to a typology m which each category IS correlated both to a certain comparative type and, at the same tlme, to a certain word-order type (c.q. a combination of word-order types, or a lack of defimte word-order type). In this way, a word-order-based umversal of comparative-type choice such as (1 a) If a language has a Separattve Comparattve, then it has baste SO V word order
should be replaced by the syllogi;m (2), wh1ch clearly illustrates the concomitant status of word-order type in comparative-type choice: (2) a. Languages with a Separative Comparative belong to type A in the typology of X. b. Languages of type A in the typology of X typically have SOV word order. c. Therefor"' languages wtth a Separative Comparative typically have SOV word order. Thus, the establishment of a new determmant parameter for the typology of comparatives enables us (at least in principle) to maintain the empirical1y attested correlations between word-order types and certam comparative types, while at the same time the drawbacks of a d1rect correlation between these two typologies stand a chance of being eliminated. In the new model, the problems with which the set of wordorder-based universals confront us are transformed into issues regardtng the correlations between word-order types and the variants of the new intermediate typology. Hence, the explanatory value of this new parameter can be examined from two different sides. On the one hand, the new typology should be able to make correct predictions about the attested characteristiCS of the typology of comparative constructions. In addition, the new parameter should abo be able to incorporate the set of word-order-based umversals in a prinCipled, unproblematic fashion.
3.2 Spatial relations as a possible detem1inant
If we accept the lme of reasoning outlmed in the preceding section, our next problem IS of course to find out what this assumed new 'intermediate' parameter m1ght be. At this point, the system of the ways m which spatial relations are encoded in natural languages readily presents itself. As we observed in the foregomg chapter, the relation between spatial expression.!! and comparattves is most conspicuous in the case of
In Search of a Determinant Factor '
57
the various types of adverbial comparatives, but there is also a natural way m which the Exceed Comparative can be viewed as spatially derived. In short, one might venture the hypothesis that the typology of compa ratives ts the way 1t is because comparative constructions in natural language; tend to borrow their linguiStic mantle,tlon from the codtficatton of certain types of spatial notions. If we mvesttgatc this hypothesis for ItS value as an e>.piJ.nat1>ry framework, we can conclude that it IS certatnly satisfactory frorr1 a conceptual point of view. The idea that spatldl relations consntutc a more fundamental concept than comparbon IS not ltkely to meet wtth senou~ dh.agreement among lingmsts or psychologists. There are, how¥ ever, a number of ob1ecttons again~t this hypothesis whtch have to do with the formal way m which the parameter~ of spattal rclatton' and compan~on appear to be connected. First, it should be observed that the hypothesis, as it stands, does not offer a full matchzng of the types in the two rypologi"', While a relatton between spabal expressions and comparatl'\oes is ev1dent in the case of fixed-case comparatives, no such matching can be made m the case of derived-case constructions. Now, it mtght be argued that this tmperfect matchmg is Just a fact of life; one might mJ.IIltain that, apparently, some languages choose a spatial model in their encodmg of comparison, while other languages Simply do not. I think one has to admit that there IS, at present, no way to prove that such a p~ition is mconecr. I do feel, however, that, as long as the force~ behmd the phenomenon of linguistiC variation are still largely a mystery, one should aim at the formulation of universal theories which cover all the different hnguisnc mambtahOns of a given parameter, mstead of only a subset. As a second, and perhaps more damaging, objection, we can note that the hypothesiS, in its above formulation at least, falls short of the Criterion of exhaustiveness whtch I thscu..ed in sectron 1.2. Even for those languages in whieh a direct modelhng of comparison on spatial relations is evtdent, the hypotheSI• offers no restricted framework: it docs not answer the que!:ltlon of why it IS that some of these languages select a separative rel.ttiOn as their structural template of compari~on~ whtlc others prefer an allative or a locative relation. GIVen the plausible assumption that, in prmciple, all of these language~ have the means to encode all of these different spatial notions, we mru.t conclude that the '1ocalist' hypothesis advanced above 1~ not con~tramed enough to enctble us to make precise pred1ctlons vf the choice of comparative type m a given language. Notwi:h~tanding these objections, however, it remam~ an undemable and h1ghly !.ignificant fact that there IS a clo~e connection between the
A Cmss-lmguJSttc Tyf>ology of ComparatiVes
58
t:xpn·,..,wn of . . p.111.1l Jrl.111on.., .mtl romp.m . . on m .1 l.1r~c nwnlll'r of unrela1ed !Jngu.ag;t'-!1. Faced With thl:, ~mmgly par~1dox~e.1l !1-JtnatJon, I have adopted the followmg lmc of argumentation. I a"ume that the mental act of companson 1~, In ib cogmtive representation, indeed based upon ~patlal concepts; a further elaboranon of thi!. assumpnon w1ll be gwen 10 section 11.3. However~ a~t far as the linguistic codification of the concept of compartc;on 1!. concerned, I wtll defend the position that It is not ~panal location wh1ch IS the dctermmant factor m this encodmg, but rather the notion of temporal rhatnmg. Agam, I may pomt out here that locahst authors (e.g., Lyons (1977: 719)) have claJmed the ex~stence of a
progresstve degree of abstracuon m the order of 'spatial location', •temporal locaoon' and •absttact locaoon' (such as grammatical funcnons, <xJstent!ality, posse~~1v1ty and causanvity). GIVen this framework, the <entral cla1m of this study can be pbra,.d as tbe statement that comparative constructiOns m natural language~ are one more case of 'ab&tract locanon'. 3.3
Temporal chaining as the determinant of comparative types
\~a cogmt1ve
nouon, temporal chainmg can be defined as the process by whtch the mmd establishes 'the relation between two events, A and B, as overlappmg, preceding or following each other' (Traugott, 1975: 208). The rt.-sult of the mappmg of tht!. process onto a language system is a temporal cham, 1.e., a semannc configuration m wh1ch t"WO tensed
proposmons (representmg states or events} are presented succcsstvely. We will see m chapter 4 that, semantically, temporal chains can be d1v1ded mto two classes. In one class of cases, temporal chams must be mterpreted as staung that the events or states m questiOn occur at the same pomt m time; these temporal chains w1ll be referred to as stmultaneous (temporal) chams. The other class, m which the events or states refcncd tom the ch.ain must be taken to occur or ohtam one after tbe otherwdl be called consecutwe (temporal) chams. In addmon, I ac;sume that thts c;emantac or cognitive temporal chaining is mirrored formally by a range of syntactic consttucnons m which sentences or pred1ca~ are hnearly ordered w1th respect to one another. Thus, syntactic temporal chammg will be assumed to be the formal hngutstlc correlate of the semantic chammg of propositions; syntactiC chams represent the formal way~ m wh1ch the cogmnve process of temporal chaming IS encoded m natural language. Natural languages may vary m the ways m which they choose to encode temporal chaming, anJ hence It 1s possrble co con~truct a typology of syntactic chams. One
In Search of a Determinant Factor
59
of the h!.'M-known ,md m.110r w.tyl't m which tcmpor.tl ..·h.unmg can be torm.lhLcd 111 n.nur.tl l.mguagc& it:~ the .1pplic.1t1on ul the &trm:tur.tl procedure of coordmation of sentences or prediCates. However, ab we &ball see, coordination IS by no means the only option m syntactiC chaming constructions across languages. The central aim of th1s study IS to provtde evtdcnce for the positiOn that temporal channng must be 1dencified as the determinant of com para· nve-rype chmce m natural languages. Thus, I w1ll argue: that the chotce of .a particular comparative type for a language L can be predicted from the type (or types) of temporal chainmg which that language permits, and
that the attested occurrence of comparanve types across languages
1s
determined by the theoretically possible types of temporal chams m natural langiiages. As will become clear in chapter 4, the possibility of having certain types of temporal chammg m a given language is in Its turn pamally constrained by the basic word-order pattern of that language. As a result, the correlations between comparative types and word-order types can be accounted for. Thus, I will argue for umversal statements of the followmg general kind:
(3)
Languages wrth a comparative construction of type A must have a temporal charning construCtiOn of type X. Smce languages With a temporal chatnrng construction of type X typrcally have the word-order optton W, languages With a comparatrve of type A typrcally have the word-order option W.
In chapter 4 I shall g1ve a survey of the ways m wh1ch temporal chaming is structurally reahzed 111 natural languages, and followmg that I shall present a definitive statement of the universal.;; of comparative-type choice which I defend. Before domg so, however, It may be inreresting to advance a number of prehmmary reason• for thinkmg that temporal chaming might be the proper candidate for the mtervening parameter 111 our model. In particular, I want to quote here a number of facts whiCh seem to pomt to a possible formal relat1onshap between comparatives
and coordinations.
3.4
Preliminary data
Preliminary md1cat10ns that temporal chammg may be the appropnate candidate for the functwn of determinant factor m comparative-type choice stem from a vanety of sources. Fust, we can note that by postulatmg temporal chaining as a typological determmant, we can explam the occurrence of at least two of the maJor classes of compara-
60
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
nvcs in a natural and direct fashion. These categories of comparative constructions appear as syntactic temporal chains even in surface structure: the ConJoined Comparative is structurally a case of sentential coordination, while at least some cases of the Exceed Comparative have the surface form of a :.enalizatlon, which ts a maJor syntactic chaining type 1n these languages. 1 Funher preliminary evtdence for the crucial role of temporal chammg in the choiCe of comparative type can be derived from a number of ISolated facts about the morphology of the comparatiVe constructions m various languages. At first sight, these facts may appear to be nothmg more than oddities, but they fall into a pattern once we assume a relatton between comparative formation and the formation of coordinated (1.e., a spectal type of chaining) constructions. On the one hand, we can note that, for a number of languages with a Particle Comparative, the comparative particle seems to be a lexical item that is also in use as a marker of (some type of) coordination between sentences. In Javanese, the element karo not only marks the standard NP in comparatives, but also occurs freely as the coordinating particle 'and'. Cp.: (4)
JAVANESE:
a.
Enak daging karo iwak is-good meat than fish 'Meat is better than fish'
7.
Bapaq menJang mg-desa karo simboq menJang ing-desa uga father go to -field and mother go to -field too 'Father went to the field, and mother went to the field too'
In Toba Barak, the comparative particle asa is also in use as an adverb tal consecutive marker, with the meaning 'and after that' or 'too': (5)
TOBA BATAK:
a.
Dumejak utang~na asa torop di obuk more-many debt -his than crowd of hair 'He has more debts than hairs on his head'
b.
Ningon dapot ho do i , asa gabe ho first have-got you EMPH this then rich you 'First you must have this, then you will be rich'
A similar siruatton as in Toba Batak may be claimed for the English comparauve particle than (see Small, 1923: 8; see, however, Joly, 1967 for a different opmton)) and possibly also for Standard Dutch, where the comparative parttcle dan is homonymous - and perhaps diachronically related- to the sentential consecutive marker dan •then'. Cp.:
In Search of a Determinant Factor (6)
STANDARD DUTCH:
a.
Jan is grater dan Piet J. is taller than P. 'Jan is taller than Piet'
b.
Eerst ga ik , dan gaat Jan first go I then goes J. 'Ftrst I will go, then Jan will go'
Furthermore, we observe that in Bari (Spagnolo, 1933: 266) the comparative particle na gwon functions as the adversative sentential coordinator 'but': (7)
BARf:
a.
Nan ktta bya na gwon do yeye7u I work more than you think 'I work harder than you think'
b.
SOromundi kata , na gwon kala 'bayin groundnuts exist but teeth exist~not 'We have groundnuts, but no appetite'
The situation m Bari is identical to that in Basque and Ilocano, where the comparative particles (baino and ngem, respectively) also function as the adversative coordinator 'but': 2 (8)
BASQUE:
a.
Jakes
b.
Ethorri da , bainan ez gogotik come-PCP. PERF he~is but not voluntarily 'He has come, but not out of free will'
(9)
ILOCANO:
a.
Nainimbag dattoy ngem datta good this than that 'This IS better than that'
b.
Nasayaat ti porion -ko, ngem daan bassiten good~one is carriage~my but already oldish 'My carriage is fine-looking, but It is already somewhat old'
baino lodi-ago da J.-NOM than fat -PRT he-is 'He is fatter than Jakes'
Lastly, the use of the coordinator but as a comparative particle can be attested both in older variants of English and in at least some dialects of modern American English. Sentence (10) is a !me from a play by Wilham
A Cross-lml{ursttc Tyfwlogy of Comparatwes
62
~h,tkc'lp<.:.!rc, JJJd '>l'fHt:lll-C (1 I) ,., .1 4Uotc hom .1 ":.ollg
by
~outhcrn
country-and-western ~mger Hank W1lhams: (1 0)
RENAISSANCE ENGLISH'
Thou knowst no less but all (Twelfth N1ght, 1,4) (11)
AMERICAN ENGWJ-1'
Ain't no more left but the blues to cry
In th1s connection
It
is also worth notmg that, m a number of
languages, the comparative particle which marks the standard NP seems to be identical to the d1s]unct1ve coordmatton marker 'or'. Such a language IS Class1cal Greek. Alexandre (1880: 644) cites the following phrases from the works of Plato: (12)
CLASSICAL GREEK'
a.
Chresthos e poneros good or bad 'Good or bad'
•
Sofoteros e su Wiser than you 'Wiser than you'
The same SituatiOn seems to have heJd m Gothic, where the item thau represented both companson and diSJunctiOn (Benveniste, 1948: 140). In that same paper, Benvemstc mentions the dtsjunct1ve and comparative parllcle It m Old Slavomc. Small ( 1923: 36) states that Swiss and Middle H1gh German dialects employ the disJunctive element weder as a marker of standard NPs m NP-comparatrves. Bcrgmans (1982: 78) report; that 111 several Eastflemtsh and WestO.emish dialects there ts a comparative rartJde of, whJch COIOC!des wtth the diSJUDCUVe element of in Standard Dutch and Standard Flemish: (13)
EASTFLEMISJ-1/Wt.STFLEMISJ-1'
a.
Komt h11 vandaag of morgen comes he today or tomorrow 'Will he come today or tomorrow?' Tk ben grater of mqn broer I am taller or my brother 'I am taller than my brother'
There are also cases m whtch the comparative particle seems to be Identical to the element wh1ch represents the negattvc coordinattve
In Search of a Determinant Factor
63
p.madc 'nor'. In lu~ dl\l.ll~''on of the Engh,h comp.li.IIIVl', Joly (1967: 17) states that nor used as a comparanve pamde '">toll •love m modem d1alects, from the Shetland Islands to Cornwall, from Ireland to the United States'. Example (14a) was observed in a number of West-English dialects, and example (14b) in an American dialect: (14)
NON-STANDARD ENGWH:
a. b.
I know better nor that lt'srichernoryou'lleverbe
Joly further mentions cases In which the po>Itive diSJUnebve irem or IS used as a comparative particle m Engbsh dialects. The use of or as a comparative marker appears to have been Widespread m Northern British dialects from about 1250 onwards. andean snll be found today m ScottiSh dialects:
(IS)
SCOTTISH ENGl.ISH:
tattle Der no a thing at I leek better ir a rosn there not a thmg that I hke better or a roast(?) potato 'There is nothmg !like better than a roast potato' Speaking of Scotland, we should mention that ScottiSh Gaehc use> the negative coordination na 'nor' as the parncle of companson> a feature which is normal for Celnc languages. Cp.: (16)
SCOTTISH GAEUG:
h baine Calum na Seumas IS fa1rer C than S. ~Cal urn is fauer than Sewnas' (17)
MIDDLE WELSH: (Strachan,
!909: 133)
Na werthu na ellwng nor sell-FliT. !SG nor release-FUT. !SG 'I will neither sell it nor Jet it go' Fmally, the situation in Latvtan's primary comparative 1s completely parallel to that m Gaehc: (18)
LATVIAN: (Endzelin, 1922: 233)
a.
Meitas
vecakas ne
mate
daughters older than mothers 'The daughters are older than the mothers'
Man nau ne tes ne mat I have nor father nor mother '1 have neither father nor mother'
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
64
Not Only do the comparative particles of various languages appear to exhtbit relations to sentential coordinative (i.e., chaining) markers, but we also find cases where the obligatory morphological marking on the comparative predicate seems to be related to coordinatlllg items. For mstance, in Hmdi (whtch has a Separative Comparative if the standard NP is overtly expres.!led) the predicate in a comparative construction m which there is no overt standard NP must be preceded by the element aur. This item is also commonly employed as the connective element 'and' between dauses and phrases: (19)
HINDI:
a.
Ap aur bare haim you PRT big are 'You are bigger'
•
Usne bang/a sikhi
thi
aur hindi
he Bengali learning was and Hindi 'He learned Bengali and Hindi' A very similar situation is found in Goajiro, a language whJCh we discussed in section 2.5. In Goajiro, the item au/aka 'and, too' is reportedly (see Holmer, 1949) very often found accompanying the predicate in comparative constructions: (20)
GOAJIRO:
a.
Au/aka Rupeta mulia'u hulia Rafae/a PRT R. big than R. 'Roberto is taller than Rafaela'
b.
Au/aka etka ci
ta -melei
and dog this me-with 'And this dog is mine' In Tajik (Rastorgueva, 1963), the conjunction kham 'and, too' is at least phonetically identical to the marker of comparative predicates: (21)
TA}lK:
a.
Ruy-ash az
barf kham safed ast
face-her from snow PRT wh1te IS 'Her face IS whiter than snow'
Shumo na -rafted
man kham
na -raftam you not-go-PAST. l.SG I and/too not-go-PAST. !SG 'You d1d not go and neither did I'
In Search of a Determmant Factor
65
An identical situation obtams in OssetiC {Abaev, 1964): (22)
OSSETJC:
a.
Deu-e7 chuyz-der you-from good -PRT 'Better than you' Stalite serttwtoJ , meJ der skastt stars began-shine moon and/too rose 'The stars began to ~hme, and the moon came up'
Lastly, we note that tn Tarml (Beythan, 1943; Asher, 1982) the standard NP in comparatives is commonly followed by the suffix -um. Thi'> suffix is also the connective particle in conJunctiOns. Cp.: (23)
TAMIL:
a.
Agarar-il -um periyar antanar kings -from-PRT Brahmans are-great 'Brahmans are greater than kmgs' Agarar-um penyar -um kings -PRT Brahmans-PRT 'Kings and Brahmans'
All these facts, then, suggest that 1t mtght be worthwhile to take a look at coordinated (and other types of chaining) constructions as a possible determinant of comparative-type chotec. But, of course, the actual proof of whether such a determmmg relation exJ~ts must be given by examining the predictions which follow from such an a~:'.umption for the languages in the sample. I will turn to this matter in part two of this study, after an exposition of the syntactte types of temporal dummg (chapter 4) and the final statement of the universals which I propose (chapter 5).
4 Types of Syntactic Chaining
4.1
Introduction
A~ h•.h been noted by theoretical hngut!)t!>, comparatlVt' lmgut~t!>, Jnd gucmmarran~ of smgle exonc languagec;, syntactic chammg of a scnes of <·vem·cxpre~smg sentences or pre
ddferenc ..rates of affaus. Such a senes can be used to express either srmultaneous acllon (m whtch the events de~cnbed by the predJCates m rhc sene~ are taken to happen at the same tune), or consecuttve actzon,
wh1ch 1mphe!> rhat the event& descnbed by the predicates occur one after the other. Thus, from a scmanuc pomt of v1ew, we may conclude that the
'<mantle nonon of temporal clmmng, as defined 1n the precedmg chapter, allow& for two semanttc subtypes, one m which the propo~mons 11 the semantlc reprec;enranon are ordered w1th respect to temporal !.uccesston, and another 10 wh1ch no ~uch ordermg 1~ Imposed. For a number of languages, the semantic dtstmctJon between s1mul· taneous and consecutlVf chammg 1~ matched by a ~yntacnc dtfferen· tlJlion at the level of ~urface ~jfructure. Such IS the ca5.e m fgbo. A-::. JS pOinted out 111 Weimer,\ ( 1973), lgbo has a simultaneous awon construe! 1011, 111 which the fir!!t verb 111 the sen~ can be 1n any tt.'ll~e. All following
verbs m the cham, however, tnU'it appear m the lncomplettve Form, that IS, a type of verbal phra'::>e consJ~tmg of the particle nil followed by a verbal noun. Thu'::> we have: (1)
IGBO:
Ha no n'oce nil Crt nn they ~at down PR. f eatmg food 'They :io.lt .md ate/They s.tt eaung' In the consecutive acuon con'::>tructiOn m Igbo, the fir::.t verb m the sencs may agam be m any tense, but all to1lowmg verbs have to be put mto the :>o~c..aHed N.arrar1ve Form. Jn the regular case, th•~ form conMSts of a verb stem With obligatory low tone and a verbal suffix -if-d. Thm. we get:
Types of Sy11t,u tsc ( :lwmmg (2)
J(;Jj();
() 1111
c,l!,lJt' g/m-e
ilgu
he took gun k1li~NAI{R kop.mJ 'He took a gun and killed the leopard' We can conclude, then, that m Igbo Simultaneous action and consecutive actton are formally kept apart m surface structure. In this particular language, syntactiC dtfferenttauon between the two chammg types takes place by repre.!>entmg non~first pred1cates m a cham by means of fonnally different verbal formatwns. As we shall see m the followmg sect10ns, other languages may employ d1ffercnt procedures to mark thts differen~ tlatwn; but smce the actual mechamcs of symacnc simultaneous and consecunve chammg m spec1fic languages are largely beyond the scope of th1s study, we wtll not pur~ue rlus matter further here. Oppo.<.cd to cases like lgbo, we find other languages m wh1ch the semannc distmctton between !:>Jmulraneous and consecut.JVe chammg 1:. not matched by a syntactiC oppo<.mon m <Jurface structure, at !east not m the typiCal case. For example, the Engh~h coordmanon (3) may be mterpreted both as a case of simultaneous acuon dnd as a case of consecutive acuon, dependmg on whether John and Mary performed a~ a duo or whether they were two separate ac~ m some cultural happemng: (3)
ENGLISH:
john played the flute and Mary rectted a poem by Yeats Sumlarly, Amhanc (Cohen, 1936: 142) encodes tt~ temporal chams by purtmg one of the predicates m the cham mto the so~called Gerund1al Form, while the other predtcate is constructed as a mam predicate. Gerund1ai Forms are subordmate but finJte forms, whtch have no tense of rhc1r own; thetr exact temporal mterpretatwn must be mferred from the ten~e
markmg on the mam verb, and from contextual facrors. Hence, m Amhanc, the same !lubordmate form serve~ a~ the codtficanon of both stmultaneous and consecutive chammg: {4)
AMHARIC:
Ta/ast sastwo tamallasna enemy-NOM flee-GER. 3~G return-PERF IND 1PL 'Whtle the enemy fled, we returned' or 'After the enemy had fled, we returned' A<:, a last example of languages of thts sort, let u& constdcr the syntacnc cha1ning construction in Mandarin (Lt and Thompson, 1978). In this language, a promment way to encode cases of temporal chammg ts the u<:,e of so-called senal verb constructions, m whtch predicates are strung
-
..
68
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
together m a series wtthout overt c-oordinative marking. An example of this type of chaming construction ts the following: (5)
MANDARIN:
Tii kiin dtJnymg chi pingguo he see movte ear apple 'He :c-aw a movte and ate an apple'
Now, a~ L1 and Thomp~on (1978: 241) remark, senal verb constructions m Mandarm are essentiaJiy mdeterrnmate as to thetr temporal mterpretation (and, for that matter, as to other semantic nuances). Thus, a senal verb construcuon may, on one case, receive a simultaneous mterprctat1on (see (6a)), whereas in other cases this same syntacttc construction 1s naturally interpreted as a consecutive chain: (6)
MANDARIN:
a.
Tii xze
b.
Tii mtit pzdo Jinqu he buy ttcket go-in 'He bought a ttcket and went m'
Xt:ioshuo melt gUdong he wnte novel sell antique 'He writes novels J.nd sells ant1ques'
Wuh regard to thts ~ttuatlon, Lt and Thompson (ibid.) state: 'What ts evtdent ... JS that the ~enal verb construction IS used to encode a number of dtfferent relatwnshtps between predicates m Mandarin. These predicate relatwn~lups are structurally distinct in most other languages because of the presence of grammatical markers.' Somewhat further on, they observe: A good part of the knowledge of pO!>!>ib!e relattonsh1ps between clauses m a sentence 1s acqu1red by normal people a!l a result of thetr cxpenence m the world. Th1s knowledge !S language-mdependent and results from our perception of and expenence wnh the world. Gtven any two events, there can only be a small, fimte number of rel.ttJonshtps between them. Language merely reflects and codifies these relatiOnships m vJtlOUb multl·predtcate constructions, although d1fferem languages employ different strategws 111 thetr cod1ficanon. (p.244-5)
We may ~ayt rhen, rhar m ca~es like English, Amharic and Mandarm the semanttc distmctiOn between !:.!multaneous action and consecutive action has been formalLy neutraltzed In the codification of temporal chaining. As such, these languages are opposed to cases hke Igbo, in which thts semantiC d1stmction is mtrrored by two different procedures of syntactic encodmg. Ir should be remarked in thts context that the boundary between
69
Types ofSyntactrc Chammg
neutralizing and mirroring languages IS a tlutd one, and that there are also cases of syntactic chainmg which may be called instances of parttal neutraltzatton. As an example of such a case, let us com.tder a type of
cham in latin, the
so~called
Ablattvc Ab1:1olute construction. The details
of this construction wtll be discussed m chapter 10; for the present purpo~e, a few general remark!, may ~uffi~e. First, the Ablattvc Absolute can be used only for those case~ ot temporal chammg 111 whJCh the subJeCt<; of the predtcates m the cham are not Identical. Secondly, m a cham of th1s type one of the predtcares IS constructed as a mam predicate, wh1le the other prediCate receives the form of a non~finite participle; partlctples are nominal-adjectival forms wh1ch, like other nouns and adjectives, are marked for case, number and gender. A third feature of the AblatiVe Ab~olute 1s that the '>llh)ect of the predtcate w1th the participial form is put into an obhque case form, VIZ. the ablative case, and that the partictple of which It 1s the ~ubJect ts made to agree with tt m cas.e, gender and number; hence, the parttnple too ts marked for abldttvc case. Examples of thts type of Lattn chammg comtructwn are: (7)
LATIN:
a.
Dommo bzbente master-ABL. MN!C SG dnnk-PCP. servae cantant
PRE~
ABL MASC.
)C
slave gtrl~~NOM. PL smg-PRI:S.lND. 3Pi 'Wht!e the master drmks, the slave gtrls smg'
b.
Galltii vtctii G.-ABL. FEM SG conquer- PCP PFRl-. PAS~ ABL. I-EM SG Caesar reventt C.-NOM return· PERF. IND. 3SG "After Gallia had been conquered, Caesar returned'
The examples m (7) make 1t clear that the Ablat11·e Ab1olute m Latin can be employed both for cases of Simultaneous actiOn and for case~ of consecutive action: both types of temporal chammg mvolve the '5:lme syntactic procedure. However, it cannot be sard that the Latm Ablauve Absolute con~tltutes a complete neutr ahzatton of the semantic contra-.t at tssue. Although the two sentences m (7) are denved by the same syntactic procedure, the partiCipial form!J which figure m these !>entence~ are formally distinct: for the codification of ~imultancous act1on by the Ablative Absolute the Present Partlaple has to be used, whereas the codification of com.er.:utive action in thi~ construction type requ1res the Perfect Participle. In other words, Latin has a procedure for the cod1ficanon of temporal chaimng which involves the apphcatton of one s1ngle
70 '>tl tlltn.tl pro~o.nhll\' to two lorm,t!ly <.ll~tHKt non-timtt· prcJ!L.lttVl'
form&. We mc1y conclude from thts that the L3nn Ablanve Absolute c,
netther (l cc1.se of complete neutralllanon hkc the senal verb construcnon U\ o\1(1ndartn, nor a case of complete dtverslficatton a~ Illustrated by the dt-,rmct structural
procedure~~o
m lgbo. Hence, cases hke the Lattn A~l:nwe Ahsolute wtll be referred to as. mMance&o of parttal neutrahzatton. In the followmg secnonc;, I wtll present a typology of the wa)-S m whtch th( two ~cmO'\nttc ~ubtype~~t of temporal chammg are syntactically encoded tWI)
m the languages of my sample. Now, the phenomenon of (complete or pal'ttal) neurralmHlOD l'i a firc;t mdtcanon of the fact that languages often US(' parallel or even tdentJcal procedures to cod1fy Simultaneous and consecutive chammg; this tendency wdl be formulated as a general
the final secnon of th1s chapter. llowevery m order to fac!lltate the expmltlon I have found 1t convenient first to deal With each of ~he scman~IC subtype; ;eporately. In domg
In
acuon; .as It turn!! outy It IS this subtype whtch IS the more complex of the two, and whach IS therefore more m need of clarificatiOn.
4.2 The definition of the notion 1Consecutive chain'
Betore we can set up a typology of the ways m whtch consecutive action
-5yntacttcal1y encoded aero&& languages, we will have to formulate a en tenon for the cross-hngUI&tlc Identification of thts conMruction type; m orher words, we need a language-mdependent definmon of the not1on 'consecutive cham' (or C-charn for short). As we &aw in &ecuon 1.3.2, m rypolog~eal syntax such language-mdependent definition~ are necessanly of a ~cmannc (or perhaps better: cogmtiVe) nature. Hence, our first task no"" IS to prov1de d further delmeanon of the notion 'con&ecutlve cham' m sernannc terms. The resulrmg definition of th1s notiOn &hould at least be nght enough to en.thle u~ to ·~alate the relevant con~truct10n 111 each of tht·languages of the sample. ~I mdtcated above, at the centre of the not1on 'consecutive cham' he!! the concept of temporal success1on of events. That 1s, a mmunal reqmremenr for a construction to count as a C-cham IS that It descnbes a &~tuanon m wh1ch events occur one after the other, 111 a fixed temporal orJcr. By thts rcqmrement, cono;ecutlve chams are oppoo;ed to &lmultaneous chams (S-charns), m whtch no &uch order IS 1mphed. However, although the cxptess1on of temporal o;uccco;s•on 1!1 a neces!>ary condltton on consecutive cham&, there <&rc reason!> to as~ume that Jt ts not a sufficient conditiOn. As the ltterarurc on consecuttve chatnmg IS
71
..,how!-., v.mou~ .H1tho1.., :-.t.Hc th.lt .111 ,1dd1tton.11 ..,l'lll.llll!L l.:ondttton ~hould be tmpo~cd: the event~ tn tht: Cwcham should not only be temporally ordered, but m addltlon they should be concetved of as 'parncularly closely related' (Welmers, 1973: 367). The exact nature of th1~ 'clo~e relationship' IS hard to pm down, but 1t seems that, somehow, consecutive ordenng 1mphe:. more than JUSt a mere temporal successiOn; It must also be the case that the ordered event~ in the cham should be
concerved of as successive stages m the progress of one complex 'total event'. Condus1on~ to th1:. effect can be denved from statements such as the one m Crazzolara (1933: 136), who states of the so-called Narrative Mood m Nuer: 'a IS used for connecnng successwe particulars of an event or transaction' (my ttahcs). Another example of an author who stresses the requirement that the events in a consecutive cham should be taken as the constituent particulars of one complex acnon ts Labourer (1934). In descnbmg the so-called In1uncttve Form m Mandmka, th1s author remarks that the verbal construction at l<>~ue 'marks ... that the performance of the actiOn or the acqmsJtJon of the state ts subordmated to the performance of another acnon or the acquiSition of another state' (p.202; my translation}. In connection wtth this additional condition of coherence between the successr"e events m a C-cham, It 1s also a rellmg fact that, m many languages, the pnmary examples of consecutive chammg tend to be constructions m whtch the first predicate m the cham descnbes a motion. Apparently, the k.tnd of temporal successton whtch has the property of being con~ecuttve i\ typically mmared by a movement, whiCh, so to speak, 'tnggers' the sequence of events of whtch the consecutJve series consists. Thus, an mmal movement appears to be preemmently appropnate to set up a context m whtch followmg events can be naturally interpreted as bemg contmgent upon one another; many of the examples of C-chams wh1ch we will encounter are of the kind Illustrated by the English sentences 'He went out and closed the door' or 'He ~tood up and left.' It must be admitted that there n;mam\ a cert.lm vaguenes'l m the above dcfi111t10n of consecutive chammg~ even tf we accept the additional reqlllrement of relatwnshlp or coherence between the evenrs m such a cham. Therefore, m add1t10n to pmtulatmg po~mve condmons, we may also employ a negative strategy to get a clearer picture of what must be counted as a consecutlve cham m a gtven language. We may contrast com.ecut1ve chains wtrh other type~ of con~tructiom which al~:oo express a temporal ordering between events, and which can therefore be assumed to be semantically cognate to C-chams. A first construction which comes read!ly to mmd m thJs connectiOn IS the final or purpostve comtruction. From a semantiC pomr of view,
72
A Cross-lmgutstic Typology of Comparatives
construcuons of thib type are meant to express that, of two successive events, the first event is/was performed With the purpose of brmging about the second event. Typical English examples of this final construenon include sentences m whtch the second event in the chain is encoded in the form of an infimtive, preceded by the conjunction to or in order to. Cp.: (8)
ENGLISJI:
a. b.
John stood up to close the wmdow john told that story m order to embarrass me
Semantically spedbng, final conbttuctlons are cognate to C-cham~ m that both construction types imply a successive ordering between events, and also an mt1mate relationship between the events in that success10n. There is, however, also a clear semantic difference, which can be stated m terms of the truth values of comecutivc and final assernons. Informally speaking, we can say that a final cham like (8a) is true even if the second event did not take place m reality; all that is needed for this assertion to be true is that the first event rook place, and that there was some intentiOn on John's part to perform the second action. In contrast, a Cchain like (9}
ENGLISH'
john stood up and closed the wmdow can only be said to be true if the closing of the wmdow by John actually happened. Notwtthstandmg this semanttc difference, the dtviding line between consecutive and final constmcttons is a diffuse one. This relative m~ determinacy ts at least partially due to the fact that, in consecutive constructions too, a purpose-reading is a natural implicatiOn; a C-chain like (9 ), which, stnctly speakmg, must be read as stating only a mere succession of events, is readily mterpreted as a sequence in whrch a spcc1fic mtenn.on on John's part IS present. In other words, C-chams are likely to be interpreted as a series of events m which the first actwn IS goal-oriented, and hence the demarcation between this type of construction and the neighbourmg final construction tends to be blurred. The semantic overlap between the two constructions has ItS parallel m the syntactic encoding of the two constructions which can be observed m a number of languages. For mstance, m Mangarayi (Eades, 1979) we find that there IS one smgle deviCe for the syntactic encoding of temporally successive events; the syntactic construction type 10 question may have a con~ecut1ve or a final mterpretation, depending on the context. Also, m Mandarin {L1 and Thompson, 1978) the serial verb construction which
Types of Syntactic Chainmg we discussed above sentence like (10)
IS
73
subject to this rype of mdetermmacy. Hence, a
MANDARIN' Ta hut '11a
kiin qmqt he return home see parents cHe returned home and saw/to see h1s parents' may have both a consecutive and final read mg. Even m English, we Cflme across a construction m whtch features of final and con!ie<:Utlve chammg are combined. We can note that a sentence hke (11) has the superficial form of a final cham, but the semantk content doe~ not so much 1rnply a purpose as a close successton of events. A parallel situatiOn can be auested for Dutch. In tlus language, final constructiOns are typic tlly encoded in the form of an mfinitive preceded by the conJunction om tt 'tn order ro· (see (12a}), but there are ca&e& 1n whtch thl!!. construction must receive an interpretation which is more temporally successiVe than final (see (12b)). Cp.:
(11)
ENGLISH'
fohn came home to find his apartment looted (12)
DUfCH'
a.
Ik ga naar Maastrzcht om m'7n ouders te bezoeken I go to M. for my parem> to viSit 'I'm going to Maastricht to viSit my parents'
•
De Boerenparti!
groe;de stonnachtig, om even
The Farmers' Party grew
stormily
snel
for equally rap,dly
weer te verdwtJnen again to disappear
'The Fanners' Party underwent a stormy growth, but had an oqually rapid downfall' In v1ew of thiS fluctuating distinction between final and con>ecurivc chaining, I have committed myself to the followmg guide-hoe. for tloo>e languages tn wh1ch a clear syntactic separation can be dernon!:>tmted between chains that have an excluMve consecut1ve mrerpretatton Jnd chams with an exclu&ive final mterpretatton, I have excluded all mstance& of the latter construction from my data base. Final chains have been admitted to the data baoe only for those languages in which no defimte d1~tinct10ns between both types of consuuctions could be made. Thus, for example, the Mandarin construction dlu~trated m (10) ts counted a<; an instance of a consecutive construction~ even though one mtght equally be justtfied 10 rating it as an mstance of final chain mg.
A Cross-lmRutstu Typology of Comparatwes
74
ltn.d \.li,liiHIIg I'> 1101 tlH· ou\~ r\,ll!lpll' u! -l l\lll'>!t\ldiUII IVjll'
tend::. to mtrudc upon the
'>Clll,llHH..
JreJ covered by
wlud1
r...ollbCC\.ltlVC r...ham~:~.
Most language~ have al~o a type of construction wh1ch we may call consecuttonal. Here, the occurrence of a former event tS <;een as the fulfilment of a condmon by wh1ch the occurrence of a later event t!> made posstble. A typtcal Eng!J~;h example of a consecutwnal construction ts the followmg sentence: (13)
ENGU.\Hc
john worked da)' and nzght so as to pa)' off hts dl'hts
Ab was the case wtth final cham!>. consccunonal cham'l have a number of semantiC features m common wtth consecutive chams: both types of constructton tmply a succe<><;tve ordenng between event<>, and both 1mply a certam close relanon<;htp between these events. Parallel to what we found m the ca\c of finJl chams, we can also note a semantic difference here, whiCh wn be stated m term~ of truth vJlue; to put it bnefly, a consrcutJonal cham doe~ not assert that the second event actually h:1pprncd, wherea~ a comecutive cham does. Despite tht~ ~emanttc dt fference, however, we find that, at least for ~orne languages, the dJ'>tmcnon betwt>en consccutlonal and consecut:we chammg IS not formally cxprc~~cd; Kanun, a language which I w1ll discuss m some detail m se<:non 7.2.3, may be a ca~e 111 pomt. GIVen thl5 s1tuanon, I have adopted the 'tame strategy for con.!.ecutJonal cham'> a!o I employed m the case of fi11al cham mg. Chams whKh may rece1ve a consecuttonal mterpretanon are admmed to the data ba ..e only m those cases where the language has sy<;temaucally neutralized the semantiC dtfferentJatJon between com.ecuttonal and consecutive chammg. Fmally, we find ca~es where con<;tructiOm are neutral as to thetr mrerpretatJon between con~ecunve and causal or concesswe cham mg. In Lltlll, the Ablative Ab:.olutc comtrucnon, of which ~cntence (14) IS another example: (14)
LA/IN:
Urbe
destruGtii
City·ABL. SG. fEM. destroy- PCP PI:RF PA<;~ ABL ~C. H:M
gaudebrmus be happy·fUl IND. lPL 'Whcn/hecau~e 1although
the City ha!, been destroyed, we wdl
reJOict~'
1s essentially neutral between consecutive, causal and concessiVe readtng<;. Agam, we will take note of causal and conccs!:.!Vc cham~ only m as
Types of SyntactiC Chammg
75
l.u ...... 1 1.111gu.1gr Lui . . to dllk1cntL1tr them fo1m.dly lro111 lt't11por.1llv Interpreted t.h.tllb. Concludmg tht~ dJscusston on the notion 'consecutive cham', we may state the followmg. We wtll rake thts notiOn to be defined by at least the followmg semantiC charactenstJcs:
{a) the construction must expre~s a successive temporal ordenng between events; (b) the constructwn must Imply an mnmate coherence between the
events mvolved; and (c) the construction must ao;sert the actual performance of all the events 111 the cham. As we have seen, there IS some degree of semannc and formal overlap between the notton of 'consecutive chammg' and various other construction types whtch exprCS!, sucCC!,SIVC temporal ordenng. For this reason,
the definition of the notion of consecunve chammg 1~ not wholly airtight. It may be satd, however, that, as far as our typological purposes are concerned, the above defimtwn turns out to be reasonably apphcable. I shall note explicitly those cases where there IS some doubt a~ to the correct Identificatwn of the formal expression of consccunve chammg, and arguments for the actual deCISions made m such a case wdl be d1~cusscd . •
4.3
The formal expression of consecutive chaining
In thts section I will mtroduce a first typological di!>tmctlOn m the ways In whtch consecutive chams are crov~-hnguJ<;tJcally encoded. To s1mphfy the dJ.,cu'isJon, I will confine my examples to C-chams m wh1ch the consecutive relation hold~ between JUSt two events. In d1~cussmg such con~ecunve pans, I Will use the term anterror predicate for the predicate whiCh describes the cJ.rhcr event m the chJm; the other predicate 111 the cham wtll be called the posterwr predtcate. In the typical case, the semannc ordenng between antenor and postenor events is matched formally by a left-to-nght ordenng in the syntactic expre~'>!On of consecutive chains; as expenment~ by Eve Clark (1973, 1975) have shown, complex 1>entences in whiCh the leftmm.t clause m surface structure expresses the earher action m a successiOn are cons1derably easier to process than sentences in whtch this matchmg ha!!- been thwarted. Hence, the term antenor predtcate covers a JOmt semantic ,md <;ynt.lCtiC content: tt refers to the prediCate which descnbes the earlier event, and wh1ch IS
A Cross-ltnguistic Typology of Comparatives
76
therefore rhc leftmost predicate m the syntactic C-chain. In the same way, the term posterror predzcate refers to the predicate which describes the later event m a temporal succo~ion, and which IS therefore typically encoded a~ the nghtmost predtcate tn the syntacuc express10n of that •
succe~~10n.
4.3 .1
Two baste strategies: balancing and deranking
The first typological result of a cro~-lmguistic investigation of consecutive constructions can be stated as follow:;. In order to express the situation m which two events occur m a fixed consecutive order, a language may resort to one of two baste strategtes. On the one hand, it may choose to express those two events by means of two mdcpendent clauses (and typically, though not nece%anly, It will connect these clauses by means of a connecttve particle). In this case, the Important thing is that the two predicates wh1ch express the two relevant actions remain structurally of the same rank; that IS, they are embedded at the same level of structure (see Dtk, 1968: 30). Hence, tf the total construction is not embedded, both prediCates m the cham w1ll have the finite form of a main predicate. If the predicates happen to have the same subject, coordinative reduction of one of the subjects may take place, but this will not result m a 'debalanced' structural configuration: a coordinated verb remams a fimte verb, even If it has lost its subjeCt, and it remams equally ranked to the other verb m the cham. Chaming constructions in which predicates remam of the same rank I will call balanced constructions, and languages which choose thts encodmg option I will call balancing languages. Examples of balanced C~ chains are the following: (15)
ENGLISH:
john Jumped out of hts chatr and grabbed a gun (16)
GUARANI: Oi~ke kaagwi
pe ha o -henu petet avu m and he-heard one nOISC
he -went forest 'He went into the forest and heard a notse'
Thus, the definmg characteristic of balancmg languages IS that their syntactic chams are structurally coordinattons. As a consequence, con~ ~ecutivc chams m balancmg languages are subject to the Coordmate Structure Constraint formulated m Ross (1967), as can be seen from the tll-formcdness of (17) and (18):
Types of Syntacttc Chaming (17)
I:NGL/S/1:
'What dtd John Jump out of hts chatr and grab(bed)? (18)
GUARANI: • Ma?e pa ot -ke kaagwt pe ha o -henu ? what Q he-went forest m and he-heard
Rather than keeping the balance, however, a language may also choose to represent the two predicates in a C~cham by reducmg one of these predicates in rank. In such a case, only one of the predicates in the cham retains its finite verb form, whereas the other predicate is represented., a subordinate, usually non-fimte, verbal construct. Language< of thts type I Will call deranking languages, and It• •rntacttc chams I wdl call derankd
constructtons. From a strictly syntactic point of view~ one may say that deranking languages do not have any consecutive coordmatton at all, smce their surface structures do not permtt consecutive predtcates m configurations which embed them on an equal level of structure. That
there is indeed subordmatlon mvolved m deranked chams can be shown from examples
10
Tamil, a language m whtch consecutive chams are
obligatorily deranked. Thus, In Tamtl we find the followmg constructloJO (taken from Annamala1, 1970): (19)
TAMIL:
Avaru
kavide
erudmtu
naaval
he-NOM poetty-ACC write-PERf. GER novel-ACe morzpeyarttaaru
translate-PAST.IND. 3SG 'He wrote poetry and then tran!!,lated a novel'
In (19), one of the predicates (viz. monpeyarttaaru 'he translated') IS represented as a finite main verb in the Indicative Past, while the other predicate (viz.. erudttttu 'having written') has the non-finite subordmnte form of the Perfect Gerund. Now, it can be shown that such Tamil sentences cannot be regarded as structural coordinations. In particul u, the Coordmate Structure Constramt no longer apphes; as the we 11formed example (20) Illustrates, 1t IS poss1ble to relatiV!Ze the complement of the finite verb in (19): (20)
TAMIL: kavtde eruditttu monpeyartta he-NOM poetry-ACC write-PERF. GER translate-PeP. PAIT
Avaru
naaval
novel 'lit: the novel wh1ch he wrote poetr; and translated'
4. 3.2
J)erankmg versus clause~embeddmg
Regardmg the conc<.-pt of derankmg whtch we mtroduced 1n the prev10u~ sectron, It may be useful ro add a few dar1fymg remarks. To ehmm3te a pos\tble ~ource of confusion, tt should be Mre~~ed at thts pomt that the nonon of derankmg wdl be defined here as applymg exclusJvcly to the prediCates of sentences, and not to whoJe sentences or clauses. In other words, I w1H cla~!tlfy a language as a dcrankmg language only tf, m the <.odlficanon of It<> temporal cham<>, n IS the form of the predicate m one of the sentences ttsdf whtch stgnals the subordmat1on of that sentence. Languages may employ vanous formal means to achieve this subordmate markmg of pred1cates. But whatever the exact procedure for derankmg may be, the essential pomt ~~ that, m order for a constructiOn to be called deranked, It mu.r be the predicate of one of the sentences Itself whiCh is marked as a form of non-equal rank to the mam predicate m the chain. The above defimtton of the concept of derankmg IS meant to create a sharp delineation between the derankmg of predicates and another po•Sihduy of subordmanon, >Jz. the embeddtng of whole clauses in the syntacttc encodmg of a temporal cham. As l see It, m encoding a temporal cham a language may choose one of three stmctural option& (and sometime:; more than one of the&e options). Ftrst, the language may choose to encode temporal chamc; m the form of a coordinanon; m that case, the language will be called a balancmg language. A second po~slh1l1ty IS w downgrade the whole of one of the sentence') m the chain, and to ~oubordmate It to the other sentence, wh1ch will then become the main clause 10 the cha1nmg construcnon. Usually, thts second possJhdlty of complete elauoe-embeddmg" effectuated by mean' of a subordinating conJunction. An Enghsh example of a C-cham m whtch this second opnon ha; been cho•cn i>: (21)
f"NGUSH:
After john hmlleft, l poured mysrlfa we/1-desen•rd drmk
In tillS construcnon, the an tenor sentence in the C-cham (viz. john left) ha~o been embedded as a whole m the form of a subordmatc clause, mJJ ked by the subordmanng conJunction after. A typtcal charactenc;nc of a case of dause-embeddmg 1s that 1t IS not the pred1catc of the c;ubord1nate clause~ such whtch has been marked for ~ubordmatlon; It 1\ rather the whole anterior (or, as the case may be, postenor) sentence wh1ch has been marked as such. As a re~ul~ the prcdJcate 1n a su\-oordmatc clause hke the after-claus.e m (21) IS a normal fimte verb form, wh1ch ~~ charactenzed by the same morphologtcal dcvtces as the roam verb m rhe consrrucnon.l
Types o(Syntactrc Chammg Now, I w1ll
.t:-.Mmlc
79
1h.11 h.,l.u~~..m~ .1nd d,IU.,l'-clnhcddtng .Ire two
vanants of one and the ~Jme ~trlKtur.ll ~11-.Jtcgy. Both opuon., ~h.1fc the fe-ature that the clauses as such are kept mtact m surface structure. One might say, eqUivalently, that under both optwns both of the clauses in the cham retam their full sentennal charactenstlcs, a fact wh1ch must be formally represented by the presence of two separate S-nodes in the surface P-markers of these constructions. In my opm10n, the chmce between a balanced coordmatton or the embeddmg of one of the clauses 111 a cham IS not so much a marcer of structural neceSSities as a result of the apphcatton of functional cons1derattons. In certam contexts, there may be reasons for a functional (or, 1f one prefers that term, a pragmanc) backgroundmg of one of the events m the cham. 2 If ~uch a background~ mg occurs, the structural match of this procedure wlil be the embedding of one of the clauses m the cham, whereas m the absence of such a need for backgrounding a coordinate structure appears to be the most appro~ pruue way to codify the cham. In this connection, we may pomt our that, apparently, the boundaries between coordmation and clause-embedding are not very sharp anyway~ for an elaboration of thts pomt see Talmy (1978). At any rate, we will adopt the v1ew here that consecutive (and, m general, temporal) chams which are encoded as cases of clause-embedding do not form a sigmficant variant in our typology of cham formation. l-ienee, such cases will be lumped together wnh balanced constructions m the typology. Opposed to balanced and clause-embedded constructions we find cases of what might be called 'real' derankmg, that Is, cases m which the predicate of one of the sentences in the chain has Itself been marked for subordmaoon. Thus, we wtll count as mstances of dcranking languages only those languages in which the verbal form of the subordinate clause m a temporal cham has undergone a specific formal change1 so that this pred1cate is formally distinguished from fimte mam predicates. The construction in Tamil whtch we tllustrated in sentence (19) is a case m pomt: m this constructiOn, the predicate of the antenor clause m a Ccham receives a speClfically marked morphological form, VIZ. the form of the non~fimte Perfect Gerund. In some languages, derankmg of a predicate leads to the rcducnon of one of the sentences in the chain to the status of a phrase instead of a clause; that Is, sentences m whtch a predJCate has been deranked are no longer dommated by a separate Snode. It should not be thought) however, that thts complete loss of sentential status IS a necessary defimng condJtJon on our notwn of 'deranked strucrore'; other languages may choose less rad1cal solutions m the representatLon of deranked clauses, so that at least some of the sentential properties are retamed in the surface representation of such
80
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
clauses. Once more, It should be emphasized that the defining characterIstic of the notion of deranking which is used here consists of the explicit
subordinate markmg on the predtcate of a clause. At the risk of labouring the obvious, let me pomt out that, gtven our definition of deranking, English sentences like the ones in (22) will be rated as instances of deranked chains, smce the predicate in one of their clauses IS, by vrrtue of rts parttctpial form, specifically marked for subordination. On the other hand, the semantiCally equivalent sentence (23) is a case of clause-embedding and hence, in our v1ew, essentially a balanced structure: (22)
ENGUSHc
a. b.
Having locked the door, john undressed After lockmg the door, john undressed
{23)
ENGI.ISHc
After John had locked the door, he undressed Thus, one might say that, of two possible interpretations of the notion of der anking, I wtll choose the defimttOn which defines the narrower set of structures. Clearly, tf a language deranks its predicates (in the sense which we adopted above), that language will also necessarily downgrade its cemporal clauses. The opposite, however, need not be the case. For mstance, we find that m Guarani both coordinated structures and cases of embedded temporal clauses are possible, but that this language appears to lack the means to derank its predicate!. in temporal chains. For this reason, Guarani will be classified not as a deranking, but as a balancing language. To be sure, it is not always easy to decide whether a particular case of a non-coordinated chaining construction IS a case of 'real' predicate deranking, or rather a case of clause-embeddmg. To give bm one example of a language in which this kind of indeterminacy occurs, let us consider the consecutive construction in Tibetan. From the description of this language g1ven in Lalou (1950), we learn that the antenor clause in a Tibetan C~chain contains the element ~nas, a particle which is also in use as the marker of the ablative case m nominals: {24)
TIBETAN'
Yul
~Ia
village~to
bleb -nas rt ~Ia son arnve-frorn hill-to went
'He arrivcJ at the village and went to the hills'
Now, the problem With which this Tibetan construction confronts us is this. From the surface form of th1s construction, it is very hard to JUdge
Types of Syntactic Chaining
81
whether the marker ~nas functiOns as a marker on the predtcate m the antenor clause, or as a subordinating conjunction wh1ch IS used to subordmate the anterior clau&e as a whole. One might argue that the subordinative marker -nas IS morphologically bound to the anterior predicate, and that therefore this construction can be rated as an instance of (consecutive) derankmg. UnfortunJtely, hoY. ever, such an argumentation lacks dec1sive force. In fact, one mtght JUSt as well argue that -nas is a subordinating conJunctiOn wh1ch tS placed m clause-final po&ItiOn. and which IS then attached to the last Item m the clause, by tht' applicanon of some morpho-phonologiCal rule of attraction. Smce Tibetan 15 a very stnct verb~final language, it will normally be tht· predicate which t.') the last item in a clause, so that the attachment of ·na~ to the predH::J:te is only to be expected; but thb does not ncce.<.sJrily imply that the scope of the Item ·nas cannot mclude the antenor clause as a whole. We mu.<.t conclude, then, th.H the attachment of ~nas to the predicate m the anterior clause in JThelf doe.<. not .11low us to rate this pred1cate as a deranked form. Other arguments which, mother languages, can be adduced to force a dectsion between deranked or embedded status of a clause also fail to apply in Ttbetan. For instance, one finds m many languages that deranked predicate, lack a number of verbal categories which 'norma!' finite main verbs have; tn parttcular, it ts common for deranked prt'dtcates to have lost the abihty to agree wtth their subJects in per~on and/or number. This critenon, however, is of no help in the case of Tibetan, smce m this language no predtcate (not even a mam predicate) ever shows any person/number agreement With tts subJect. In other words, the absence of agreement fa1ls to distmguish between dera.nkcd and non-deranked predicates m Tibetan, and, accordmgly, the fact thJt the pred1cate in the anterior clause in (24) does not ~how agreement wi1h ItS ~ubJect is of no consequence here. Luckily, however, we can trace a number of other characten~tl .. ~ which differentiate the predicate in anterior consecutive clauses from main predicate~ m TLbetan temporal chams. We can observe that, wh;le predicates in T1betan are never marked for ~ubJC<..'t agreement, they can be morphologically marked for tense; the verb for 'to drink', for example, has a Present form a-thun, a Future form d·thun, and a Perfect form b-tun. Now, one of the properties of the predicate In a Ttbetan antenor clause like the one in (24) is that It can never be marked fur tense; in this type of constructiOn, pred1cates mvariably appear m thr~Jr root form, denvmg their temporal interpretation from the tense markmg on the followmg mam predicate. From this we can conclude that, m Tibetan, predicate.<. m antcnor consecutive clause~ are at lea~t 111 some
rc '>JWd d1fft'H:nc hom m.un d.m'>t' prnhu!!:..,: they .m: ddcLtJvc 111 -.omc of rhe categoneo of verbal flexwn whiCh th1s IJ.nguagc allows. On these ground,, one may be )UStlfied m ratmg the antenor dauc,;e m (24) as an mstance of 'real' derankmg, rather than as an mstance of 'mere' dau!.eembeddmg. A!! a result, one may dasstfy Ttbetan as a derankmg language.
4.3.3 Dtscu~s1ons
The morphology of deranked predzcates
of cases ~uch as the o1bove example from T1bctan lead us to a !:lecond pom.t wh1ch ts connected wnh the nonon of derankmg, vtz. the vanety of ways 10 wh1ch deranked predicates are formally mamfe!Jted m ~mface structure, As ( stated enriler, the actual morphologiCal outcome 01 the derankmg procedure may dJVerge from one language to another. In T1betan, a der~nked pred1catc takes the form of a verbal root, wh1ch is marked further by the attachment of an advecb1al case ~uffix. In Tarrul, ~peufic gerundial forme; are u~cd to derank con\ecutJve predicates; while Engl1sh can, ~mong other thmgs, represcm a deranked consecutive p1 edrcate m the form of a Perfect Paruaple. These three fonnat1onoc; by no mea no exhaust the options for the morpholog~cal encodmg of deranktng prcd1catec;; m parr two we w1il come across a Iarge variety of deranked fonn•, many of winch are complerely d1fferellt from the ones we have merw far. No"', m our typology of chammg consrruct1ons, the morpholog~cal form wh1ch a dcranked pred1cate takes m a particular language will not bt taken to comtlture a carcgon1mg factor. That IS, I w11l not propose a dn I.S.Jon among derankcd con\trucnons on the bas1s of the d1fferences m the morphological mamfestanon of deranked predicates. In my estJm,ltJOn, the factors whKh mfluence the chmce of, say, a gerund or a parnc1ple a..; the repre'ia); they wtll only be gone mto f<.)r the purpose o£ tllustranon. Nevertheless, It may be of ~orne uoe to the reader 1f he ha\ at least ~orne general1dea of the vanou\ way.. m wh1eh derankmg of predicates can be eflectuated acrO"i<> languagt....;. To gtve ~o~ome global mdtcat10n of thts vanatwn, we can note first that, 111 a constderable number of languages, derankmg of a prediCate '" brought about by a reduction of the Hrbal morphology whtch 1~ normally allowed to predtcat~. Above, we hmted
Tvf'n
o{SI'!If(f< II< C/){lt!IIIIR
Bl
!he bet th,lt dcr,mkcd pn.·tilcatc.., .nc ohcn ch,tr.Ktnucd by the los~ ot per~onal flexwn. In other cases, such as Tibetan, we find that deranked predicates cannot take the normal tense affixe,<;., wh1le m snll other languages deranked predicates appear to be severely restncted m the choiCe of mood and aspect markmg. Moreover, It should not be thought that this reduction of verbal morphology can affect only one verbal category at a time; we find ca~es where der anked predicates have suffered a loss of both personal flexiOn and tense markmg, of both tense marking and mood markmg, and so on. A ,<;.econd general strategy m the derankmg of predicates (whiCh may m fact be a more radical applicatiOn of the reductiOmst strategy mentioned above) mvolves a change of category status of the deranked f>redtcate. We often find cases m wh1ch the deranked predJCate has lost some or all of Its verbal charactensncs, and has been turned mto a nominal form (e.g., an mfinmve or an action nom mal), an advednal form (for whiCh the tradmonal term 'gerund' will be used here), or an adjectival form (e.g., a partiCiple). Thirdly, derankmg may be effectuated by a strategy whJCh IS more or le~~ the opposite of rnorphologtcal reductiOn. In such a case, the deranked predicate is marked by the addttton of some specr(ic marker, or by the application of a special subordmate con]ugattonal form, a socalled 'dependent mood'. Lastly, we should remark that It IS qmte normal for a language to combme different strategic,<;. In the morphological codificatiOn of Its deranked predJc,nes. As the above example from Tibetan shows, the derankmg of a predicate can be effectuated by a reductiOn m tense, while at the same time mvolvmg the addition of a speofic (m this case, ablative) marker.
,It
4.4
Aspects of consecutive deranking
In the precedmg secnon, I stated that the cross-lmglllstiC vanatlon m the morphologiCal outcome of the derankmg procedure will not be regarded a:, a ::.Igmficant typological factor 111 this essay. From this, It should not be mferred that the category of derankcd constructions wtll from now on be treated as an undivided whole. While consecutive constructiOns m balancmg languages show a great deal of structural umform1ty (m that, basiCally, they are all coordmate <;tructures), comecut1ve comtructlons m derankmg languages may differ from one another m at least two respects, which are connected With structural conditiOns that can be Imposed on the derankmg procedure. As I will argue later on, the typological
A CrossMlinguistic Typology of Comparatives
84
variation whiCh lS brought about by these two structural factors IS instrumental in the explanation of (at least a part of) the typological variation of comparattves. Hence, these two factors must be rated as typologically Significant, given the explanatory purpose for wh1ch the typology of chaining constructions IS set up. In the followmg sect10ns, I w1ll comment on these two factors) and discuss the interrelation which appear~ to exist between them.
4.4.1
Condtt!O,altty
If we take a look at the various languages in which derankmg of one of the predicates 10 a consecutive cham ts permttted, we note that, for a number of languages, the applicatton of the deranking procedure appears to be restricted by spcctfic structural condittons. In particular, we find that there are languages which can de rank consecutive predicates only m cases where the two predteates m the C-chain have identical subJects; tf different subJects are involved) the construction must remain balanced. Such a situanon we encounter tn Wolof (Rambaud, 1903). In thiS language, C-chams with identtcal subjects derank their posterior predicates into a subjuncnve form, whtch ts characterized by the presence of a specific particle a and special rules for the placement of pronouns. If the subjects in the C-chain are not tdenttcal, the only option is the use of a coordinate constructwn, which may be asyndetic, but can also contain the coordinative parttcle te 'and'. Cp.: (25)
WOLOF:
a.
Demal a
0
SUB)CT. PRT call-SUB]CT htm 'Go and call him'
go-IMP
•
Nyeu on
na
te
wakh on
come PAST IND. PRT and tell
na
ma ko
PAST IND. PRT I
him
'He came and I told (It to) htm' As far as I know, there ts no tradinonaJ label for the set of construction~ (and languages) m whtch this specific identity-condition on consecutive deranking holds. In what follows, I will refer to this group of construenons as conditionally deranked consecutive constructions, and the group of languages whtch exhibit this possibiltty will be termed languages with conditional (consecutive) derankmg. In opposition to those languages m whtch the deranking procedure is subject to a structural conditiOn on subject-tdentity, we also find languages in which no such condition seems to obtain. That IS, these
Types of Syntacttc Ch.zinmg
85
languages may derank one of the predicates m a C-cham regardless of whether the predicates m the cham have tdenttcal or non-tdenttcal subJects. As a consequence, such languages can have consecutive constructwns in which both the deranked predtcate and the fimte mam predtcate have their own overt subJect. In keepmg With traditional terminology, I wtll use the term absolute constructzon for a construction type m which a deranked predtcate has Its own overt subject; hence, languages m whtch such a structural possibliity exists will be called mstances of absolute derankmg languages. An example of a language in whtch absolute consecutive deranking t'i dearly posstble ts Tamtl. Judging from sentence (26), tt appears that, 1n this language, the deranked consecutive predtcate (I.e., the genmd1al form kuduttu 'havmg gtven') and the fimite main predicJte (poon ..m 'went') may have their own separate subJect (viz. naan 'I' and avan 'he', respecttvely). Cp.: (26)
TAMIL:
Naan 1-I"'IOM
panan kuduttu avan szmmaa-vukku money-ACC gtve-GER. PI: Rl hc·!'-..OM 1110VIe -to
poonan go-PASl. IND. 3SG
'I gave (him) money and he went to a movte' Another example of this ab.!lolute derankmg of C-chams can be found m Maasa1. In this language, deranking take~ place by putting the postenor predicate in a C~cham in the so-called Dependent Mood, a subordmate verbal form whtch IS characterized by the prefix n- and the absence of tense marl.mg. As sentence (27b) shows, identity of subjects is not required m this constructiOn. Cp.:
(27) a.
MAA,Al:
E -iput-a emotz n -e -pik en-kzma she-fill ·PAST pot DEP -she-put on-fire 'She filled the pot and put It on the fire' E -zput~a emoti n -a-pik en-kzma she-fill ·PAST pot DEP-1-put on-fire 'She filled the pot and I put it on the fire'
For the sake of clanty, it should be noted explicitly that our notion of absolute deranking is defined here so as to mclude the poss1b1hty of conditional deranking. That is, languag~ whtch permtt the derankmg of predicates under non-tdentlty of subjects wlll always allow derankmg to take place m cases of subject-identity, but the converse does not hold.
A ( m'>~-lm;.:uNtc h·tmloxy of ComparatiVe'S
Altt'Jn,n•vdy, we m.ty '>t.uc .1~:. .1 umvcr~:.,ll t.lu ol n.ltur,tl l.lllgu.tgc th.lt there Jrc no Lmgu.1gc~:. 111 wh1ch dcrankmg under noJHdentlty of ~uhJcCt~ ~~ poss1blc whde dt the same tune deranking under 1denmy of subjects 1~ forb1dden. App~uently, condJtJonal dt:rankmg ts, somehow, eas1er co e.xecute than derankmg under non-Hlenmy of subjects. Hence, gtven the plauMble pnnctple that one can perform a dJfficult task only tf one has ma>;tered all the ea~1er ones, Jt Js only to be expected that the poss1bliity of absolute (t.e., non-ldcnttty) derankmg Will nece'>'>Jnly 1mply the abtltty to achieve derankmg under identity of subjects. Wnh re~pect to the concepts of condltlonal and absolute derankmg whtch are developed here, two addu10nal remarb need to be made. First, we 'ihould comment on cases of umformtty and dJfferennatton in the procedun'.!. for the~e two types of derankmg. As we stated above, laflguagcs whKh allow for absolute derankmg may derank thcu con· secunvc predtcatc!::> both m cases of tdenmy and m cases of non-1denmy of ~ub)cct<>. Now. m the above examples from Tamil (.!.ee sentences (19) and (26)) and Maasa1 (see •entences (27alb)) we can observe a parallelism m the derankmg procedure, m that the derankmg of a prediCate m a Ccham IS always effectuated by the same morpho-symacnc mechamsm, regardless of whether there IS 1dent1ty or non-ident1ty of subjects 111 the cham. For example, the Dependent Mood in Maasa1 can be used both in deranked cham; w1th 1denucal subject. (see (27a}) and for deranked predtcates whtch helVe a >;ubject that IS different from the subject of the mam predicate ('>ee (27b)). It 'ihould not be mferred, however, rh.u such a uruformJty of the der~mkmg procedure ts m:mdatory for languages with absolute derankmg. We can also find cases of absolute derankmg la:1guages m whJCh derankcd predJCates receive morpho·syntacncally dt He rent forms, dependmg on whether there 1~ Identity or non-tdennty of .!.Ubjccts m the cham. A case m pomt IS Lann. As can be seen from the sentence~ (4alb) and (14), ab!>olute derankmg 111 Latm C·chams reqmres the use of the Ablative Ab-.olute construcnon. However, m Latm C· chams With tdenucal subject!. the Ablative Absolute 1s not employed; m th1s ca~e. the anrenor prcd1c.lte receives the form of a parttctple which agree~ m case, gender and number w1th the subject of the main predicate. Cp.:
(28)
LAT/N:
Pompetus vtctus necatus est P.-NOM defeat·PCP Pf.Rl-. PASS -NOM. ~G. MA.)C k!IJec\ IS 'H:wmg been defeated, Pompems wa~ killed'
Artother case of thts dJfferentJatiOil between the procedures for absolute and condltJOnal dcrankmg can be documented m Burushask1 (Lonmcr,
'I 'yfH!S of Syntm tu (;bamm.~:
87
l!.J l ~ ). 111 tlw, l.mgu.tgt.•, we find th.u .1 {rch.un wHit u.knth..tl ,uhJn."h rcqu1rc1t the derankmg ot the anteriOr predrcate mto ,1 P.l.,t 1>.1rtrapfe (..,ce (29a)). However, when the subjects m the cham are not 1denncal, the antenor predicate must be turned Into a verbal noun, wh1ch IS then put mto the ablanvecase (see (29b)). Cp.: (29)
8URmHASKJ'
a.
Dmm dogaru·su -mt Come-PCP. PAST a;ked ·her-3SG MASC 'He came and made mqume~ about her
7
Xurts
lang
mamntt·tsrnn
11t1lmW
dust-NOM away move·VN-ABL mother-his-NOM yet -su -man saw-h•m-3SG. FEM
'The dust moved away and his mother saw h1m' As J second remark, It should be pomted out that matters are actually somewhat more comphcared than a simple bipartition mto conditional and absolute deranking ;uggem. For some languages (e.g., Lann and Mangaray1), we find that conditional deranking is not only possible if the subjects of the two predicates in the cham are idenncal; m addition, the procedure for condinonal derankmg can also be apphed If the subject of the derankcd prediCate i& tdenncal to some other, non-subJect, NP zn the other clause of the cham. Thus m addition to a case of 'real' condittonal derankmg hke (30a), m wluch there IS subject·ldenmy for borh predicates m the C-chain, Lacm also allm.vs constructton~ ltke (JOb); m thts latter con.!.truction, a predicate has been deranked condmonally on the basts of the fact that its subJect 1~ tdenncal ro rhe tndtrect obJect of the ocher clau~e. Cp.: 7
(30)
LA11N:
a.
Pompetus vtctus P.-NOM
Caesart naves
defeat-PCP. PERf. PAS;. NOM C.-DAT sh1ps·ACC
reddtdtt g1ve back·PER~.IND. 3Mi 'After Pompoms had been defeated, he gave back the ships to Caesar'
Caesar
Pornpew vzcto
C.-NOM P.·IlAT
defeat-P(.I>. PERF
naves PA~). DAT
shlps-ACC
reddtdtt g1ve back-PERF. IND. 3;G 'After Pompetus had been defeated, Caesar gave the shtp; back to h1m'
·-·
11 ..
88
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
It must be s.tiJ, however, that this possibility of conditional deranking under Identity wtth a non-subJect IS rather marginal in natural languages. As far as I know, no language permits this type of non-subJect Identity on conditional derankmg while at the same time forbidding condittonal derankmg under subJeCt·tdentlty. On the other hand, there are numerous languages whiCh permit cond1t10nal deranking only if the Identity relatmn holds between two subJects. It must be noted that we will cons1der cases of derankmg like the Latm sentence (30b) as a (marginal) instance of conditional deranking~ anJ nor as an mstance of absolute dcranking. The reason for th1s •s that, m sentences like (30b), there IS at ledst some conditiOn of identity involved, even if this identity does not hold between two subJects. On the other hand, in cases of absolute derankmg no condttion of tdentlty holds between any con~mucnts of the two clauses m the cham.
4.4.2
Directronaltty
In addition to the typological vananon brought about by the presence or absence of subJect-Identity condtbon&, there IS a second structural factor which leJds to a typological subcategonlation of deranked consecutive constructiOns. Tins factor concerns the directzon of the derankmg procedure. That "'• we can d1vide deranked C-chatns inro two typologtcally significant clas~es, on the ba~i~ of whether it is the anterior predtcate or the posterior predtcate wh1ch ts affected by the derankmg procedure. In what follows, I wtll refer to these two options as anterior (consecutzve) derankmg and postenor (consecutrve) deranking, respectively. Now, it can be observed that, in the choice between anterior and posterior consecutive deranking, basic word order seems to play a dcterminmg role. In particular, 1t appears to be the rule that deranktng
languages wrth S0 V word order derank all anterior predtcates m a consecutive cham; that is, they derank all predicates 10 a C~chain except the last one. Thus, the unmarked case for a C-cham in a deranking SOYlanguage IS a constructton in whtch only the last predicate in the cham retains its fin1te form, while all precedmg prcdtcates recetve the form of a participle, a gerund or some orher specifically marked morphological complex. The preference of derankmg SOV~languages for anrer10r consecutive dcranking is illustrated in the examples from Latm, Tamtl and Burushaski quoted above, and in the following sentence from Korean:
l
--Types of Syntacuc Charnmg {31)
89
KOREAN:
Pulle il sigiera call-PER<. GER work force-IMP 'Call him and force h1m to work' In derankmg SVO-languages and VSO-language;, the oppo>Jtc dtrectionahcy seems to be the rule. In deranktng languages With the~e baMl word orders, the unmarked case IS that only the first predicate m a com,ecutlvc chain retains its fimte status, whtle all follo\.\.mg pred1catc~ are dcrankcd mto root form~, infimtives, verbal nouns or speafi< conjugatlo•ul forms. Clear examples of SVO-Ianguages wh1ch hav<· posterior consecutive deranking are Igbo, where- dcrJn~cd con\ecunv,· predicates ret.:ctvc a bpcoal NdCrarive Form (~ee (2)), and Wolof, where pobtcnor con~nve prcdrcates Are rn.1rkcd by the particle a and the SubjunctiVe Mood (&ee (2.5J)). A th1rd ex.unplc of the preference of deranking SVO-languages for po~tenor con~ecuttvc dcranklng IS the following sentence from B•n (Spagnolo, 1933). In thts language, de· ranked po~ter10r predtcates in C-ch.nns appear m the form of the socalled Narrative Imperative, a verbal formanon whu:h ·happens to resemble the lmpcrarive, begtnmng each phra~e u~ually warh the copula a' (Spagnolo, 1933: 13). Cp.: (32)
BAR/:
Nan a -tu mede ti nan rene ... I IND. j)A~T -go home PRT I ~weep~Il\1P 'I went home and swept (the house) and •.. ' In VSO~Ianguages, the process of con.~ecutJve dcr.Jnkmg ~~ .a b1t mo1 e elusive. Part of the dtfficulry is that, quite often, VSO-Ianguage; lack many or an CJ:tegoric~ of verbal flex1on~ so ch;:at the dt.~otmction bcmeen finite and deranked verbal form> tends to he blurred from the ouMt. Nevertheless, tn those VSO~Ianguages m whtch. dcrankcd con~t:cuw c form~ can be L~cabh~hcd, we note a dc,u preference for the derJnktng of postenor predu.:ates. Above, we rnennoned the case of Maa!IJL (.~oce (27alb)), a VSO·IJnguagc m whiCh poo;tenor pred1cate~ get mJrkcJ for 'Dependent Mood'. Another example of th~> preference for po-rert<>r derankmg IS jacaltec (Cratg, 1977), where we find that the posterwr predicate m a C~cham must be marked by the ~ubordmanng suffix ~w. Cp.: {33)
/ACALTEC:
Speba tX te pulta sah ~m tx te wentantJ closed she the door opened-PRT she the wmdow 'She closed the door and opened the w1ndow'
90
A Cross-itnKUISftc Typology
of ComJ;aratwes
In '>unun.uy, then, we t.m fornwl.lt'l' the following two o.,tatcnlcnt~ on the dJrct..tlonJ]Jty of con~ccutivc dcrankmg:
(l4) a.
if
an SOY-language deranks
1ts
C-chams,
1t
tllllVl'r'>.ll
wt/1 derank
antertor predrcates.
b. If SVO-languages or VSO-/anguages derank thetr C-chams, they wzll derank posterzor pre.dzcates. It 1s only fair to pomt out here that these two ~tatemenrs must be taken as tendencies rather than law~: they formulate the unmarked cases of directionahry. Thus, for mstance, statement (34a) 1mphes that It IS normal for a dcrankmg SOY-language to prefer anterior derankmg of consecutive prediCates, but thi~ preference r,hould not be conceived of as a law which perm1ts no dcvi<J.tiOn. In our sample, we come across at least one counterexample to statement (Ha); Kanun is a derankmg SOY~ language whKh nonethe\ec:,c; prefers po.,tcrior derankmg m C-chams. 3 Wnh statement (34b), counterexamples are even more numerous. Fm~ msh, Engll~h, Dutch and French are all cases of SVO-languages wh1ch have at least margmal po<,<,ibllltles for derankmg, and these languages all preter antenor derankmg procedures." Similar remarks can be made for Classical Arab1c and B1bhcal Hebrew; these two VSO-Ianguages have a margmal possibility to derank C-chams, and the procedure wh1ch they preter IS the derankmg of the antenor mstead of the postenor predicate. However, dcsptte these counterexamples, I hold that we are JUStified in saymg that the conclusions 1n (34), 1f taken as tendenoes, can be shown to be ia1rly well estabh>hed. I trust that the general empmcal validity of the~e t\vo tendenc1e!:. wdl become more apparent m the chapters of part rwo, where mdl\'ldual mstance~ of consecutive derankmg will be presented. Apart from the quec;non of the empmcal valid1ty of the statements tn (34), 1t ,.., also natural to a<>k whether there 1s a prmc1pled explanation for the ~tate of affatr'i whtch they descnbe. Of course, one mighr very well argue th.n the explananon of these correlattom. between derankmg types and \\'ord order types ts really beyond the scope of our mveo;uganon. It will be recaHed that the motivation for the establishment of a typology of chammg constructions hes 1n the ao;c;umptJOn that such a typology may prove to be useful as a determmant of the typology of comparatives. From rh1<> perspective, the fact that th1s 'second' typology turns out to be con elated with word order preferences may be rated as an interesting, but e!-.~ennally concomitant phenomenon. Although I agree that such a posmon I'i certamly defendable, l would nonetheless hke to offer some speculations on the reasons behmd the word order preferences of certam types of derankmg. To the extent m wh1ch these speculations are plaustble, :-..upport 1!:. g~ven to our clam1 that the word order preferences
Types of SyntactiC Chammg
91
of lVrl,mll,;omp.lr,lf!vl.' typl·:-., wh1d1 we lormul,ltcd in ".cctJon 1.1, .uc not .tccJdcntal, but can be accounted for ,mtomJtH.:,llly once we a:-.:,umc th.n
comparative-type choice ts determmed by the possJblhtles of chamingtype cho1ee. As I see it, the correlations between word order and deranking type wh1ch are latd down m (34) can be accounted for on the basis of the followmg general pnnctple:
The Forward PnnCip/e of Deranktng: If a language deranks rts consecutive ch.uns, dcrankmg w1H affect the postenor predrcate, unless there 1s some special reason dtrectwn.
to
reverse thts
Thus, thts principle cla1m5 that the dtrecttonality of derankmg wh1ch 1s opted for by SVO-languages and VSO-languages ts the unmarked case of chrecnonality. Behmd th1s prmople we may postulate a general funcnonai or perceptual strategy, according to which the decoding of a deranked predtcate ts easter when 1t IS encountered after the rnam predicate m the cham has been decoded. In this ca.!!e, the structural position and function of the deranked predicate has already been defined by the mam predicate, whereas, if this order is reversed, the structural decoding of the deranked prediCate has to be suspended until the rnam predicate has been perceived. That the Forward Princtple of Deranking is not applicable to SOY-languages can be artnbuted to the fact that in these languages it 1S mandatory to have a fimte mam verb in sentence-final position. If SOYlanguages were to follow the Forward Pnnc1ple, fimte predicates would never be able to turn up m rhe1r obligatory position, and hence there Is no other ch01ce for these languages than to reverse the direction of the derankmg procedure. For languages with SVO or VSO order, there Is no obhgation to place finite predicates m sentence~final position, whtch IS why they can fol1ow the Forward Pnnciple and have postenor consecutive derankmg.
4.4.3
The mterrelatzon of cond1t10naltty and dtrecttOnaltty
Jn the two preceding sect10ns, we have noted that the cases of deranked consecutive construction~ can be subcategonzed along either one of the followmg two parameters: (a) ConditiOnality: a deranked C-cham may be either a case of condttJOnal derankmg or a case of absolute derankmg. (b) Dtrecttonality: a deranked C-cham may be etther a case of anterior derankmg or a case of postenor derankmg.
92
A
Cross~linguisttc
Typology of Comparatives
Now, if it were the case that these two parameters were completely mdcpendent, the c.uegorization of deranked C-chains would obviously lead to four ~ubtypes. As It turns out, however, one of these logically pO.!l!!ible subtypes does not occur rn reahty, due to the fa<..'t that there ~eems to exiM an Interdependency of the two parameters in question. To be specific, there ts no counterexample m my sample to the following umversal claim: (35)
If a language has anterior deranktng (and is therefore typically SOV; see sectton 4.4.2), it has absolute deranking.
Thus, the s.1mplc does not provtdc us wtth one single instance of a language in whtch antenor consecutive predicates can be deranked only tf there b tdennty of ~ubjects between the clauses in the chain. In other words, at least one logically possible subtype of consecutive deranking (viz. a chain wnh conditrona/ anterior derankmg) does not appear tO exist. Again, the dtscussions in part two will clearly demonstrate that (35) is a hard empzrical fact. Wtth respect to cases of postenor deranking of consecutive predtcates, we can observe that the two logically possible variants are indeed represented in the data. That is, of the languages which prefer postenor deranking in C-chains some can be shown to have only conditional deranking, while other~ permit the wider option of absolute deranking. It turns out, however, that the choice for absolute or conditional derankmg 1~ not wholly unprediCtable in this case; the options on clus point appear to be firmly ned up wirh the basic word order of the languages in quesnon. For the languages in my sample, the following two statements are nearly Without exceptions: (36) a. If a language has word order is SVO, b. If a language has word order is VSO,
posterzor consecutwe deranking and zts then tt has conditional derankzng. postenor consecutzve deranking and zts then it has absolute deranking.
Wtth regard to these two umversals, I must refer once more to the data in part two, espectally those in chapter 7 and chapter 8. It will become clear there that the statements in (3 6) represent valid generalizations, to which only incidental counterexamples can be found in the sample. The statements m (34), (35) and (36) can be brought together in the following un1versal tendencies, which state the correlations between word-order type and type of consecutive deranking:
93
Types of Syntactic Chaining
(37) a. Languages w1th absolute consecuttve derankmg have etthtT SOV or VSO word order.
b. Languages with absolute antermr consecutive derankzng typtcally have SO V word order.
c. Languages wrth absolute postenOT consecutwe derankmg typtcally have VSO word order. d. Languages wh1ch permit only cond1tronal derankmg of C
it 1s jufJtifiable to
a~k for dn
explanauon of the correldttons la1d down
m
(37). I do not have the pretension that I can offer a conclus1ve answer on rhi&o point, but I would hkc to advJnce the followmg con~IdcratiOil!>. In deranking languages with SOV or YSO word order, the consecutive predicate "h1ch undergoes deranking 1s perce1ved by the hearer (and, presumably, al•o encoded by the speaker) before the second subJect m tbe chain 1s percewed. Thus, in a deranking SOY-language, wh~eh has Cchams of the followmg general form:
s,
0
v,
-
s,
0
v,
the antenor predicate (V1) must be deranked; as can be seen, th1s predicate is ordered in the chain pr10r to the second subject (5 2 ). A similar siruanon obrains m deranking VSO-languages. Agam, the pre· d1cate wh1ch undergoes deranking (1.e., the po~tenor pred1cate V2 ) IS ordered before the second sub jeerS,, Cp.:
v,
s,
o
-
v,
s~
o
In contrast to thiS Situation in SOV·language• and VSO-Ianguag<'s, derankmg SVO-Ianguages have C-chams m wh1ch the deranked pre· dicate (viz. the posterior predicate V2 ) follows the second subJectS,. Cp.:
s,
v,
0
-
s,
v,
0
In v1ew of th1s contrast, the followmg conclus1on suggests '"elf. In deranking SOY-languages and VSO-languagcs, deranking of pred1ca1es is perceived before "!entity or non-Identity of ;ubjects m a cham IS estabbshed, while in derankingSYO-languages 1dent1ty conditions on the subjects in the chain are known at the time that the deranked predicate" perceived. From this, one might venture the hypothesis that derank1ng languages With SOY or VSO order must ha\e the freedom to derank th•'lt consecutive preJICates under any conditions, wherea.!> decankmg SVO-
A Cross-lmgurstrc Typology of Comparatives
94
l.mp,,lgt·'> ~,.In h11111 thnnwh('-. to tlu: 'c,l\ll'f' pH~t.. t•dmc ol uHH.IttiOlhtl dcr.mkmg. It goes Without ~aymg, however, that tb1~ explanatu.m of the fact• on (37) 1s rather a temanve one, and that much p&ychohnguistic
research mto the process of derankmg will be needed before we can tell wh<>thcr there is any plausibility to an analysiS of th1s kind.
4.4.4 Subtypes of consecutr"e derankmg If we accept the vahdny of the umversals presented Ill sect10n 4.4.3, we are m a posltton to reduce the subcategorlzanon of de ranked consecuttve construcnons to a typology whtch contams three baste n~btypes. These three typologiCal opnons form dusten of properties wh1ch are connected wrth condJtionahty, directionality and basic word order, and can be
defined as follows: (a) consecutive chams with absolute deranking of the antertor predrcate. Typically, languages with th1s option have SOV ward
order. •b) consecutive chains with absolute deranking of the posterror predtcate. Typ1cally, languages With this option have VSO word
order. ~c)
consecutive cha1ns w1th conditional deranking of the posterior
(>redicate. Typically, languages with this option have SVO word order. 4.5
The fonnal
exprcs~ion
of simultaneous chaining
In the precedmg section!!- of th1s chapter our mam concern has been with the way in wh1ch the semantiC concept of consecutive chammg 1s caddied m the ~yntact1c surface \trUcturt.'~ of natural languages. I wtll now make a few remarks on rhe codificatiOn of the other vanant of temporal chammg, v1z. stmultaneous chazmng. Our discussion of thts subtype of temporal chnmmg can be relattvely brief, smce a number of notions
v,.h1ch are necessary 1n the descripnon of the various types of simultaneous chams have been dealt With extensively dunng our survey of the subtypes of consecutive cha1ns. As far as the semantic, language-Independent defimtion of the nonon of 1 Simultaneous chaming' 1s concerned, maners are relauvely stratght-
f<Jrward. We can define a simultaneous cham (ot S-cham) crosshngmsncally as that construction type which expresses a situauon in wh1ch two events happen at the same pomt m tzme, or a situation in whtch two states obtam at the same potnt m ttme. Included m thiS
Tyf't'-" uf Syntattu Clwmmg
tldimuon .Ire .tl\<) ~nu.uuuh tn whh.h two cr'cnts or stat('S nverlap m tmw. Thu~~ lnlhc lypu...tl \..•lM.' ~-tho1111" \OIIl"'Jlo!ld 111 lllt'.Hlmp.to tilP'>(' Engh~h
adverbtal dau~c~ which are mtroduced by the conjunctwm. (ilt the ttme) when or uohrlc. A ~omewhat spec1al ca~e of 'l1multaneous chams is formed by those chams m wh1ch the two events or states are set off
agamst each other in a relation of adversatw1ty. Roughly speaking, in this ca~J~e
the two events or states are sa1d to happen c.q. obtam at the same time desp1te expectations to the contrary. A typ1cal cod1ficanon of such an adversative chain in English I& a coordinated structure m whtch cwo
sentences are hnked by the connecnve but. The syntacnc encodmg of Simultaneous chammg parallels the encodmg of consecutive chammg m a number of Important respects. For one thmg, JUSt hke C-chains, S-chams may be expressed euher by a balanced or by a deranked structural configuratiOn. That ts to say, m some languages the simultaneous cham has the shape of a syntactic coordmanon between clauses or sentence& c.q. the shape of a matn dause wtth an embedded
temporal clause, whereas m other languages one of the two predicates m the S-cham is morphologically marked for subordmanon. An example oi a language in wh1ch S-chams have to be balanced IS Pala: (38)
PAl-A:
Da e1tum ra tamat ma da so ra hanszk one·w11l eat the b1g and one-w1ll plant the small 'The b1g (yams) will be eaten and the small ones wtll be planted'
Tibetan, on the other hand, IS a language m wh1ch Simultaneous chams are obligatorily deranked, in the manner shown by example (39): (39)
TIBETAN:
Lam nan-pa -ym-las rta agrul-ma ·thub road bad-one-be -PRT horse walk -not-able 'The road was bad and the horses could not walk' A second parallelism between the cod1ficanon of simultaneous and
consecutive chains hes in the fact that deranked structures of both types of temporal chaining are subject to the same kmd of cond1ttonaltty. In the same manner as we observed for de ranked C-chain>, deranked S-chams can be subdivided into structures m wh1ch absolute derankmg IS pos<~ble (that IS, in which the derankmg procedure operates mdependently of the 1dennty or non-idennty of the subJ~Cts in the chain), and structures m
wb1ch only cond1tional derankmg IS possible (that IS, deranking under identity of subjects). An example of absolute Simultaneous deranlang IS provided by the above sentence from Tibetan (see (39)). Condltlonal stmultaneous derankmg seems to be the rule in lgbo; the deranked
---~-
70
A Cross-linguistic Typology of Comparatives
Simultaneous construction m this language, which we illustrated m example (1), is only allowed in cases m whtch there is subject-identtty between the prcdtc.ues m the chain (see Welmers, 1973}. With re&pect to drrectiorzality, the other condition on the derankmg procedure in consecutive chams, there IS, however, a fundamental d1fference between the two types of temporal chammg. In consecutive chains, the propo&itions which express the events involved are temporally ordered. As we saw, this temporal ordenng has its formal-syntactic counterpart tn the left-to-right ordermg of predicates (or sentences) in the con!:tecutive ,<,tructure, to the effect that the predicate or sentence whtch describes the e.1rlier event m the temporal succession ts ordered structurally as the leftmost predicate or sentence in the chain. We noted in sectton 4.4.2 that thts (temporal and structural) ordering of consecutive predtcates plays an tmportant role in the procedure of consecutive derankmg: It may either be the temporally anterior (and structurally leftmost) predicate or the temporally posterior (and structurally nghtmost) pre· dtc.uc whtch t!-1 affected by the deranking procedure. As we have shown, the choice between these two altemattves ts at least m part mfluenced by the baste word order which the language in question has. Now, tn the case of simultaneous action there is of course no successive temporal ordenng between the two event~ m the chain: both of these events arc supposed to take place at the same point in time. This essential lack or neutrality of temporal ordering m a simultaneous chain is mirrored m semantics by the fact that, m chams wtth a simultaneous readmg, both posstble orderings of the two event-expressing propositions are expression,!, of one and the same state of affairs. In simultaneous chams, the choice for one of the possible orderings in a given situation is not made on semantic grounds (as is the case in consecutive chains), but ts presumably influenced by con,!,iderations of a pragmatic or functional nature. Thus, the English sentences tn (40), when taken in their natural simultaneous interpretation, are semantically equivalent. In contrast to this, the sentence~ in (41), which are naturally interpreted as consecutive cham!-., arc not !.Cmant~eallr equivalent, smce they do not satisfy the same truth conditions: (40)
ENGLISH:
a. b.
john wore a cap and sported sneakers john sported sneakers and wore a cap
(41)
ENGLISH:
a. b.
Gary bought a gun and rode into town Gary rode mto town and bought a gun
Types of Syntactic Charnmg
97
A structural counterpart of this es~nttally unordered nature of Simultaneous chaming IS the fact that, m languag~ wh1ch derank thetr 5-chams,
both of the eveot-expn:ssing predicates m the structure may be candtdates for deranking. For mstance, tn Enghsh, a language whtch optionally deranks its SJmulraneous predtcates, the two sentence> tn (43) are both possible deranked variants of the balanced stmultancous structure (42): (42)
ENGLISH:
John stood on the amter and smoked a cigarette (43)
ENGLISH:
a. b.
Standrng on the corner, john smoked a ctgarette Smoking a ctgarette, John stood 011 the corner
Now, from a structural point of view, simultaneous cha1ns are of course entities which are deployed m nme; therefore, they have a hnear order.
just hke any other lingutstic ennty. Hence, it will alway> be posstble t<> mack pred1cates a!. leftmost or rightmost, even m 5-chams. Som1· languages which derank thetr S-chain~ may have a preference for th{· deranking of a leftmo>t or a rtghnnost predicate in such chams. Ttbetan, for example, obligatorily deranks leftmost prediCates m Mmult ..tneou<; constructtons (see (39)); this preference can be .tttrlbuted to the fact that Tibetan, a strict SOV~language, alway!t rcqutres a finite mam verb m sentence~fi.nal
posation. Despite these structurally mouvated preferences
for direction, however, the essential point remams that,. even m Tibetan, there W()uld be no change m truth value if one were to mvert the clausts in (39) linearly and in terms of der•nking. In other words, the tenrs 'anterior' and 'posteriOr' have no applicatton m the docnpoon uf simultaneou~
chaining constructions. As a consequence of thb feature of simukancou::. chaimng~ we can note that, unlike consecuttve derankmg, stmultaneom.. derankmg does not seem to be subject to conditions whicb are connected wtth baste word order. If a language deranks its $-chains, word order does not come imo play, and therefore no subcategonzanon of srmulrant..-ou~ der.mkmg types can be made on dus pomt. In ocher word~, whdc derankt:d consecutive structure!:. can be subcategonzed mto structures wtth antefliu deranking and posterior deranking, ~tmultattL'"<>US der.mking does nJt
have directional subtypes, and can only be pttted as a whole agamst the alternative of simultaneous balancing. As a result, we can summanze the structUral types of simultaneous chams in the followmg three categones: ca;es of simultaneous balancing (b) cases of condttional simulta11eous derankmg (c) cases of absolute Simultaneous deranking. (a)
4.6
Summary: syntactic types in temporal chaining
In the prccedmg section~ of this chapter, it has been my atm to present a typology of the ways 111 whtch the semantic or cogmttve notion of temporal chammg IS ~yntacncaiiy encoded m natural languages. Our maJor re&ult~ can be summan1ed as follows. FJ"St, the semantic concept of temporal chammg appears to cover two subtvpes, vtz.. stmultancou& actiOn and con!:>ecunve action. For at lea!:>t a number of languages, the&e two &ubtypes are structurally represented by dtfferent surface constructtom; m other languages the semantic chsnncnon between these subtype'> has been formally neutralized m a total or partial manner.
Secondly, for both of these semanttc subtype; a pnmaty spilt in thm possJbdJttes of &yntactJC codificatiOn mvolves the d1stmcnon between the structural opt'IOO'i of halancmg and deranking. Tlurdly, wlthm the category of deranked chammg constructiOns, both consecutive and ~trnultaneous cham~ can be !:>ubcategonzcd ac; instances of either conditional or ab~olute derankmg. Fourthly, m the case of drranked consecunve construcnons, the ~pht ben."' een condtttonal and abc;olute derankmg mtera.ct!:> w1th the d1stmct1on benveen antenor and poc;tcnor derankmg; this latter dJ!:.tmctlOn correlate!:> w1th the basic word order of the languages at issue. The mteractwn of the two di!:>tmctiOn<> produce<; a three-way dtvl!:.ion w1thm the cate':!Q,TV pf de-ranked consecutive chauun~sonsrructlQns. __ _ In ~urn, the typology of the syntactic vanat1on in the cod1ficatwn of temporal chammg consJ'it\ of the foHowmg seven type!:.: A 1 A 2.1 A 2.2 A 2.J B1 B 2.1
B 2.2
consecutive halancmg consecutive conditional (po,tcrior) dcrankmg (typically SVO) absolute (consecutive) antcnor dcranking (typically SOY) abwlute (consecutive) postenor derankmg (typically VSO) ')Jmultaneous balancmg conditional ~Imultaneou!:> derankmg ab~olute Mmu1taneou!:> derankmg
4.7
Language types in temporal chaining
In the prevwus sectwn, we have summanzed the syntactic forms m wh1ch nat mal languages may encode the semantiC concepts of Simultaneous and con,ecutrve actwn. Thts typology of chammg constructiOns can now be
'/)'/It'S
11/ Synla1 //(
u~ed as the baM~ of a typology
( 'lhlmlll,'!
99
of languuges m the expressiOn of temfmrt~l
we w1H now mvesngate the way~ m whJCh languages make their chmce from ch1s }Jst of poss1hle encodings, and, as a result, we wtll e5.tabhsh a dasSificanon of che languages tn the sample on the basts of their options in the formah7atJon of conc;ecunve and Simultaneous • acuon. I assume Jt will be obvwus that any natural language will have to have the possibthty to cod1fy both simultaneous and consecutive acnon, and that, therefore, any language must make a cho1ce from both the posstble types of simultaneous chamt~ and the possible types of consecutJve chams listed m ~ectton 4.6. Now, g1ven that there are four poss1ble ways to codify consecutive actiOn and three poss1ble ways to cod1fy simultaneous action, 1t follows that a typology of language classes m chainmg
chammg. That
lS,
formanon will theoretically conSISt of 12 dJfferent categories of languages. In reality, however, thts number of language types turns out to be ngorously restricted, due to the opera non of a general prmctple whtch regulates the selection of consecutive and smmltaneous chammg types for a given language. Tlu~ prmCJplc can be formulated as follows:
The l'rmciple of Parallel Chammg: In Its codlficanon of temporal chammg, a language will select parallel optiOns for consecutive and simultaneous chams.
It ts, of course, natural to conceive of thts pnnctple as a kmd of economy pnnc1ple operating in the systems of natural languages; basically, the pnnctple is a mamfestanon of the general tendency m rule ~ystems not to comphcate procedure(> beyond what 1s stnctly necc&sary, and thus to employ similar procedures for sim1lar tasks. As we noted m section 4.1, m some languages the Princ1ple of Parallel Chammg ha~ led to the
The Principle of Parallel Chammg can be seen to operate both m the b,J!ancmg-derankmg dtstmctlon m cham formation and 1n the absoluteconditional dl:.tmctJOn m derankcd temporal chams. To start With the fir~t d1stmcnon, we can note that a language whiCh balances Its C-chains will tend to choose the balancmg optwn for Its S-chams, and v1ce versa. Conversely, tf a language deranks Its C~chains, 1t will, as a rule, also de rank lts S-chains, and vice versa. In my sample, there are only very few counterexamples to thts general tendency. One conspJCuous case m wh1ch th1s para1lehsm is absent IS Nuer, a NtlotlC VSO-language, whtch balances its Simultaneous chains, but has the pmsththty of absolute derankmg for its consecutive pred1cates. The same ~uuat1on holds for
A Cross-lznguistic Typology of Comparatives
100
l\l>asai, another Nilotic VSO-Ianguage. Opposed to this, two Australian languages (viz. Gumbamggir and Mangarayt) and the two Polynesian languages in the sample (MJ.on and Samoan) have the possibility to
derank predicate~ m ~unultaneous cham~, but, as far as I know, they lack a dcranking optmn for consecutive chams. However, the general tendenq m my sample IS cle:1rly that language~ wtll employ the same basic strategy m both the formahLJuon of stmultancous action and the formalization of •
consecutive actiOn.
The strw.:tural parallebsm between consecutive and encoJmg can al:)o be observed
10
simultaneou~
rhe kmd of condttionality under wh1ch
the two types of chJtnmg constructions can be deranked in a language, gtven that they can be deranked at aU. In general, it appears to be the case that, if a language ha<; absolute consecut1ve derankmg, it wtll also have absolute simultaneous derankmg, and VICC versa; as the examples above dearly demonstrate, Ttbetan ts a case m point here. Conversely, if a language has only the opnon of conditional consecutive deranking, the same type of restrtctlon tends to be Imposed on the deranking of simultaneous construction~, and vtce ver<;a; lgbo (see sentences (1) and (2)) IS a language in which thiS Situation obtains. A possible counterexample here JS Quechua, a language which seems to have absolute consecutive derankmg, but only conditional stmultaneous deranking (see chapter 10). However, we can state wtth some confidence that the structural parallelism between the types of C~chains and S-chains whtch a derankmg language selects is confirmed by the large majority of the relevant languages m the sample. If we accept the general validity of the Principle of Parallel Chaining, we are in a position to limit the set of language types in chainmg formation to the followmg three categones: (a) Balancing languages. These languages have both balanced Simultaneous construcr1on5 and balanced consecutive constructions; that IS, m these languages the form of S-chams and C-chains is that of a coordination. Since~ typically, coordmation is a umform procedure, it will be expected that neutralization of consecutive and stmultaneous chaining will be very common in the languages of thts type; disambtguization of the chatning construction will typiCally be effectuated by the optional use of temporal adverbs wtth cnher a definite consecutive meaning ('and then\ 'and thereafter') or a defimte simultaneous meaning ("and also', 'and at the same ttme'). Furthermore, tt wtll be expected that the languages in thts class do not have a preference for a particular type of basic word order, smce the choice for a coordmated chaming construction is not many way dependent on the type of word order which a language happens to have. (b) Conditronally deranking languages. The languages of this type
Types of Syntactic Chaming
101
have S-chains and C-chains m which one of the predicates is deranked under Jdentlt}' of subJects; as we have seen m secuon 4.4.3,
It JS
the
postenor predtcate whtch i• deranked m C-chams of rhis type. Smeo' conditional derankmg of C-chains •• typ~<:.dl} • property of derankmg SVO-languages, 1t wtl! be expec-red that l•nguagcs of th~> cia;; will have, as a rule, SVO word order. Neutralization of simultaneous and con-
secunve action is certainly posstble 1n languages of this type, J.s I!o. ~ho\\n by the case of Mandar1n, but tt lS not mandatory. There are .1l~J languages of this type, such as Igbo, m which there " morpholog~<. I difference in the encodtng of the two type> of temporal chammg. (c) Absolutely deraukmg languages. The l•ngu•gc• of rhi• type can have S-chams and C-chatns m which one of the prcrucdt<> IS deranked even
tf there
IS
non-identity of the subJects m the cham. As we noted m
section 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, the languages of th1s type can be divided mto two subtypes, on the basis of the d~rectton•lity of the derankmg procedure m their C-chains. Thus we have: (1) languages with absolute Simultaneous derank1ng and absolme antertor consecutiVe deranking. These languages wtll, as a rule,
have SO Vas thm basic word order. (2) languages with absolute simultaneous derankmg and absolute posterior consecuttve deranking. These languages will typ1cally have VSO as their basiC word order. Regarding the phenomenon of neutralization, 1t COlin be observed that complete neutralizanon is very uncommo11 for languages of thiS typei Amharic {see {4)) is an exceptional case in thi~ class. In most cases, tht·re 1s either no neutralization at all, or only partial neutralization between stmultaneous and consecutive acnon, in that the same morphologkal predicative form is marked by different subordinating particles (Ttbeta n), or the ~arne subordmatmg particle IS u~ed to mark predicative forms which are marked differently for tense (Latm). This, then, sums up out claS>Ification of the language• m the s,lmple <>n the basis of their options in the •elcc-rion of ;ynta~ttc chaimng types. However, before we can conclude tlus chapter, I mu~t ~all attentiOn tiJ a factor which tends to weaken the stnctness of th1s classification. fn)nl the discussiotiS so far, the reader may have got the tmpress10n that a language, m codtfying ir. C-chain• and S-chains, must be either balancing or deranking, and that in cases where both option~ are avatlable the choice JS governed by specific con~iderattons of conditionahty on the deranking procedure (as m the case of Wo\of; see (25alb)). If th" ''"'e indeed the case, the typology would be plca.antly ne•t and strt-:rly defined; but, unfortunately, reahty l~ J btt more complex than th1~. We
102
A C:rms-lmgutstJC 'f'ypologyo{Comparatrves
cnn nl"'o find en "'t'.., m whllh ,1 l.inguagc appc.lr\ to he .1blc to vary freely (H·twlTII th~o.· opuon., ol h.1l.mllll~ .mJ dl·t.mkmg. I he t.odtfi(,ll/on of coll\ccullvc ch.llll\ ml•ngh.,h 111.1) \l'rvc a\ .mtllu.,tr.uum here.
In English, consecutive chams may be balanced; that thts IS !,O ts made evtdent by exampl<' like (15), repeated here as (44). On the other hand,
th•s language has also at least a hm1ted (and perhaps stylistically marked) pos.,btftty to dcrank ItS C-chams. A sentence !tke (4l} 'hows that Engltsh has antenor con~ecuovc der Jnkmg. That the chotce between consecutive balancmg and consecunve derankmg m Enghsh IS not (or not completely) determmed by condition-; on the tde-ntny or non-tdennty of subJects can be seen from th< (at lea>< margmal) acceptabihty of a case of absolute consecuuve derank111g ltke (46b): (44)
FNCL/S/1:
john 1umped out of hrs cha~r and grabbed a gun (45)
FNCLJ\H:
Havmg lumped out of hrs charr, john grabbed a gun (46)
loNCL/\H:
a b.
John's ull{e left htm and he took to drmkmg Hts wtfe havmg left htm, john took to drmkmg
Morcover 1 English also seem& to have a hm1tcd poS!I.Jbdlty of postenor consecutive derankmg, whtch (English bemg an SVO-language) IS restricted to c
/.NGU\/1:
a. b.
Let~s go and see a
(48)
ENGLIS/1:
a. b.
Who thd you go and see? What d,d you try and clean up'
fortune teJler Let's try and clean up thrs mess before mother comes home
Yet another English construction wh1ch m1ght be
v1ew~d
as a case of
po&tenor consecutive derankmg IS the to-con~uucnon mentioned m section 4.2. In a sentence hke (49), the to-mfinm"c does not have a purpo::.e-readmg, but rather the readmg of a posterior pred1cate m a consecutive cham: (49)
tNGL/SH:
John came hom£> to find hts (amrly murdered by terronsts
Types of Syntactic Chammg
103
In vu"W .. o( o,uch a situanon, it !.Cems to be more adequate to say that a l.wgu.1hl' h~t· l'ngh'h um ht· h.1l.uu:mg o1· dcr.lllklll~, r.llhn rhan to '·'Y
lMI.uu.:mg or JcrJnkmg. I wallu1o~c the h.'l'lll~ "f,ttwr,tiiMI,,HmK and opttOnal derankmg to descrtbe such a state of atfam. On the other hand, there are also languages tn winch only one of the baSIC strategies th.tt
1t 1s
for codifymg consecutiVe and simultaneous chaming seems to be allowed. For example, Ttbetan ts a language m whtch no balancmg of chainmg constructions occurs, whereas Guarani as a language wb1ch doo not permtt any form of derankcd predtcates. In what follows, I wtll refer 10 these Iauer type> of languages as stnctly derankmg and str1ctly
balancmg, respectively.
-=--..-· .;.·-·-__...___,___.- ..
·-~-·
5 Comparative Type and Chaining Type
5.1 Introduction In the preceding chapters, I have presented two cross-lingutstic typologtes, viz. the typology of comparative constructions (chapter 2) and the typology of chammg constructions (chapter 4). In thts chapter, I want to put forward the clatm that there 1s a correl•tion between these two typologies. To be spea6c, I want tt> claim that the second typology, wh1ch states the attested vanation among languages m the formal representation of temporal chaining, must be conce1ved of as the baste
upon which the attested extenston of categortes 1n the typology of comparatives can be predicted. Below, I will present a set of implicational universals in whtch thi& claimed correlation IS made explicit and spectfic. These universals wtll be referred to as chaming-based universals of comparative-type choice, as opposed to the word-order-based umversals whtch we discu.sed m chapter 3. Throughout the following dtscusston, tt should be kept in mind that the formulation of the set of chaining-based universals serves a twofold scientific purpose. On the level of cross-linguisnc descnption, this set of universals is tntended as a statement of a number of correlations between categories from two mdependently constructed Jingmstic t}r-pologic!).
Thus, to the extent that the;e clatmed correlations can be validated by the data, the set of chaining·based universals can be said to constitute a
descrtptive research result m a spectfic area of Universal Grammar. Beyond thts purely de&criptlve function, however, the ultimate mm of the set of chammg-based universals is of an explanatory nature. I intend
thts set of universals to be a formulation of the hypothesis that the typologtcal parameter of temporal chaining must be looked upon as the determinatlt of the typology of comparatives, in the sense of the defi.mtton of thts term whtch was gtven in section 1.2. My umversals thus
..
~-
,
______ Comparative Type and Chammg Type
105
embody the claim that all the poss1ble var1dt1ons in the typology of chainmg construchons have the1r exact mcttch 1n the typology of comparanves. In other words, we claim that the options wh1ch languages have m the axhficanon of compamon are restncted by the pos>~ble opnons of languages in the codification of temporal cha1ning: the fact that the typology of comparatives contains the attested (and no other) categones is taken to be a consequence of the fact that the typology of chaining construc~1ons allows only the attested (and no other) typological variants. In thts way, the typology of ch,tining construcoons serves as the basis upon wh1ch the non-randomness of vanation 10 the typology of comparatives can be accounted for. As a result, the claims wh1ch are con tamed in the set of chamlng-b.<sed universals may be vtewcd as an operauonahzatiOn of the 1dea that, 1n natural languages, comparative constructtons must not be looked upon as an 'elementary', ~baste', or 'autonomous' construction type. Instead, our umversals are the embodiment of the assumption that the encodmg of the concept of companson in natural language systems 1s 'parasmc' upon the encodmg of the concept of temporal chaimng, whk.h, accord· mgly, 111 seen as a more elementary or deeper·lymg concept. In order to express this relation of dependency between the lmgui!!OC coJtfication~ of comparison and temporal chammg, we will say that, in natural language., the lingu1stic codification of comparison i; claimed to be modelled upon or borrowed from the ways in which the concept of temporal chaming can be encoded in natural language systems. I would hke to point out here that, if the above modelhng-hypothe>~> can be shown to be vahdated by the cro..-lingn~stic data, our research results may have consequences for cogruttve theory, semanhc theory and formal lingmstic theory alike. From a cognitive pomt of vtew, our hypotheSis lead; to the contention that the mental operation by whtch two objects are compared may not be an mdependent, 'priminve• operation; at least ,t& far as its codification mto language IS concf"rned~ the mental act of coinpari.!>on must be seen as a c.:onceprual extenMon of the mental operatiOn by which two events are ordered with respect to their occurrence In ttme. This claim that, m a sense, compilTtson is a cognitwe metaphor of temporal chainmg may be of interest to both semanticists and cognitive psychologists. 1n formal hnguistic theory, acceptance of our modellmg-hypotheM; may ledd to the conclu;ion that, In umversal grammatiCal theory, we do not need construction·specific synta<.tJc rules to generate comparative construction~. 'The~e construcnons will be derived automatically by rule; whiCh are mdependently needed for the :>yntacuc denvanon of chaining constructions.
I' )f)
;\ Cross~lmgursttc
S.2
Typology of Comparatlt'CS
I he !tCt of chaining-ba~cd univer~ah.
"I akmg the modelling of comparii!ton on temporal chammg as a startmg pomt. I wtll now proceed to formulate a set of 1mphcanonal umversals m whtch thts modelhng IS mJde more exphctt for the vanous types of c0mparat1ve comrrucnon'> mentioned m chapter 2. As I noted m sectiOn 2.2.2, a first spin m the typology of comparat1ves concerns the distmctlon between comparanves tn wh1ch the standard NP has denved case and (.Omparanves m wh1ch the standard NP is put mto a fixed case. Now, our da1m 1s that the d1stnbut1on of these two optiOns over the languages m rl1e !.ample can be prediCted from the way m wh1ch the~c languages can be categonzed With respect to rhe first maJOr formal d1stmcnon m the cxpre<;sJOn of charnmg ~omtru~nons, vtz. the dtstmctton between bal.mcmg and dcrankmg languages. To be specific, the first umversal whJCh I propmc reads M· follows: UI\JfVER~AL
U:.:!IVLR~4I.
1A: If a language has a denved-case comparatwe, then that language IS balancmg. 1B: If a language has a fixed-case comparative, then that language 1s derankmg.
By statements of th1s kmd, we clam1 exphcnly that the chammg~type of a language act.c. as a determmmg factor m the choJCe of a particular type of comparative com.tructiOn for that language, and that therefore th1s comparative construction can be seen as bemg modelled upon the type of chammg-con<;:trucnon whJCh that language has <;elected. For both of the ImphcatJOnal universal.c. g1ven above further refinements can be formulated. fir'>t, let u~ consider Universal lB. As we saw m secnon 2.2.3, the cla~s of fixed-case comparatives permits a further ~uhcmegonzanon mto, on the one hand, the cia<;<; of Exceed Comparatwes (111 whJCh the !lot.mdard NP h.l!lo the fixed form of a d1rect object) and, on the other hand, the cla~s of adverbtaf comp,natwes. Our clmm JS that th1,c, di'itmction m comparative type,c, IS matched by rhe distmcnon between cond1ttOnally and absolutely deranked chammg Ill rhe following way: Ul-.!1\'f:.I<~Al
2A: lf a language has ,m Exceed Comparatrve, then that language has condtttOnaf dcrankmg. V,\/\'1 R\•\L 2B: If a language has an advcrbtal romp~.m1twe, then that language has absolute derankmg.
rhus, Umver<:>al 2A states that Exceed Comparanves are modelled on ..:ascs of chammg (.Onstrucnon!lo which arc dcranked only 1f the two
Comparative Type and Clwmng "lype .,u!Jil'li'> 111
the ch.un
,IH'
tdrHlll.d. (t\'
Wt.'
w1ll '\'('
111 ..
107
h.lph.·r H, tlw
m~IJonty oJ
the l.mgu.lgc!l. wah .JU l:.xu·cd Lomp,!!.HIH' ~.hooM' to mml1.·l the1r comparanve on the stmulr<meou!:l vana11t of tb~ conditionally dcranked chains; we do find, however. oc<.:astonal1nstances of languages m which the consecunve consrrucnon has served as the model for the
Exceed Comparatrve.) To pur It d1fferently, Umversal2A cla1ms that 1! a language ts not a condmonaHy derankmg language, tt cannot have an .Exceed Comparattve. The matchmg between adverbtal comparatives and
absolutely deranked chams m Umversal 2B may be paraphrased m a sumlar fashion. A'.> far as Uruversal 2A 1s concerned, no further refinement 1s needed; with tlus statement we have accounted for the occurrence of one of the termmal categones 10 the typology of comparatives. Umversal 2B 1s m
need of further speoficanon, due to the fact that adverbial comparatives can be subcategorized into three d1snnct subtypes. The cla1m made m th1s •tudy ts thar the tnpamte dmMon of adverbtal comparanves tnto the Separative, the Allat1ve and the Locative Comparative must be seen as a consequence of the fact that absolutely deranked chams also allow for three distinct subtyp.,. We wdl argue for the vahdtty of the followmg three tmphcatmnal umversals: UNIVf.RSAl. 3A: If a language has a Separative ComparatiVe, then 1t
must have an absolutely deranked antenur consecutwe construction. UNIVERSAL 3B: If a language has an Allatwe Comparatwe, then 1t must ha11e an absolutely di.'Tanked postenor consecutwe constructiOn. UNIVERSAL 3C: If a language has a Locatwe Comparative, then it must have an absolutely deranked Simultaneous constructton. AgJ.m, we 1mght g1ve an alternatiVe fonnulanon of thoe umversals m terms of the nonon of modelling. We mtght say that languages wtth a Separative or an Allat1ve Comparative appear to model the1r comparatives on the respecnve way~ m which they codify the1r C-chams~ whereas IJnguages With a Locative Comparative appear to prefer a modelhng on the simultaneous varmnt of the1r absolutely deranked chaimng con!)tructlons.
W1th the statement of Umversal 2 and Umversal 3, the four typo of fixed-case comparanve!t have all been accounted forl m that they have all been matched to doffercnt vanants of deranked chaonmg. To conclude this ~ection, we must make a few comments on the other ma)or type of comparative con~crucnons, VIZ. denved-case comparatives. Accordmg to
,, 108
A Cross-lingutsttc Typology of Comparatives
Umversal1~
the claim IS that such languages model theu comparatives on the balanced chaining construction which they possess. Now, as we have seen in section 2.2.5, one typ1eal subcategory of denved-case comparatives IS the ConJomed Comparative. For this dass, the following cla1ru will be mamtamed m this study: UNIVERSAt 4:
If a language has a ConJomed Comparative, it must have a bal~mced srmultaneous chaining constructwn.
Thus, we cLiim that languages with a Conjoined Comparative borrow therr formal encoding of this comparative from the balanced S-cham whlCh they have; or, conversely, we claim that 1f a language does not permit balanced S-chams, It can never have a Conjomed Comparative. \Vhilc the claim wtth regard to the ConJomed Comparative is fairly str.ughtforward, no ~uch determmate statement can be made for the re~tdual cases of derived~case comparatives, the so~called Particle Comparauve. In chapter 9, I will demonstrate that all the languages In my sample which have a Particle Comparative are predommantly balancing, so that they confirm Universal lA. However, it can also be shown that some instances of particle comparatives are modelled upon a simultaneou~ chain, whereas other particle comparatives borrow their formal expre~sion from the balanced consecutive chain in the languages in que~tlOn. In other words, whtle all conJomed comparatives are extenswns of stmultaneous chaining, parucle comparatives can be modelled on either of the two semantic vanants of temporal chainmg. Thts, of course, leads to the question of why ic should be the case that, of the languages wh1ch take 1.imultaneous balanced chaming as the1r model, some should come up With a Con,omed Comparative, while others prefer the form of a Parncle Comparative. This matter will be taken up tn chapter 9, and wtll be elaborated further in chapter 15, where the dtstribution of languages over the vanous classes of comparative con~ strucrions will be dtscussed from an over~all perspccti ve.
5.3
Further remarks on the universals
In the preceding sect1on, I have formulated a set of chaining-based universals for the choiCe of comparative type. Taken as a whole, these umversals are meant to be an expressiOn of the claam that the compara~ twe construcnon tn a g1ven language is derivative of one of the temporal chaining constructwns whiCh that language permitS. Obviously, these umvcrsals .uc .u pn:..,cnr nothmg more th,m hypotheses, whiCh should he v.lhd,lfcd hv t.'onlrntlflll~~ dwrn w1rh the .Ktu.ll lmgul'>tlc d.1t.1 of tlw
Comparative Type ami Chainmg Type
109
languages m the sample.Jn the chapters which constitute part two of th1s study, I will examine each of the proposed umversab m turn. First I will concentrate on the prtmary languages for each comparative type, present the regular cases briefly, and comment on apparent counterexample~. ln che laM chapter of part two, I wtU turn to those ca~e!. m whkh languages appear to have more than one option for choo~mg a parncular type of comparative. I will argue that the~e 'double' ca~e~ too arc to be exp\amed on the bas1s of the untversal tendencu~s stated above. Before we undert.1ke a full-scale tesnng of the propo~cd LIBI\oersals, a few prdim1nary remarks may be useful. Fifl,~ an Important th1ng to note 1s that, in these universals, basic word order is no longer indtc.:tted as a direct determinant of the ch01ce of comparaove type. Wulun the frame·
work which we adopt here, bas1c word order b now a»umed to play only a hmlted and concomitant role m the L-hoif..':e of some of the comparative types, namely, the fixed-case comparanve L"'nMrw;twn~. In
the case of these four comparative types, basic word order comes into play 10 as far as It IS connected wuh the •ubtypes of deranked chains wh1ch a deranking language may have; the general rules regardmg this connection have been formulated in the statements (4.34) and (4.37). Thus, in our opmion, a statement such as (I)
Languages wrth a Separatwe Comparattve generally prefer SOV word order c~ee sectton 2.3.2).
must be replaced by the followmg syllogiSm: (2) a. UNIVt:RSAL 3A: lAnguages witll a Sep<1rJtn•e Comparatwe are languages U'lth absolute antertot consec.utiL'e d~trankmg. b. Languages with absolute anterzor cmt))ec.utiVe derankmg typt-
cally prefer SOV word order (see sectwn 4.4.4). c. Therefore: languages with a SeparatiVe Comparattve typzcally prefer SO V word order. It must be stressed rgam here that it is always chammg type, rather than word~order
type, whtch we claim co be rhe
dec1~1ve
factor in the
poss1bilit1es of comparatlVe·type ch01ce. Hence, 1f a language h.l!!. .l Separauve Comparative) we will expect th.u language to ha"e the optton of an absolutely de ranked anterior C-cham, even 1f that ldoguAge !>hould have no SOY-order, thereby constituting a devl
case for languages ''"th chainmg constructions of this partiCular type. Concernmg the Locative Comparative, we have ob"'erved m se~non
2.3.3 that languages in th1s class appear to have a preference for mher SOV·order or for VSO-order. At the pre~ent point in the d1scu~sion, we .trc .thlc to account for the~c preferences, hy pomung om that, a\ a rule,
I I0 ......olutd)
A Cross-/mgutsttc Typology of Comparattves 4.1l'I,HII--IIlg l.m~U.IJ.;('\
.m. · <..'lthcr ~OY·l,mgu,JP,Cl'! or V,)O-
I,!ttgu.tgc!.. Now, 111 th<.· .,;,p,(.; of th<: ab~oluH· derankmg ot con&CI..'Utlve chams rhe~e two word-order opnon~ are fonnally kept apart. by vtnue of the {act that they are m correlation With oppostte d•recnonc; m whtch the dcr:mkmg procedure take~ place. However, m the case where the absolute derankmg procedure affects predicates m c;imultaneous chains, nn such factor& of duect1onahty obtain; as a result, we find absolute d1•rankmg of S.lmultaneoufi pred1cntes attested for both SOV-Ianguages
and VSO-langu•ges. Now, 1f we assume the vahdlty of Uruversal 3C, wh1ch claim> that the po>Sihiiity of havmg an absolutely deranked Slmultaneou' cham IS a prerequ"lte for the chmce of a Locanv• Comparative, the observed fact that Jnnguages w1th a Locanve Comparative are either SOY-languages or VSO-languages IS Immediately accounted for. Fmally, we h•ve concluded m secnon 2.3.5 and section 2.4 that gc•nerahzat1ons cannot be made about bastL word order m languages With a C'onJotned Comparnt1ve or wnh a Pamcle Comparanve. Tins fact cnn be explamed by asc;umlng the corn:ctness of Umversal lB, which cla1ms that lnnguages With a derived-case comparative model thetr comparanves on a balanced temporal cham. As we saw m section 4.7, the p1 ocedure of (&111'1Uitaneous and con~ecutJVe) balancmg I~ not mfluenced bv basJC word order many way. A~ .1 second prelnmnary remark, we must comment briefly on the norton of rounterexample wh,,h we Will adopt m the followmg chapters. T uoughour the pre&ent chapter, we claimed repeatedly that the opt1ons w1th respect to the codification of temporal chaimng m a g1ven language \ervc a~ the basiS upon which the ch01ce of a certain comparatJve type c.an be pred1cted for that language. It 1s, however, extremely important to reahze that we w1ll take the occurrence of a ccrtam chaming type as only a necessary, and not a sufficzent, condtt,01l on the ch01ce of a certam comparanve type m a lAnguage. Thus 1 takmg Un1ver"al 1A as an e'\.ample, we predict rhatany language wh1ch hac;; a Separatlve Compara~ nve should have the optwn of an absolutely deranked anterior C-cham, but the reverse lmphcatJon need not hold. G1ven thts Interpretation of the content of our umver~al<;, we can now state exphc1tly what will and what wdl not count as a counterexample to our universal.;;. Agam, let us take Umvcrsal 3A as an example. In this umverc;al, the occurrence of a Separative Comparanve m a language IS made dependent on the occurrence of an abwlutely dcranked antenor C-ch.un m that language. Now from the way m wh1ch this universal IS formulated, It IS ohv10us that language~ wh1ch hnvc both a Separanve ComparatiVe and an abc;;olutely deranked nntenor CMcham conform to the prcd1cnon made by Umversal 3A, and thus prov1de for corroboration of that umversal. It 7
Comparatl!'e Type and Ch,unmg Type
...
'" l'llt~ C-chams, tt mtght choose thos balanced consecuuve cham as ItS model for the codJficatton of It~ comparatJvet and, as a result, tt 1n1ght come up With, !tay, a Part1cle Comparanve (see section 5.2). To sum up, we must conclude that our chauung~based umversals are um-lateral; the ch01ce of a parttcular comparative type m a language lS clauned to be cor~stramed by the possobdmcs of temporal chaming on that language, but it 1s not untquely detcrmmed by any one of 1ts options m the codification oi temporal chaonong.
Part Two Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
6 The Separative Comparative
6.1 Introduction In the '"hapt,'r" wh1ch con.!.ntute part two of th1s study, rhc set of ur1vorsals wh1ch I have formulated In chapter 5 w1ll be confronted w1th the actual data of the languages m my sample. The present chapter w1ll be devoted to atl exammanon of Urnversal 3A, wh1ch I repeat here for convemcnce: UNIVHSAL
JA: If a language has a Separate Comparatwe, then tt must have an absolutely deranked anterror consecutrve construction.
Tim&, what we have to do now ~~ to check for each language wach a $( paranve Comparanve whether or not thl& language can be shown to have a C-cham m whrch the antenor prcdJcate can be deranked u11der non-1denttty of ;ubJects. A• we saw Ill sectton 2.3.1, the Separative Comparanve ~the largest dass m the typology of comparative; no less than 32 languages m the Mrnple select this type of comparative as their pnmary option. The unmarked word order for this type turns out to be SOV; there are. however, four exceptiOnS to this tendency to be observed 1r the \elm pie. Below, I wtll pre!lent a d1~cus~wn of each individual language m thJ~ da". For reasons wh1ch wtll become clear shortly, I have found 11 u;eful w orgamze this d1M:ussion mto four separate sections. We can state bolorehand rhar tr wzll rum our that Un~vcr;al 3A Js confirmed for a l•rge maJonty of the languages which have a pnmary ~cparat1ve Comparative. No more th.m two languages pre-sent ser1ous dJfticult1es; these counterex.Imple.., wtll be commented upon 111 sectiOn 6.5.
·1 he Separdtwc ( :omp(l rat t vc
I Ll
the 28 SOY-languages m the !-..lmple wnh a Separative Comparative as theJr primary choice, we find that there are 14 wh1ch corroborate Umversa] 3A m a strikmgly straightforward way. In these languages, the correlatiOn between the Separative Comparative and the1r consecutive cham Is brought out by an overt parallelrsm m surface structure; they form their deranked antenor consecutive predicate~ by means of a !-.epar.Hive marker on verbal stem'l or verbal nouns, !.O that a d1rect formal relation between the two constructions at tssue can be demonr.,tratcd. We must note In paS!.mg that the languages mvolved here all seem to be mstances of stnctly derankmg languages: structural coordmatlon of predicates or sentencc6 does not seem to be po!-.sJble here. A first example of the overt parallelism between the coddkatiOns of companson and consecutive actwn ts Tibetan. The form of consecutive derankmg whiCh can be observed rn this language has been discussed extensively tn section 4.3.2. BneAy, we can say that T1betan obligaton!y deranks Its anterior predicates in C-chams, by suffixmg the element -nas to the 'bare' (which, in this case, means 'teni:>e-less') verb stem. That thJs derankmg procedure allows for absolute constructions !S proven by the occurrence of the following sentence: 0{
(la)
TIBETAN:
Nam langs-nas athon-te-son mght rise -from outs1de-go 'After mght had fallen (he) went out' Now, It ntrns out that the marker-nason the dcranked antenor prediCate 16 also in use as the separative mJrker 'from' on nommal&. mcludmg the standard NP in the Ttbetan comparatrve. Cp.: {1 b)
TIBETAN:
Rta -nas khyr chun -ba ym horse-from dog small-one IS 'A dog ts smaller than a hone' A completely parallel Situation can be encountered m VJyu, the other
Htmalayan language Ill my sample. Here, too, obhgatory derankmg of antenor consecutive predicates takes place 1 m that the bare verb stem {wh1ch has no person, tense or marker of mdJcanvc mood) has a suffix wh1ch also marks separanve phrases and standard NPs m comparatives. Absolute use of deranked predicates ts common. Cp.:
:#'%"
"--
..
~~
""
;-Si:rlt'~'R
-
--~'
'S:!
7: nn;
-
7
3
--
:1
""'
Testzng the Set of C!Jaznzng-based Universals
116 (2)
VAYU:
a.
Go wathm1-khen cho -mz I
hzm -from smali-IND ~1 am smaller than h1m'
b.
Upo
met'-khen tawo-khata-ha chhmg-ngak yang-ngak ma
father d1e -from son -PL
-AG much
httle
not
papa-ha ling-me -m do -by get -3PL-IND 'After the father has d~ed, the sons equally znherit him'
Jn Mundart, rhc separanve marker Mete 'from' also functiOns as a suffix on deranked antcrwr consecutive pred1cates. These predicates are obhgaM tonly marked for person, so that ab>olutc use IS certainly a possibility. Deranked predicates, cannot, however, be marked for tense, whereas mam predrcates can. Cp.: (1)
MUNDAKl:
a.
Sadom-ete batt mananga-t horse -from elephant bzg -3SG 'The elephant zs bzgger than the horse'
b.
Sena-mg Mete h11u -a -t go -lSG-from come-FUT-3SG 'After I have gone, he will come'
The consecutive con~tructwn in Burushaska has been introduced m secnon 4.4.1. We noted there that this language formally differentiates between ca!)es of ab..,ulute and condiuonal antenor deranking of consecutive predtcate~. The absolute consecuttve constructwn requires that the anterior predicate be turned Into a verbal noun, which must then be marked by the separative item -tsum. This same suffix is attached to the standard NP m the Burushaski comparative. Cp.: {4)
BURUSHASKI:
a.
Un -tsum 7e kam apa you-from I less not be-PRES lSG 'I am not infertor to you'
b.
Xurts lang manum·tsum mumte
yet-su -man
dust away moving-from mother-his see-him-3SG 'After the dust had moved away, his mother saw h1m' The situation tn Lamutic is in many ways comparable to that m Burushaskt. Agam, thzs IS a language whzch has strict deranking of Cchalll!!; and 1 ng.1111, tlw. is a language wh1ch ha'i a fonnally different
"
-----"'--'-'
-~-
The Separative Comparative
117
encodmg for cases of absolute and conditiOnal consecutave derankmg. In both cases~ the antenor predicate takes the shape of a non-fimte form, the >a-called Aorist Part1c1ple. In the absolute construction, th1s deranked l<>rnt must be followed b) the marker -k, a general sepaunve •uffix meaning 'from', wh1ch also marks stand.ud NP>. The >ubJcct of the ab!,o}utely used 3nter!Or predicate tn the Lamuttc C-chain ts represented by means of the non-reflex1ve possessave suffixes, whtch follow the separative marker -k. 1 Cp.:
(S)
LAMUT/C:
a.
Anna MarJa-du-k nosecce A. M. -from 1s-young 'Anna IS younger than Mnqa'
b.
Bazrkar
em -re
-k
-en burnt day-NOM come· AOR. PCP. -from-Its go-PAST lPL 'When mornmg had broken~ we went on our tourney'
Bedauye, a Cushmc language of the Lower Branch, has a >a-called
Temporal Form, which mdicates anterior actl()n m a consecunve cham. The form conSist> of the suffix -ka, wh1ch
attached to the so-called Relanve Perfect~ a subordmate tense form wh1ch IS marked for per">On, IS
and which 1s most frequently encountered in reld.tive dauses. The marker -ka turns out to be the genera) separative marker 'from', whtch aho appears as a suffix on the standard NP m Bedauyc e
(6)
BEDAUYE:
a.
Hammad-1 H.
o -gaw ·t-ka
-GCN rhe-hou~e-from
Abda!la-y u -gau A. ·GF.N the-housr
hanyrs beautiful 'Abdalla's house IS more beauttful than Hammad's hou<e'
b.
Wu-or
efray-e
-ka
hadda the
the -boy born-REI. PERF. 3SG -from hon selze·PA>T 3SG •After the boy had been born, the hon ;wed h1m' In Andoke, the >randard NP m comparJtlves i; formed by the suffix ~aha,
wh1ch must be glossed as 'since' or 'from the point of vtcw of (Landaburu, 1979: 162-3). ThiS particle Jbo appear> a; a ;uffix on the anterior predicate m C·chains; m th1~ ca:,c, the antcnor predtcate has been nominalized by the suffix -i, and its subJect must be represented by
posseo;sivc mfixes. Cp. :1
II:!
171 ,r.
b.
·1 estmg tl>e Set of Chammg·bascd Unwersals \\'/)()/1.1•
Yadu yo 'he b -aya
~eh<'-e
yado ya -aha this man he-1~ strong th1s th1s-from •Th1s man IS '>tronger than that man' Eka -se s -e -te -r -aha be ka -srko-t nver·th!S down·lts·dry-NOUN-from IND IPL·fish -ASS 'The nver ha~ fallen and we have fished~
The derankmg of anteriOr predicates by means of a nommahzmg stutegy IS also the procedure chosen m jurak. Apart from the nominahzanon suffix -an, a deranked Jntenor predicate 1s also obllgatonly
marked for :,ubJcct, regardless of whether this subJeCt IS Jdenucal or nonldt nncal to the subject of the mam verb. Given that the deranked predicate IS a nommahzanon n ts not surprising that this subject markmg takes the form of po'>'>C'i'ilV!! affixes. Fmally, a deranked anrenor pred1cate 111 a Jurak C-cham requires the pre;ence of the marker -hddlkohod. Thas 1> a separanvc case suffix wh1ch may appear w1th all nommals, tncludmg the standard NP tn comparat1ves. Cp.: 7
!8)
}URAK:
a.
Ty w"enu·kohod ptrcea rcmdeer dog -from b1g 'A remdeer ts btgger than
b.
.1
dog'
Ma -kan-ta taewma-had -ar.
-ta haewtda 1asoko
tent-to ·hts arnve -from-NOUN-hts rtb pteces-ACC ngam ma -ta std -m-ta moJotda agam tent-hts two-to-tts keep throwmg-them-3SG
'After he arnved home, he threw the p1eces of nb to both s1des of hts tent'
The Austrahan language Aranda JS, m the words of Strehlow (1944: 2(>7), 'a language of pat11c1ples; and mo>t Enghsh clauses m wh1ch a fimte verb ts mtroduced by a conJunction would be rendert:d mto Aranda b) mrnmg thts fimte verb mto a parnaple and om1ttmg the conJunction: The parttctple whtch represents antcnor predicates m C-chams ts called the Prerente Part!Ctple. Tin\ ~~ a form whtch consists of the verbal stem, followed by the pa
The Separatnre Comfwratwe ('ill)
119
AI
Lla JnlJi -ka -/,, .. JJ~d t~tlnmmlftll
Now, It turns out that the absoluuve marker -nga can also be employed a!:. a separative suffix on nommals, mduding standard NPs in comparatives; tf the suffix IS attached to pronouns, It has the form -kanga. Thus, we see that there IS an overt structural parallehsm benveen the expressions of companson and con&ecutive chammg m Aranda: (9b}
ARANDA:
jmga etna-kanga mara-lkt~ra nama I they-from good -PRT be-PRES 'I am better than them' Canb IS a striCtly deranking language, which has a considerable number of so-called gerunds at ItS dtsposal. These are verbal forms, wh1ch do not occur as main predicates, but represent dependent verbal constructions; they are not marked for mood, but may have markmg for tense, and can be accompamed by possessive prefixes whiCh mdicate person and number. Smce Carib ts an ergative language, the person markmg on the gerund indicates the subject 1£ the verb 1s intransitive, and the direct object if the verb ts transitive. Derankmg of anterior predicates m C-chams takes place by means of the Perfect Gerund. Thts form ts characterized by the suffix -xpo, an alternant of the separative marker -kopo, which is used ro encode the standard NP in Canb comparatives. Absolute use of the Perfect Gerund ts documented by a sentence like (lOb}, Cp.: (10}
CARIB:
a.
Kuliali a -kulialt kopo apoto-me mang canoe your-canoe from btg -one IS 'My canoe is btgger than your canoe'
b.
W ewe e -karama
-xpo
ktntxsang
wood irs-being sold-from go away-PAST 'After the wood had been ;old, he went off'
Next, let us consider the s1tuanon In two other Southern AmeriCan languages, viz. Quechua and Aymara. In both of the;c (posstbly related) languages, the primary comparative constructiOn IS of the separative type, as is shown by the foilowmg examples:
120 (11)
Testzng the Set of Chaining-based Universals QUECHUA:
Kam noka-mauta sintsin you I -from strong 'You arc stronger than me' (12)
A YMARA:
Napt huma-ta hucampt amauta I you -from more prudent 'I am more prudent than you' The Separative Comparative m Quechua has its overt parallel in the way in which antenor predicates in C-chains are encoded, Such predicates are obhgarorily derankcd into a form which consists of the verbal stem followed by the perfective suffix -ska. This form, which von Tschudi (1884: 223) calls the 'Perfect lnfimtive', is essentially nominal, as can be ~een from the fact th,:n .~oub1ects are marked by possessive suffixes. If the form IS used as the expression of anterior consecutive action, It optionally rece1ves the separ.Hive suffix -manta 'from'. Absolute use of the form IS a definite possib1hty. Cp.: {13)
QUECHUA:
a.
L 'amka-ska -y -manta mzkhusah work -PERF.lNF.-my -from eat-EUT. 1SG 'After I have worked, I will eat'
b.
Wahya-ska
-yki
tsay-lam hamurkany
call -PERF. INF. -your that-on 'After you called, I came'
come-PERF. 1SG
In Aymara, very much the same situation obtains. Again, antcnor prediCates in C-chams are encoded in a specific nominalized form, wh1ch IS called the Perfect Participle (de Torres Rubio, 1966: 57), and which IS marked for subJect by possessive suffixes. In the anterior consecutive cham, the form receives the separanve suffix -ta 'from'. Cp.: (14)
AYMARA:
Mancata-ha -ta ... eatmg
-my -from
'After I have/had eaten .. .'
Fmally, we must discuss two languages in which the parallelism between the encodmg of companson and consecutive action is a bit more obscure. First, let u~ look Jt the sttuatlon in Turkish. This language has a Separattve Comparative; standard NPs are marked by the suffix -den 'from'. which ha~ the forms -dan and -ten as its alternants:
The Separative Comparattve (15)
l2l
TURKISH:
Sen gul -den
glizel
-sm
you rose-from beautiful-be-2SG 'You are more beautiful than a rose' Now~
if we consider the ways in which Turkish represents the prediCates
m chainmg constructions, we find that this language has a predilection for the use of 'gerunds' (Lewis, 1967: 177) or ·~ubordinate predtcate!.' (Swift, 1963: 162). These gerunds are advcrb1al formations, wh1ch have the by now famihar shape of a bare verb stem Wlth suffixes. Ab~olutc U\e of such forms i~ possible, as can be derived from the followmg statement m Swift (1963: 162): The absence of a toptc wnhm the ~ubordmate clause results, tn mo"t case!!, m the performer denoted by the verb of the subordmJte c!Ju!!t bemg wn~tructed as the
same as the performer of the acnon of che en~umg dau~e.... Th1s type of comtrucuon IS true of all types of "ubordmJ.te dau"e" where there do not occur post·predtcate suffixes on the predicate .... In other" of the ex.unplc~, however, there 1s a dearly stated toptc 111 the subord1n.1tC daw.e: Kapt .. m:..tlmca 'upon the door bemg opened' and the hke. 3
Concerning the encoding of antenor predicates in C-chains, Turkish has a number of d1fferent posstbiltties, wluch repre~ent drfferent shades of consecutive meaning. The gerund m -mea denotes that •the action or state of this subordinate clause ts/was/wr\1 be immedtately prior to that of the ensuing predicate but not necessanly related to it' (Swift, 1963: 161). In addition, Turkish has also a gerund With the suffix -erek/-arak, whtch denotes that 'the state or action denoted by this verb is/was/wtll be prior to and in some sense prerequisite to that of the ensumg predication' (Swift, 1963: 164). It seems to me that It IS thiS latter gerund which i' particularly relevant to our dbcussion, g1ven the fact that this gerundial form may opt10nally be accompanied by the separative marker -dan 'This form also occurs with the relatJonal suffix -dan ... w1thom: appreciable change of denotatiOn. Th1s variation seems to be largely stylistic' (Sw1ft, 1963: 165). Sentence (16) illustrates the use of th<: separative marker on deranked anterior predKates 111 Turkish C-...::ham~. It is only fair, however, to point out that the other author on Turktsh syntax which I have con~ulted has a dtfferent opm10n on the use of the gerund m -erek-ten: 'The provinctal ·erek-ten denotet. only actlvJty contemporaneous with, never prior to, the mam verb' (Lew1s, 1967: 1 77n.).
(16)
I URK/,\1/:
Eve gtd-erek-ten mantosunu akh home go ~GER -from overcoat-her get-PAc;'l. 3~ ~she went home and got her overcoat'
Lastly, we must dto;cuss the consecutive construcnon m Manchu. From th: po1nt of vtew of overt parnlldtsm between companson and consecutive JCt!On, thl!t language m1ght be qualified as a 'near miss'. Manchu has a Separanve Comp•ranve, 111 whtch the standard NP is marked by the ca;e
suffix ·ct'from': !17)
'.!A.':CIIU:
Morzn mdaho-ct
amba
horse dog -from b1g 'The horse,. b1gger than the dog'
PJcd1catcs m chammg conMructlons are deranked mto the form of wC;tlled converbs. These are adverb1al formauons, whtch are charactenzed bv• the attachment of suffixe< to the tense-less verbal stem. Antenor pl·edtcate!t inC-chams receive the form of the Pretente Converb, which is marked by the suffix -fi. An example of the absolute use of this converb is sentence (18}, quoted from Adam (1873: 53): (18)
\1.4.;\'CIIl.':
TemUJtn holha be ucara-fi JUWe ntyehe T. thtef 'I.CC meet ·PAST. GER two ducks deye-me Jtmbt fly -PRES. PCP come-PAST IND 'After Temurm had met the thief, two ducks came flymg over'
l'\ow, the interestmg pomt
1s
that Manchu has another converbal form,
\\htch "marked by the separative suftix -ct. The pnmary function of this cnnverb is the representation of conditional clau.;;es, which is why it is c.IIled the Gcrundmm Condmonale by Hae111<eh (1961: 55). However, thts author rem.uh that this converb is, in certam contexts, 'also used tt·mporally' (my rran•lanon). Cp.: (19)
MANCHU: Yamun de tuCI ~fi tmva-<.-1 hall m go out-PAST. GER see -COND.GhR
'When/as he, havmg gone mto the hall, saw_ . .'
12.l 6.3
Indirect corrobo1 au on trom SOY ~1.\ngu.tgc!l.
In the previous section, we presented those languages m the sample wh1ch exh1bJt an overt surface parallelism between their Separauve Comparative and their expression of consecutive actwn; as such, thes.e languages can be said to provtde 'd~rcct' corroboration of Umversal 3A. Other languages With a Separative Comparative do not show this overt parallelism. However, It can be shown that almost all of these languages have an absolutely deranked antenor consecuuve cham, so that they can be rated as at least indirect corroboratiOns of the relevant umversal. In this sectiOn, I will confine myself to languages whiCh have SOV as thetr basK word~ordcr, the unmarked case for languages With a Separanve Comparative. Starting with Bil1n, a Cm.hmc language, we note the existence of socalled Subordmatc T ensc forms. These are verbal forms wh1ch are marked for person and tense, but the verbal morphology employed d!ffers from that of predicates m mam clauses. Antenor prcdJcatcs 1n Cchams receiVe the form of the Perfectum Subordmatum (Re1msch, 1882: 57). It IS perfectly possible to use this type of subordinate predicate 10 an ab~olute construction. Cp.: (20)
BILIN:
a.
M ku -ltd
bahar gm
he you-from b1g be-3SG. IND 'He IS b1gger than you'
Inta dan
msausu
qualdt~noe
your brother chamed see
-PERF. SUBORD 2sG
mta labbaka egtrgtr ytratkum your heart pny say-FUT. IND. 3SG 'When you have seen your brother m chams, your heart will take p1ty on h1m' In Laz, a Caucasian language of the SouthMWest group, we come across the rather exceptional Situation that fimte verbal forms may show nommal decimation. Dm (1928: ll3) remarks: 'In Laz there exisrs a possibli1ty to express m one and the same word the relation to time, to person and to place s1multaneously. In other word~, verbal forms, even the fimte ones, can be declined' (my translation). Antenor predicates m C-chams have the form of the finite Aonst, which IS marked by the genitive case suffix -t and followed by the postpoSI[ion ku/e 'behmd'. Smce these deranked forms are exphc1tly and obhgatonly marked for
Testmg the Set of Chaining-based Unwersals
124
person, 1t will be obvtous that they can be u'ied m absolute construcnons. Cp.: (21)
LAZ:
a.
Ham bozo da -sktm1-se msk'ua on this gJCI my-si&ter-from pretty is 'This girl IS prettier than my siSter'
Gec'e·b -tlc'ked-i ·S kule down·ISG-look ·AOR·GEN behmd 'After I had looked downwards'
Amhanc use& so-called gerundial forms to represent one of the clauses m consecutive (and stmulraneous) 4 chains. These forms exhibit a specific vocahzatton of the verb stem and a special set of person markers.
Gerundial forms occupy a &ubordm.J.te position in propositions; havmg no tense of the1r own, they derive thetr temporal inrerpretauon from the tense marking of the mam predtcate. The subject of a gerundial form can be identical to that of the mam verb, but absolute use ts definitely possible. Cp.: (22)
AMHARIC:
a.
Zaf·u ke -byet -u yebelt' -al tree-the from-house-the brg -be· IND. 3SG 'The tree is taller than the house' Ta/ast sastwo tamallasna enemy· NOM flee·GER. 3>G return·PERF.l"ffi_ IPL 'After the enemy had fled, we returned'
Wrth respect to the formal encodrng of chainmg m Tajik, Rastorgueva (1963: 100) remarks: 'If there are several verbs in a sentence that are related to a smgle subject and not dependent on each other, then all of them, except tor the very last, are usu.-lly in the gerund form, thus makmg together wtth therr supplementary and explanatory words the so-
called gerundial phrases .... The past gerund here tndicates an action whrch precedes that expressed by the fimte verb.' As to the conditionality of this deranking procedure, the author states explicitly that 'there rs quite wide-spread m Ta)rk a so-called absolute construction, i.e., the kind
of situation when a fimte verb and a gerund, wtthin the hmits of a single ~ntence, each have the1r own separate subject' (Rastorgueva, 1963: IOIJ. Cp.:
The Separative Comparattve
125
(23)
TA]/K:
a.
Ruy-ash az barf kham safed ast face-her from snow a nd/too white JS 'Her face IS whiter than snow'
b.
psramard kztob boy on carpet Stt-PERF GER old man book mekhond read-PAST. 3SG 'After the boy had ;at on the carpet, the old man read a book (to him)' Bacha rut gz/em tuchasta
Gerundial formo; as repre~entations of anterior pred1cates m C-chams
can also be encountered tn Hindi, where such forms are marked by the attachment of the suffix -karl-keto the bare (1.e., tense-less and personless) verb stem. Absolute usc of such forms~; po;,1ble; McGregor ( 1977: 39) observes that 'the subject implied man absolute form 1s generally the same as that of the main verb in tts sentence, but not invanably.' Cp.: {24)
HINDI:
a.
Ap us -se bare haim you him-from big be-PRES. 2sG 'You are bigger than him' Vahim bazth-kar bat -em homgi there sit -PERF. GER matter-PL. FEM be-FUT. }PL. FEM 'We will sit there and have a conversation'
The sttuation in Kashmiri is very simtlar to that tn Hindi, its IndoAryan relative in my sample. In Kashrnir1, too, anterior prediCates m Cchains are deranked by means of the attachment of a subordinatmg suffix to the bare verbal stem. Absolute use of these forms tS pcnnitted. Cp.: {25)
KASIIMIR/:
a.
Yt
kant
nishin trakur chu thts-INAN ~tone from hard ts 'This IS harder than stone' Nalama -tt rat -tth tam1s mztln d1tsOn embrace-with setze-PERF. GER to-htrn ktsses were-given~by-htm 'He embraced htm and k1ssed htm'
The attachment of subordinating suffixes to bare verb stems tS a deranking procedure whrch appears to be rather popular among the languages of this class. This strategy in the encoding of anterior consecutive predicates is also followed in Japanese, Burmese, Korean, Khalka,
'I <'>lm~ the S<·t of Chammg-based Universals
12&
bkuno, I up1 .mJ 1'1ru. A> tho •x.mpb giVen wdl >how, Jll thc>c languages permit absolute use of the1r deranked antenor predicates m Cchams. The Separative Comparanve m Japanese 1s matched by the so-called Gerund!ve (Kuno, 1973: 195) or Continuative (Kuno, 1978: 121-2) Form, whtch consiSts of the bare verb stem with the suffix ·te. The semanncs of this form are rather mtricate (see Kuno, 1973: 196-9), but there IS no doubt that It IS a subordmate form (1b1d.: 200-9) and that ItS b.tsic meamng 1s that Jt 'represents a temporal or logical sequence (1.e., "and then, and therefore") ... It 1mphes that S1 has taken place before Sl does' (Kuno, 1978: 122), Cp.: (26)
)APANESI:.:
a.
Nlhon-go wa dozts-go yon muzukasht Japanese TOP German from difficult 'Japanese IS more d1fficult than German' Bukka ga agat-te nunna ga komatte tru prrces TOI' riSe ·GI:.R all lOP suffenng are 'Prtces have nsen and all arc suffenng·
In Burmese, derankmg of antenor predicates inC-chains is effectuated by suffixmg the ~ubordmatmg particle -pt 1 after' to verbal stems: (27)
8URML"Eo
a.
Thu-hte? pem -te him -over be thm-NONI'UT 'She IS thmner than h1m' Se~
pye -pt em pyan -thwa-te mmd be desrroyed-GER. PEI\F home return-go ·NONFUT
'He got fed up and went home~ In Korean, we note agam the existence of ~a-called Converbs, that IS, 'verba! formations which, through their endmg and meanmg lead us to undcr,.,tand that the sentence is not finished but ... the main verb is lollowmg. In the European languages the two verbs arc united by the normal con}uncttons, but the Korean language, whtch has no conJUncnons, possc~scs, hke aH AltaJC languages, m.my bpec1al formations for connectmg one acuon wnh another' (Ramstcdt, 1968: 87). For our purpoc;e, the most relevant of these converbs IS the Converbum Perfecn, which IS formed from verbal stems by means of the suffix -ef-sJe. 'It would be poo;o;;tble to catl rlus form converbum anterwns. It g.~ves the acuon of the first verb as m time precedmg that of the following verb' (tbtd.: 89). Unfortunately, all the examples of this converb gtven by Ramstedt are mstances of non-absolute use; one of these examples Is:
The Separartve ComparatiVe
127
KOKI·AN:
l'henzir-tl s -SJe narera letter-ACC wnte-CONV PERF send-IMP 'Write the letter and send tt' We may note, however, that absolute use of the Converb Perfecti can be documented in constructions where thts converb is modified by adverbtal part1cles, which give the converb a concessive meaning. An example of this case is semence (29); as Rarnstedt (tbtd.: 89) expltctrly remarks, the converb in -s1e is used here 'to stre~ the difference in time': (29)
KOREAN:
Mawe -s}e do mekesso be bitter-CONY PERF even eat-FUT 'Although it is better, I will ear It'
Also, tt can be observed that other converbal formatiOnS may certamly appear in absolute constmctions (ibid.: 95 and 103): (30)
KOREAN:
Mun ktpht-na kenne kagesso water deep -CONY. CONCESS we go over-FUT 'Although the water ts deep, we will cross it' 31)
KOREAN:
Pab -il meget-ca saramr wata food-ACC eat -CONY. MOMEl
Gtven these facts, l thmk it ~ safe w assume chac the Converb Perfecti, wh1ch represents deranked antenor predJcares m Korean C-chains, may aJso have an absolute use. Parallel w1th his consecutiVe consrruaion we find a Separative Comparative, m wluch the standard NP is marked by the posrpositton -ese/-eso. As Pultr (1960: 224) suggest>, th1s separative marker may actually be a composition of the two suffixes -e and -s1e which fonn an tenor converb;. Cp.: (32)
KOREAN:
Na-eso to kheda 1 -from he btg-PRES 'He is bigger than me• Converbs, of the k1nd discussed above,. are also a common feature of the codification of chaining in Khalka. Street (1963: 219) mentions a considerable number of !>uch adverbiahzed formst wh1ch are all formed from verb stems by the suffigauon of 'converb1al particles'. For our
•
128
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
purpose, it looks as If the converb in ~; 1s the most relevant, smce it refers, among other thmgs, to 'an action that precedes another in time, but is somehow related to tt' (Street, 1963: 221). Absolute use ofthis converb is
quite common. Cp.: (33)
KHALKA:
Uur cai -J g,egjee orloo day dawn·CONV light appear·PERF. IND. 3SG 'Day has dawned and light has appeared'
The posstbdity of absolutely deranked antertor predicates in C·chams matched by the occurrence of a Separative Comparative in Khalka: (34)
IS
KHALKA:
fame cham-aas targan J. you ·from fat-PRES. 3SG ')arne is fatter tban you' In the gerundial or converbtal constructions presented above, the
deranked predtcate did not change its category status; altbough being deranked, It retained its full verbal cbaractenstics, such as the possibility to take subjects •nd direct objects. In other languages, tbe deranking of a predicate stem by means of •uffigallon leads to a loss of verbal character. Specifically, it turns out that, in some cases, the deranking procedure resuhs in a nomtnalization of the predicate; this nominal character is
brought ro light by the fact that such deranked predtcates take possessive affixes or genitives to mark their subjects. One c..e of this nominalization is Eskimo. This language has Sub· ordinate Forms, marked by specific suffixes after the verbal stem. The suffix for the Past Subordinate Form, which IS used to encode anterior action in C~chams, ts -ngalmma. To this suffix, personal suffixes are obhgatori)y attached;
can be observed that these personal markers are related to the possessive suffixes on nominals (Thalbitzer, 1911: 1045). By the use of these person markers, absolute construction of the Past It
Subordmate Form IS made possible. Cp.: (35)
ESKIMO:
Angu-ssa -tik qalat-tart -nga -ta catch·PCP. PASS.·REFL.. POSS b01l -tbrough-PA~,·.sUBORD.·3PL natsern-mut poonutaq ilt -ssu -aat floor •DAT diSh put·FU L IND.·3PL TRANS 'After the things they have caught have been boiled, they will put them on the floor m a dosh'
The Separative ComparatiVe (36)
Una apum-it
qaqo -R-ne
this 'illOW-from white NOUN 'This is whiter than snow'
-R- u extst
129
-wo
- q
PRES. IND 3SG
In T up1, anterior predicates m C-chaim, are deranked by means of the postposition -rtre 'after, on verbal stem!), whtch cannot have reme markmg in this case. The nominal chara<.."ter of the pred1cate 10 thts construcnon is oUustrated by rhe fact that ItS subJeCt must be marked b~ possessive prefixes. Cp.: (37)
TUPJ:
a.
Xe-catu ete nde-cw I -good really you-from ·1 am better than you'
•
0 -co-rire xe-eu his-go-after I -cry •After he had gone, I cried'
A decidely nommal strategy for antcnor consecutive d~ranking ~~also followed m Piro (Matteson, 1965: 174). In thos language, the entire anterior clause IS nominalized by means of the suffix -nu, which usuall} forms abstract nominals (e.g., yotsiha-nu 'dazzling brighmess' from yotsiha 'to dazzle'). Cp.: (37) a.
b.
l'IRO:
Kosttsine-ru pnute tsru K. -GEN beyond big 'He is greater than Kositsme' R -heta-ko -klu -nu yohtma-xrtxa-ka he-see -PASS-PAST-ABSTR. NOUN bode-command-PASS 'He was seen and was told to hide'
6.4 Corroboration from non-SOV-Ianguages Among the languages with a Separanve Comparative whoch confirm Universal 3A, three languages merit some special attention. These languages constitute dorect evidence for our claim (made in section 5.3) that it is not basic word order, but in fact chaining type which i.') the predicting factor in the determinanon of comparative-type choice.
As a first example, let us consider the case of Cttlon tal'from', Cp.:
'l'l'.\lmg thl' S(•/ of Chammg-has(•d llmf•t•rsa/s
llO
I 18)
((/(II< IJ't\1 I NJ:
Tan-tsac-alq"" tal kutva ISG ·tall ·PRbS from you ~I
am taller than you •
Now, It can be observed that Cceur d'Alene has at least a margmal po-.sib1hty to derank antenor predtcates In C-chams. In th1s case, the antenor predicate is nommalized by means of the suffix -iis, and must be preceded by the nominal articles xwd or Ia; these articles mark definite· ness on NPs and may be glossed as 'the' or 'this'. An example of the construcnon m questton ts (39). From thas sentence, at can be deduced that there need not be 1dennty of subjects m the cham, so that we can take th1s sentence a& an mstance of absolute deranking. Perhaps a more dear example of the absolute use of thiS deranked anterior C·cham IS sentence (41). Tin> IS an example from Kahspol (Vogt, 1940: 70), a language which IS very closely related to Co:ur d'Alene. Cp.: ~39)
C<EIJR D"ALENt.:
Ld xalp -as at'sqlliz ARl become hght·PCP he-go out·PAST 'When tt had become hght, he went out' (40)
KAl.ISPE.L:
Cmk"tunt tel
anut
1-big from you 'I am b1gger than you' (41)
KAUSPEL:
Lu -wrst
-es
se't cu
ART·finish·3l'!.·PCP then say·PAST. 3SG 'Afterthey had fimshed, then he sa1d .. .' 1'1111>, we may conclude that Cceur d'Alene (and Kabspel) are cases of (Indirect) corroboration of Umversal 3A, despite the fact that they constitute a deviation of the unmarked word order for their class. Samllar observations can be m.a.de with regard to Classical Arabic and B1hhcal Hebrew,' although for these language> the facts are a hrtle bit more problematiC. There can be no doubt that the comparative m these two SemitiC VSO-language." of the separative type. The standard NP in both con"trucuon~ 1s marked by the prepos1t1on mm, wh1ch is also used f! eely as a spatial marker with the meaning 'from': 142)
CLASSICAL ARABIC:
Laysat al -msa "adcafa mm a/ -n1alt not the-women weaker from the-men 'Women are not weaker than men'
UJ
The Separatwe Comparattve (41)
II rill/( t\1, 111·1/RioW:
llakam 'ctteh mul- dt~m'el WISC
YOU '
from D.
'You are Wiser than Dame!' (EzechtcJ, 28~3) Now, from the literature on these languages (see, e.g., Nasr (1967) and
Yushmanov (1961) for Classical Arab1c and Brockclmann (1956) for B1bhcal Hebrew) •t turns out that the nonnal way of expreS>mg consecunve acnon m these languages ts the use of a balanced construction with a connective partide. Cp.: (44)
CLASSICAL ARABIC:
Qama fa kataba stand up-PAST. 3SG and write-PAST. 3SG 'He stood up and wrote' (45)
BIBLICAL HEBREW:
Halak Diivtd waJ-Jtdros' go-PAST. 3SG, MASC D. and-search PAST, JSC MASC 'et has's'ar the-ACC officer 'David went and looked for the officer'
G1ven this state of affa•rs, one m1ght conclude that both ClasSical Arable and Biblical Hebrew are counterexamples to Umversal 3A; they have a Separative Comparanve, but the~r C-chams are balanced, I thmk, however, that these two apparent counterexamples can be explamed away.lf we look a little closer at the optiOns for consecunve chaming in these languages, we find that they have also a hmtted possibility of deranking their consecunve predtcatcs- In Classical Arab1c, It IS possible to tum anterior VPs mto verbal nouns, the subJect of wh1ch comes to be constructed as a genitive (c,q. posseSsiVe) form. The anterior clause is further marked by a nominal preposition, usually ba'da 'after', but we also find cases in which the preposition mm 'from' •• used wtth the meanmg of our subordinatmg COOJUOctJon srnce. An example as: (46)
CUSS/CAL ARABIC:
Ba'da duhulr -nt al -bayta kataba after entering-my the-house-Ace wnte-PAST. 3SG 'After I had entered the house, he wrote'
In B1bhcal Hebrew, a very s•m•lar sJtuauon holds, Here too we find that anterior clauses in C-chams can be constructed as prepmmonaJ phrases, In which the anterior predicate has the form of the so-called 'infimtivus constructus'. Th1s is a nommahzed form. the sub1ect of which must be indicated by a gemtive NP or a possessive suffix. Clearly Biblical Hebrew
------~--~.
~,
'" "'
-
-
"
~-
'" ""'
"'"'"""
~~
,,b_/,,;;;4t~hr-.r.ii-i$iimA'iMIItm·*"e
'
>
•
•
-
· · ww, nnllli1illili ·ow!!? n ~ · t' ]{' :: if10m•m"tt:-:~n~••· I
I
Testmg the Set of Chammg-based Unit•ersals
132
-
permits absolUte use of anterior predicates which are deranked in this way. An example is: (47)
BIBLICAL HfBREW:
Mm mosa' dabiir s'alu'im s'ib'iih from go out-INF word ... weeks seven ·From the moment that the word went out ... (it has been) seven weeks' (Daniel9,25) It must be adm1tted that the procedure of derankmg which is described above is rather untypJcal, or at least stylistically marked, for both languages; there is a strong preference for coordmated structures, and mstances of ab~olute consecutive dcr.1nking are fairly rare. They are, however, real structural poss1bilitie~ for these l.1nguages, and the fact that such constructiOnS exist at all may be sufficient reason to cancel both Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew as genuine counterexamples to Universal3A. Moreover, we can note that ,tbsolutcly deranked structures of the type illustrated tn (46) and (4 7) prov1de for direct corroboratiOn of the universal at tssue; the preposition min, which marks the standard NP in comparatives, 1~ also employed to mark the nominalized anterior predicate in the deranked C-chains of both languages. 6.5
Counterexamples
Turning now to the counterexamples to Umversal 3Al we must note two cases which are problematic to a more or less serious degree. My sample contains two languages which clearly have a Separative Comparative, but which do not seem to be able to form C~chains in which the anterior predtcate has been de ranked tn an absolute construction. A first po1-.siblc counterexample is Nama, a Khoin-language with basic SOY word order. From the grammatical descriptions which I have been able to find (Schils, 1891; Memhof, 1909) it can be deduced that Nama has both a Locattve Comparative and a Separative Comparative. In th1s latter case, the standard NP IS marked by the postposition cha 'from' (sec Schils, 1891: 55): (48)
NAMk •
Ne khot -b gye ttta cha a getsa • thts person-MASC. PRT I from IS strong 'Thb man IS stronger than me'
Now, if we look at the way m which chaining is formally expressed m N.1ma, we find th,lt the lan~unp;e has a number of participtal forms at It<> t.h .. po~.tl. ( )f "Pt't.'t.d rdcv.Hh.:t to the pn:.,cnt d1'>CII\~10il 1'> tht· P1l'tcr!ll'
The Separative Comparat:ve
133
Participle, a verbal formation whtch consists of the (tenseless) verb stem to which the sutfix -tsi has been attached. 7 Thts Pretente Participle ts used to express anterior actton: (49)
NAMA:
Znou-toa
-tst
tita gye hat
strike-ready-PCP. PAST I
-be
darnat gye
PRT Damra -ACC chase PRf
'I struck the Damra and chased htm away' (50)
NAMA:
Mu-bi -tsi
-ta gye gye gowa -u
see -him-PCP. PAST-I
PRT PRT speak-PAST
'I saw h1m and addressed him' From these examples it becomes dear that Nama has the possibihty to express anterior predicates in C-chains by means of deranked forms. However~ the problem with these examples IS that they are all mstanccs of non-absolute constructions; in all the examples whkh I have been able to trace the subject of the Preterite PartiCiple r~ !dcnuc.al to th.lt of the following mam predicate. From what I have been able to find out about the syntax of Nama, it IS not clear whether thi~ language J.ccually forb1ds absolutely deranked C-chains; 1t may be that the non~occurrence of such constructions IS simply a matter of insufficient data. But however th1~, may be, given the present state of knowledge about Nama syntax th!' honest thing to do is to rate thts language a~ a counterexample to Universal 3A, at least as far as the conditiOnality of its consecut1v1~ construction is concerned. The second, and perhaps most damaging, counterexample to Umver<:.al 3A IS Guarant, an SVO~language spoken in Paraguay. Both grammar~ which I have consulted (Guasch, 1956; Gregores and Suarez, 1967) agree that tbi; language has a Separative Comparatwe. The standard NP m the comparative is marked by the postposition -gwi or -hegwi, an item which also occurs freely as the spatial marker 'from'. Cp.: (51)
GUARANI.
a.
Se Paragwat gwz I P. from 'I am from Asuncl6n'
b.
Se seMtuvzsa-ve ne hegwz I I -big -PRT you from 'I am b1gger than you'
Now, it seem~ that, m the encodmg of chaming, Guaram favours a strict lul.~ttnng approach. Drr:1nkcd rrcd1canve form<:. do not o;;eem to be
I l4 pov-,1bk m till.'> l.mgu,,g,.:; (,11,/'>Lh (1956: 141) ')tate.'! cxphutly th.H 'Cruaran1 ... ha& neither an mfimmve nor a gerund, nor a supmum wtth us. own grammattcal forms.' Instead, we find coordinated structures of the type exemplified m (52): (52)
GUARANic
Oz-ke kaagwt pe ha o -henu petei avu he-went forest m and he-heard one n01se 'He went mto the forest and heard a noise' Also, Guaram ha~ the posstbthty to subordmate whole clauses by means of (clause-final) subordmatmg conjunctJOns. However, smce in such constructions the prcdtcatc of the ~ubordmated clau~e is not It~elf marked for subordmation, we are not permitted to rate this structural option a<; a case of derankmg (
GUARA,\lic
A-kart/ rire
a-pttu?U
I -eat after I ~rest 'After eanng I resf All m all, we are forced to conclude that Guarani has a Separative Comparative but not an absolutely deranked anterior consecutive construction, and that th1s language 1s therefore a genumc counterexample to Umversal3A. f have not been able to find a completely convmcmg way to neutralize this counterexample. Perhaps a htrle hope for Universal 3A can be denved from a remark by Guasch (1956: 142), who states that, in the embedded clauses of Guaram, the clause-final conJunctJons such as nre 'after' tend to form an mtonalional unity wtth the predicate which d1rectly precedes them. It m1ght be possible to regard this phenomenon as a very early (or, as the case may be, a very late) stage of predicate derankmg m Guarani. In this conne<.·tion, we may also pomt to the SitUation in Tupi, a language whtch is commonly assumed to be related to Guarani. As we saw 111 sentence (37b), the ttem rtre 'after' ISm use as the marker of deranked antenor predrcates m the C-chams of Tup1. The difference between Tup1 and Guarant seems to be that, m Tupi, the antenor predtcate marked by rzre IS a clear case of detankmg, and that the antcnor predicate m Guaram C-chams like (53), desptte ItS bemg marked by the same element rtre, must be considered to be essentially a non-deranked fimte form. The fact that Tup1 has made a radical choice lor pred1cate derankmg while Guaram appears to hesitate on th1s point may very well be connected wtth the difference in word order between
The Separat1ve Comparatwe
135
the two Llllgii.IJ..:t':.. J'up1 I!),\ .'>II'ILI ~OV-I.mgu,t~\' 1 111 l.tii~U.If.;C~ of tlu!\ type, the predicate Ill Jll embcddt.'d d.nl-,c .tlw,\y!) 1mn1cdt.1tdy prcccdcto. clause-final subordinating cOnJunctions. Guaram, on the other hand, has basic SVO word order, and hence the predicate m an embedded clause and the clause-final conJunction of that clause are not necessarily netghbourmg elements. Now, if we assume that one of the ways in which deranking of predicates in natural languages takes place involves the (mtonational and/or morphological) incorporation of a subordinating clause-marker mto a predicate, and if we assume further that thts incorporation 1s eas1er for languages in which the embedded predicate and the clause-marker must always occur in direct sequence, we may have a framework in whtch the observed difference between Tupi and Guarani might be explained. Guarani mtght be looked upon as a language 10 which derank10g of predicates has reached (c.q. has been reduced to} the stage of intonational mcorporation of clause markers, but 10 which th1s incorporation is hindered by the fact that the embedded predicate and the dause~marker are not contiguous items in all constructions. However, although this solution does not sound entirely implausible, it must be admitted that it is highly speculative as It stands, and that, therefore~ lt seems best to conclude that Guarani remains a problematic case for Universal3A.
6.6
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have examined the validity of Umversal 3A, by testing this universal against the facts of the languages m our sample with a pnrnary Separative Comparative. We have found that Universal 3A lS confirmed by 30 of the 32 languages involved. Moreover, we have noticed that there is a direct surface parallehsm between comparative construction and consecutive construction for 17 languages m this class. Lastly, we have seen that the facts adduced in this chapter confirm the datm that it is chaining type rather than basic word-order type wh1ch must be seen as the determinant of comparattve-type choice.
•••••••••--NOW '
OoOM
Oo
"•
0
0
........,,,..,""""'" ··--" ·"""'"'"""'..
•• ,.
0
•
·~'"'&
_, "·
7 The Allative and the Locative Comparative
7.1
Introduction
Having examined the languages with a primary Separative Comparative,
we now turn to the other two classes of adverbial comparatives. From the lists of languages presented in chapter 2, we learn that both of these types are relatively infrequent, at least in as far as primary options are concerned; they number 7 and 12 languages, respectively. Given the rather small size of the cia~ it is convenient to deal with them in a
single chapter. Apart from practical considerations, there is also a more principled motivation for a JOint dtscussion of Allative and Locative Comparatives.
As we will see below, the phenomenon of partial indeterminacy, which I commented upon in section 2.2.5, is not uncommon when the Locative and the AllatJve Comparative are involved. Three of the languages wh1ch I have listed provi>IOnally under the heading of the Locative Comparative actually exhibit a certain degree of neutralization in the spatial distinction between locative and allative relations, so that the typological status of these languages is, to a certain extent, indeterminate. We will discuss these indeterminate cases in a separate section at the end of this chapter.
7.2 The AUative Comparative In this section, we will examine the empirical vahdity of Universal 3B, which has been formulated in section 5.2 UNIVIoRSAL 38:
1n
the following manner:
If a language has an Allattve Comparative, it must have an absolutely deranked posterior consecutit•e • (.o1rstructzon.
The AIJative and the Locatwe Comparahve Thus, we will have to check tor each language with a primary Allallvt·
Comparative whether or not this language can be shown to have C chams in which the posterior predicate can be deranked under non· tdentity of subjects. The languages with a primary Allathe Comparativ••
form a set of seven members. The unmarked word order for this set 1, VS0. 1 Kanuri, an SOY-language, is the only deviation of thiS tendency 111 the sample.
7.Z. 1 Direct confirmation of Universa/38 Within the set of languages with a primary Allanve Comparative, we find
two languages which may be seen as 'du-ect' confirmation of Umvenal
3B. In these languages, we can observe an overt parallelism in the way 1n which comparison and consecutive chaining are fonnally expressed tn surface structure. Unfortunately, however, for both of these languages the data are of a relatively low quality. In particular, there is uncertainty as to whether absolute use of the consecunve construction ts permitted m these languages. The first language which we will di•cuss in this context is Siuslawan. This Kushan language has a large freedom of word order, but a certam preference for verb-initial constructions can be established! The standard NP in the comparative of Siuslawan has the so-called 'objective form', wh1ch is characterized by the presence of the suffix -tci-na. It can be observed that the suffix -tc is also the normal marker of allative motion. Cp.: (1)
SWSLAWAN:
a.
Liu'wd'x
qiutcilmii -tc
come-PAST. 3DUAL old woman-PRT
'The two of them came to an old woman'
"b.
-sea'hts na-te he good me-PRT 'He ts better than me'
As Frachtenberg (1922: 555) remarks, the •uffix -tci-na has a further use as an a.dverbializlng marker on verbal stems. By the use of th1s partH Je, posterior predicates m C-chatns can be deranked. The comtructlon appears to be of a limited distribution, and 1s subJect to certam specrfic condinons: ~When added to verbal stems, ·tc IS almost mvartJbly followed by the verb xint- to go, to start and hiq!· to starr, to begin' (ibid.). Example. of th" dcran ked con\truction ,lfc the iollowin~:
Testmg the Set of Chammg-bascd Umversals
138 (2)
\/1 \I ,I\\, I\.
a.
Ul
·tc xmtll ants tel and bemg low-to went that water ~And the water began to get low'
b.
qatcent yexau -tc ans1tc tcmam and he-went see -to that cousm-h1~
kap1
UL
'And he went to see hts coustn'
lr mu~t be conceded that Sm~lawan does not present a very strong case 1n fayour of the correctness of Umver.sal 3B. For one thing, the deranked
consecunve con<trucnon doe>. not seem to be generally apphcable. A senmd reservanon to be made ts that we have not been able to find ex:~mples of absolute use of the deranked consecuuve construction, nor
any mdiCatton that such absolute use lS actually permitted. On the credit swe, examples hke those m (2) can be used as a demonstration that Smslawan uses a deranked predicanve form as a model for the encodmg of 1ts comparative. A comparable s1tuanon can be encountered m Tarascan, an Isolated
VSO-language spoken m Southern Mexteo. In this language, adjectival stems must have the suffix -pe if they are used pred>catlvely. Further· more, companlion
marked m the adjectival predtcate by the so-called 'disJunctive' suffix -ku; With non-adjectival predicates, this suffix s1gnals tht• presence of an md1rect object, The standard NP m comparanves and th~· mdJrect obJect m non-comparatJve constructions are marked by the ca,,e suffix ·nt. Thus, we get the parallelism m (3alb), whiCh shows that IS
Tarascan has an Allanve Comparative:
(3)
1'ARASCAN: •
''.
X1 u -ku -aa ·ka ·m 1ma-m I do-DISJ·RIT·IND·lSG h1m·DAT 'I will do It for/to hun'
h.
X1 as -pe -ku ·S ·ka -m I good·PRED·DI>J • PRE>·INL)-lSG
Jmll-nr h1m-DAT
1 am better than lum'
1
Now, we can observe that the allat1ve marker -nt also show!:t. up as the sutfix on deranked consecutive predtcates. In th1s function, the suffix ts
placed immedtately after the verbal stem of the posterior predicate, th<"reby creatmg the so-called PartiCipial Mood (Foster, 1969: 56). The antcnor predicate, wh1ch ts a finate form, usually has the mfix -s-pi, wh1ch ·marks a non-contmous action, begun m the past, which is
The Allattve a11d the LocatiVe ComparatiVe
139
the pcrlorm.uH:c ol .motln-r .Ktlon o1 ~..ondllum' {fo!l.tl·r, 1969: 55). An example ot tim con>trucnon '"
t..ollllllHI:Ilt on
(4)
TARASCAN: Xura~spi
-tr
ese-nt
come-PERF. PAST.-3SG see-DAT
'He came and saw'
It must be remarked here that the constructwn illustrated m (4) has a defimte consecuuve mterpretatlon, and not a final readmg. In order to express purpose, Tarascan uses the Spanish loanword para 'to, for' in front of the participial form marked by -m. Cp.: (5)
TARASCAN:
Xura-ska
-t•
come-PRES. IND.-3~G
para ese-m for see-DAT
'He comes to see' As was the case with Sm~lawan, a problem wtth the data of Tarascan is that we lack the informanon as to the possibility of an absolute use of the deranked C-chain. In this connection, we may pomt out that at least one example can be attested m which the participial form 111 a purpose construction has Its own mdependent subJect. The example m question is the following phrase: (6)
TARASCAN:
Tzre-kwa para-kst tzre-m food for -they eat -DAT 'Food for them to eat' However, It remams unclear whether this possJbihty of absolute use of the Tarascan -nz-form can be earned over to the consecunve use of this form, and whether or not such an absolute use IS a generally applicable option m the constructions at issue.
7.2.2
Indirect confirmation of Universal 3B
Three other languages m the das~ under discussiOn lack overt surface parallelism, but can nevenheless be shown to have both an Allative Comparative and an absolutely deranked postenor C-chain. In this wayt these languages constitute (mdirect) ev1dence for the correctness of the claim which is la1d down in Universai3B. First, let us consider the case of Maasai. In sectton 4.4.1 we have already noted the existence of the so-called 'Dependent Tense' m Maasai, a form which is employed to represent posterior predrcates m C-chams.
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
140
The Dependent Tense is a form of predicate dcranking, characterized by the prefix n-and the absence of any tense marking. Since predicates in the Dependent Tense are obligatorily marked for person, absolute use of this form is obviously permitted. Cp.: (7)
MAASAI:
a.
Sapuk ol -kondt to I -ktbulekeny
is-big the-deer to the-waterbuck 'The deer is bigger than the waterbuck' b.
E -tput-a emoti n -a -ptk en-kima 3SG. FEM·fill ·PAS1" pot DEP-!SG-put on-fire 'She filled the pot and I put it on the fire'
Nuer has a 'Narrative Mood', a verbal form which has the followmg features: 'The par!lcle of the Narration is c6o. It is used for connecting successive particulars of an event or tramaction' (Crazzolara, 1933: 136). The posterior predicate which follows the particle coo has the form of a participle; It IS not marked for tense. As example (8b) shows, de ranked posterior predicates in Nuer may he independendy marked for subject. Cp.: (8)
NUER:
a.
Diid ne gan ke Jl big am I to you 'I am b1gger than you'
b.
Cike
c6 -re cioohde to/ PRT -he fall-PCP PRT -he break·PCP leg
ngar , c6 -re peean
did-3PL play 'They played, and he fell and broke his leg'
The third language which we must mention in this context is jacaltec. In this language, NP-comparison is expressed by the preposition sata1 'before, in front of as the marker of the standard NP: (9)
]ACALTEC:
Ka' tcbam hm s -sata} na1 Pel more old I him-before he P. 'I am older than Pel' Matched with this Allative Comparative we find in jacaltec a special procedure for the derank:ing of posterior consecutive predicates, viz. the 'Sequential Aspect'. Craig (1977: 65) remarks: 'The sequential aspect is a special aspect used to coordinate sentences which express actions happening in a chronological order.... [It] is composed of the aspect word cat followed by an aspectless embedded verb.'3 As example (10) demon-
141
The Allative and the Locative Comparative strates, absolute use of predicates with sequential aspect possible: (I 0)
IS
defimtely
JACALTEC:
Babel x -cuwatx'e skoyehal cat sto yoxal first COMPLEl. !PL -make dough PRT go ach10te ~First we make dough, then the achiote goes m' With respect to the matching of companson and consecutl\<e chainmg in Jaca)tec, we can make some additional observations. As is stated by Craig (1977: 65), the sequenttal aspect construction can be used only if the sequence has Present or Future reference. If the consecutive chain 1s marked for Part or Pluperfect, a different type of consecut1ve expresSion must be used. Thi& latter construction involves simple JUxtaposition ot predicates
if the postenor verb
iS
intransitive; 1f the posterior verb 1s
transitive, it can have no aspect marking, but inMcad it is marked by the suffix -ni, an item which mdicates 'a weak coordination and may be found linking long chains of transitive sentences in the context of a narrauve'
(Craig, 1977: 35). Examples of this second type of C-chain in Jacaltec are given in (11); as sentence (1 1b) shows, absolute use of this construction 1s possible. Cp.: (1 1)
}ACALTEC:
a.
Speba ix
te
pulta sah -m
ix
te
wentana
dosed she the door open-PRT she the wmdow 'She dosed the door and opened the window'
b.
Xicheco1 ix slab -ni yunin ix started she 6nish-PR1" her-child she 'She started (it) and her child finished (it)'
Now, the interesting thing is that this second type of C-cham appears to be matched by the way in which Jacaltec encodes Its clausal comparatives. lf the comparative construction contains a 'standard clause' in'itead of a standard NP, the predicate of this clause must be an aspectless verb, which is marked by the suffix -ni if it is transitive (Craig, 1977: 40). The striking parallelism between the formation of clausal comparatives and a certain type of consecutive chaining in Jacaltec is brought out dearly by the following example: (12
JACALTEC:
Ka wohta1 naj satai haca bach wohtaJ-m more !-know h1m before how you 1-know-PRT 'I know him better than I know you'
Testmg the ~et of Chammg-based Untversals
142
7.1.3
Posstble counterexamples
In the set of languages with a pnmary Allauve ComparatiVe we come acro.. two languages whtch are problematiC to such a degree that they mtght be rated as coumerexamples to Untversal 3B. The first of these languages is Breton, the Allanve Comparative of which is Illustrated in S<.'lltence (13): (13)
BRETON:
}azo bras-ox wzd-on he btg -PRT for -me 'He ts bigger than me' Now, m contrast to the prediction made by Univer.al 3B, 11 appears that Breton does not have a procedure to derank posterior predicates in Cchams. Instead the usual expres~ion of consecutive action turns out to be a balanced con~truct:Ion, m winch two finite verbal forms are connected by the coordmate pamde ag ~and': (14)
BRETON:
Wei endyd all
laked
edoure
xu -war ag
efeze
the-men till-PAST hiS-field and be-PAST. 3PL
en -ave/ew
put·PCP. PAST. PASS the-potatoes 'Everybody ploughed hiS field and then the potatoes were planted'
l-ienee, we are forced to conclude that Breton consntutes a genmoe counterexample to Universal 3B. Perhaps the strength of thiS counterexample can be weakened some..vhat If we are permitted to cake dJachroruc data on Breton inro account. It appears that in M1ddle Breton (and in the medieval forms of other Celtic languages) derankmg of posterior predicates in C-chains was certamly posSible. Thus, m hiS study of early Welsh, Strachan (1909: 79) writes: 'The verbal noun may carry on the consuuction of a fimte verb.~ The same observation IS made by Lewis and Pedersen (1974: 316), who state: 'In W(dsh) the verbal noun can be used instead of a fimte verb ... contmumg a fimte verb construction.~ These latter authors present examples from v•r~ous Mtddle Celtic languages, m which the postenor predtcate m a C-chain has been deranked mco a non-fimte verbal noun. Unfortunately, the one example whach they gtve of th1s type of de ranking procedure m Maddie Breton has a Simultaneous readmg:
The Alia/we a11d I he I,ocatwe Com(nlratl(lc {15)
14.1
MII)DI.F. BRf:TON:
hn tlougnm ha( t· t arf!t hm1 re;pcct·l·i'A>I' .lnJ hun love·V~RB. NUUN 'I respected him and loved h1m'
G1ven these facts of Middle Celtic, the hypothesis one nnght venture is this. In earlier forms of Celtic, there exiSred a possibdity to derank the posterior predicate in a C-chain mto a verbal noun. It IS probable that
th1s structural option was rather margtnal even in earlier Cdnc; m th•s connection, we may pomt to the fact that the posterior predicate, even though it has a deranked form, must be connected to its anterior clause by a coordinating con)unction. Hence, m later srages of Celtic this deranking procedure has been abandoned altogether in favour of the unmarked balancing procedure. Now, Breton 1s the only Celtic language m which the comparative construction has been modelled upon the
earlier deranked consecutive consrrucnon, instead of on the more central balancing construction; in contrast to all other Celnc languages (which have a Particle Comparative), Breton has retamed an Allative Comparative, desp1te the fact that the deranked construction on which this comparative is modelled has been lost. In short, one rmght assume that
the comparative construction m Breton is more conservative than the consecutive construction, and that the Allative Comparative reflects an earlier stage in the development of the language, a rime when the relation between consecutive type and comparative type could still be documented. 4 Needless to say, the above sketch of an explanatiOn for the facts m
Breton
IS
highly speculative. Moreover, we nmst pomt out that, even
1f
thiS explanation wer~ to be accepred, we are still faced with the fact that we lack the clara to decide whether the derankmg procedure m Early Breton permirted absolute use of the deranked postenor predicate, It is true that in some of the examples from other M1ddle Celtic languages the deranked posterior predicate can be seen to be accompamed by irs own subject NP. Strachan (1909: 79) quotes the followmg example from Early Welsh: (16)
EARLYWELSH:
Ac a dywawt na wnaethpwyt and he said
yn y
byt
drwc
y Bnaf , namyn rodt o
but
give• VERB. NOUN. PASS
dewret h1m for reason h1s valour
Esonra tdaw ef to
ef
not It-had-been-done on behalf him evll
m the world to B. E.
oe blert
achaws y
'And he said that on hiS part no evil m the world had been done
to Pnam, but that Hes10ne had been g1ven to h1m for his valour'
144
Testmg the Set of Chammg-based Universals
However, I have not been able to trace examples of this kind for Middle Breton. For these reasons, we are obliged to admit that, in all probability, Breton remams a counterexample to the prediction made by Universal 3B. The problem With whiCh Kanuri (see Lukas, 1937) confronts Universal 3B IS of an entirely different nature. There can be little doubt that thts language has an Allative Comparative; the standard NP is marked by the case suffix ~ro, an 1tem whiCh primarily indicates the goal of a movement and the indirect object. Cp.: (17)
KANUR/:
Ate-ma tutu-ro ngela go this-EMP that-to good PRT 'This is better than that'
We find that thlb element-rots also employed as a marker on subordinate predicates, which in this case must be deranked mto the form of a verbal noun. The construction permits absolute use: (18)
KANURl:
Leman bannazat
avtma
gapse
-nyi -ro
money waste-PRES. 3PL anythmg be-left-VERB. NOUN-NEG-to 'They waste money so that nothing is left' As can be seen from the translation of sentence (18), the main problem wrth the situation m Kanuri is that the semantics of the construction which formally marches the Allative Comparative are not right. If we apply the criteria which were formulated in section 4.2, it cannot be maintained that thts construcnon is a genuine case of consecutive action; from all rhe examples given in Lukas (1937) it becomes clear that it has a definite and unrnistJkJ.ble final readmg. What is more, Kanuri turns out to have several deranked constructions which correspond to our definition of consecutive chaining in a completely straightforward way. First, the language has a Dependent Past, a finite verb form which is marked for &ubordination by a special mfix. The form ts used to represent antenor prcdtcates in C-chatns: (19)
KANURl:
Mat AJt Makka-ro ct -gannya king A. M. -to go-DEP. PAST. 3SG 'After King Aji had gone to Mecca .. .'
A second verbal formation in Kanuri which may be relevant in this context is the so-called Conjunctive. Again, this is a finite form, marked
The AllatJVe and the Locative Comparatzve
145
by special personal suffixes, which js used to represent all prediCates except the last one in C-chains: (20)
KANURl' • Kamu nagadero ctze
wife
qmckly
kalgo goze rise-CON). 3SG vessel take-CON). 3SG
tu/Jin wash-PAST. IND. 3SG
'The wife stood up at once, took the vessel, and washed it' Thus, the problem which Kanur1 poses is this. Kanun is an SOYlanguage which has the possibility to derank anterior predicates m Cchains under non-identity of subjects. Now, given that this language chooses to modeltts comparative on tts C-chaming, the normal thing for this language would be to have a Separative Comparative. Instead, this language is deviant m that it does not select 1ts consecutive construcrton, but rather the semantically adJacent purpose~construction as the model of its comparative. In my opinton, the estimation of the status of the Kanun comparative with regard to Universal 3B depends on the rigorousnes~ with which one wants to apply the cntena for consecutive constructions that were laid down in section 4.2. In Kanuri, there is no indetermmacy between final and consecutive constructions; the dtsrinction between the formal codifications of these two semantically cognate constructions is perfectly dear. Therefore, if one wants to stick to rhe ltteral interpretaCion of the content of Universal 3B~ one must conclude that the Kanun comparative is not matched by an absolutely deranked posterior C-chain and that, therefore, Kanuri is a genuine counterexample to this universaL However, if one is willing to allow that, occasionally, a language may expand the notion of consecutive actiOn to mclude purpose-construction·;, Kanun ceases to be a counterexample; on the contrary, the language then becomes a direct confirmation of Universal 3B, m that it shows a straightforward surface parallelism between Its comparative and 11~ 'consecutive' construction. My personal opimon on thJ~ matter IS th.tt not much harm is done to the over~aH datm contained in our set of umversals if the second alternative is opted for. The number of languagt!S which turn out to model their comparattvc on their purpose-constructJ.on is negligible; apart from Kanuri, we find thts Situation m only two Other cases, viz. the primary comparative m Fulam (see sectiOn 8.3) and the secondary comparative in Mangarayi (see section 10.4).
146
Testmg the Set of Chatnmg-based Unrversals
7.3 The Locative Comparative The last type of adverbial compar.ltive constructions wh1ch we must di&cuss is the Locative Comparative. For this class, the relevant uruversal
" Umve.-al 3C, which has been formulated in section 5.2 m the following way: UNIVERSAL JC: If a langi
the posSibility to dcrank one c>f the predicates m an S-chain under nonIdentity of &ubjects. The languages With a primary Locative Comparanve form a set of 11 members; in addmon, a <.:onsiderable number of language~ select this comparative-type as their secondary option. The preferred word order for languages m this class is either SOY or VSO; a sketch of an explanation for this fact has been presented in secuon 5.3. W1thm the class of languages hsted under the heading of the Locative Comparative, three languages are mdetermmate as to their dassificatmn as e1ther a Locative or an AllatiVC Comparative. For the moment, I will leave these cases astde, and concentrate on the nine languages which can be shown unambtguouo;ly to have a Locative Comparative as their ' pnmary optiOn. 73.1
Drrect confirmatiOn of Unl!~ersa/ JC
Of the moe languages under diScusSion, three show the by now famihar phenomenon of overt surface paralleli&m between the formal expre&sions of companson and temporal chaming. Hence, these languages constitute d1rect evidence for the correcrnes~ of the cla1ms which are contained m our set of chammg-based umversa]s. Withm the cia~ under dtM:Ussion, the first example of overt surface parallehsm 1s Chuckchee. In th•~ language, predicates in subordinate clauses are represented as nommahzatiODS, which are then marked for grammatical functwn by means of case suf6xes. The locative suf6x -tk!okl-ttk, whiCh marks the standard NP m Chuckchee comparanves, ts also the marker for simultaneity on predicate~:
The Allattvc and the Locattve Comparatwe {21)
CHUCKCHEE:
a.
Gamga-qla'ul-•k qetvu
-ium
-CI
all -men -on strong-more-lSG 'I am stronger than all men 1
b.
Ge -rine -fin
puker-m -ok
PAST-fly up-3SG arrive-3~G-on 'When he arrived, the other one flew up' In Naga, the standard NP tn comparatives is marked by the suffix -k1, wh1ch has the locative mcanmg 'on'. Agam, we find that thts marker ts alw m use as a marker of deranked stmultaneous predtcates; 1t is attached to verbal stems, which tn this case can no longer take tense parucles. It must be noted that the suffix -ki on deranked predicates IS used only m cases where there ts absolute simultaneous derankmg; tf the
S-chatn IS non-absolute, the deranked predicate must take the suffix -d1. Examples are: {22)
NAGA:
a.
Themma hau lu k1 vi -we man this that on good-is 'This man is better than that man'
b.
A de
kepu -ki thcmma fu
I words speak-on man
a
vu-we
that me struck
'As I spoke these words, that man struck me' Po de
pu-d•
ta-te
he words speakmg went 'Speaking these words, he went away' The third example of a language m wluch the Locauve Compacanve IS formally parallel to the encoding of S-chains JS Ubykh, a Caucasian language of the North-West group. Like all languages m 1ts family, Ubykh possesses a very nch system of deranked predicanve forms, wh1ch can also be used absolutely. In particular, Ubykh offers the possibility to form 'parucipes-gerundifs' (Dumezil, 1933: 223), These are verbal forms which are marked for person, but wh1ch rece1ve nommal case mflex1on. The locative case suffix ~n mark~ simultaneous actton when it 1s attached to such a deranked vethal form. 5 Cp.: {23)
UBYKH:
a.
y; -gune wo -gune-n
ca -qasaqa-1 thls.. tree that-tree -on more-btg -3SG 'This tree is taller than that tree'
'
148 b.
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals -qa A ·c'ii -ga a -/eli -n e -bie the-house-m she-be in-on he-her see-PASr 'She bemg m the house, he saw her'
7.3.2
lndtrect confirmation o(Universa/3C
The six remaining languages in our .!tample for which a primary Locative
Comparottve can be unequtvocally attested do not show direct surface parallelism, but they clearly have the possibility to derank S-chains under non-identity of subjects. Thus, as far as the languages are concerned which have a clear instance of a Locative Comparative as their primary
ch01ce, Universa13C has no counterexample in our sample. M1wok has a subordmate mode, the present tense of which IS employed to express Simultaneous action. Freeland (1951: 82) notes. 'These subordinate tense forms are treated quite differently accordmg to whether or not their subJect is the same as that of the main verb.' In the case of identity of subjects, the subordmate mode has no pronominal affix to indicate Its subject: 'the reference to the main verb is simply understood' (1btd.: 83), and the subordinate form is characterized by the suffix -?pak on the verbal stem. In case the subjects are non-identical, no special subordinating suffix occurs, but the subordinate forms must be rtlJ.rked for subject by means of possessive pronouns: 'these forms are really a subjective absolute construction, comparable to the ablative absolute in Latin' (Ibid.: 50). Cp.: (24)
MIWOK:
a.
Os'akcz-? tumc'kci -? manik nangakci-y girl -NO~! small one-NOM more boy -on 'The g1rl is smaller than the boy'
b.
Hinaka -?pak •-ton milt -na -k cook·PRES·SUBORD -you-DAT. PL sing-PAST-1SG 'While cookmg for you, I sang'
?iwa?
-mok siyici
mutos
eat-PRES -your watch-PRES-1-you ~e you are eating, I am watching you' Salinan deranks simultaneous predicates by means of the subordinating prefix le; in this constructiOn, the derankcd predicate no longer takes tense marking. Stmultaneous predicates which are deranked in this fa~hton may freely occur under absolute conditions. Cp.:
The Allatrve and the Locative Comparative (25}
SAL/NAN:
a.
Ragas-mo in
luwa ti hek
surely·you more man ~You
b.
149
on~me
are certatnly more of a man than me'
Le yax tum-te -ma komaiyu hek tum-Xolon SUBORD·come to ·my-house leave-PAST I to -X. 'When he came to my house, I had left for Xolon'
Mandinka matches Its Locative Comparative by the fact that predicates inS-chains can be deranked freely into absolutely used partiCipial forms: (26)
MANf)INKA:
a.
A ka gya ni ma he is b1g me on 'He is bigger than me'
b.
A tara-to kongo -Ia sangyi berahail he go -PCP. PRES country-to rain fell hard 'As he went to the country, it was pouring with rain'
A situation which
completely parallel to the case of Mandinka can be noted forTamazight, the Berber language Ill our sample.ln Tamaztght comparatives, the standard NP is marked by the prepoSition {elltfoul, wh1ch is generally translated by French grammarians as sur 'upon' (see, for instance, Hanoteau (1896: 52)). Cp.: (27}
IS
TAMAZ/GHT:
Enta thengrin foul/ t he is-tall upon me 'He is taller than me' This comparative construction is matched by the usc of so-called Participles in Tamazight. These are verbal forms which are marked for person and for tense (v1z. Past, Present and Future), but which are also marked for subordination by special suffixes; the Present Participle 1s formed by attaching the suffix -n (Masc.) or -t (Fern.) to the thtrd person singular of the Present Indicative. The most conspicuous use of these participles can be found m relative clause; and (dtrect and indirect) WH-
questions; in these clause types, the predicate must have the fonn of a participle 1f the antecedent (c..q. the WH-word) i> the subject of the clause. Th1s deranking of a finite main verb into a subordJ.nate partie! pta! form takes pla.:e despite the fact that relative clauses and WH-quesnons must be mtroduced by independent (relative or interrogative) pronouns.
Cp.:
15 0
Testmg the Set of Chatnmg-based Umversals
(/S)
IAMM/1.111
1
Ales oua tllalen man thiS-llEM/who·I\EI. oat-PCP. PRB. MA~{. 'The man who eats' Ma tttaten who-Q eat-PRES. PCP. MASC 'Who eats?'
Apart from this non-absolme usc~ we can also find ample evidence for the
absolute partocopoal construction. Hanoteau (1896: 33) presents a number of examples of ~unuhanecus structures m wh1ch one of the
predicates has a partJctptal form, while the other is an md1cat1Ve ma1n verb. Thus, T ama7tght has deranked S-chams, in which, moreover, derankmg can be absolute: (29)
TAMAZIGIIT:
Tamet' tarer' telabasset woman this be plam·PCP. PRES. FEM ta nnek tehOIISI that of-you be pretty·PRE.S. Roo'D 3SG FEM 'This woman os plam (but) your (woman) os pretty' The next language wh1ch we will have to d1scuso; m the present context 1s Navaho. For th•s languag~ a dear assessment of the facts IS hampered
by the lack of suffiaent!y rehablc data, Ponnow (1964: 66) states explicotly that Navaho has a comparative constructoon of the form ollustrated in (30); applymg tbe cnterta whoch we adopted on chapter 2, we mu&t rate thiS construction as an mstance of the Locattve Comparative. Cp.: (30)
NA\'AI/0.
81 ·laah 'ansneez him-above big-PRES. !SG 'I am bigger than hom' Unforrunacely, however, Pmnow docs not indicate the <;ource of this
example. The only full grammatical descrtptoon of Navaho that I know of (Haole, 1926; see also Haole, 1941) does not mention Pinnow's constructiOn at all. Whtle discussiUg the expression of companson in
Navaho, Haole (1926: 61) remarks that this language employs a method ol '1tem1zmg, or pomtmg out, for Instance, this IS short, that not long enough, this rough, that smooth, etc. • A plaus1ble conclusiOn to be drawn
from thos passage would be that Navaho apparently has a ConJoined
The Allative and the Locative Comparattt•e
151
Comp.lr.Havc, but, ag.1in, nu drar l'x.unph::, .m: nv.ul.thk on tht' point. W1th rc&pcct to the colhficatton ol tcmpor.tl ,,,-h..lmmg Ill N.1V.1ho, the facts are more straightforward. Hade (1926: 99) notes thJt 'perhaps the most common form of particijliahzing IS offered by adding the suffix -go to any tense form'. If this suffix is added to a predicate wh1ch IS marked for present tense, the verbal construct can be used as a predicate in an S·
chain; since the verbal form retains the possibility of having 1ts own subject, we can conclude that such predicates can be used absolutely. An example JS; (31)
NAVAHO:
Naholtxa -go rain-PRES -ADV
'When/while It cains'
One might question here whether the verbal form exemphfied in the above sentence is a real case of deranking, since it does not seem to be reduced in personal and temporal morphology. I thmk that this objection can be refuted by pointing out that the suffix -go which marks thts Navaho predicate is an item which has a very general subordinating func
TAMIL:
a.
At -il -um ittu cinnatu that-on-PRT
152
Testing the Set of ChainmgHbased Universals
This Locative Comparative is matched by a deranked simultaneous construction m which the deranked predicate has the form of the Infinitive on -a. Absolute use of this Infinitive is common: (32)
TAMIL:
b.
Avan var -a kanteen he corne-INF see-PAST. lsG 'While he was coming, I saw (him)'
Interestingly, this deranked simultaneous construction also functions as the model of another comparative construction in Tamil. In this comparative, the standard NP is marked for accusative case (i.e., it has the form of a direct obJect) and it is followed by the marking element vita. Cp.: (32)
TAMil.:
c.
Enka vittte vita avaru viittu pencaa irukkutu our hou~e-ACC PRT his house-NOM big be-PRES. 3SG 'His house is bigger than our house'
The important question with respect to this construction is, of course, what the category ,<,tatus of the element vita may be. All authors on Tamil syntax whom I have consulted agree that this element is not a spatul postposition. Asher (1982: 88) refers to the element vita as a postposition, but does not qualify this solution. Other authors (in particular, Atden (1942: 111) and Beythan (1943: 135) analyse the item vita as the old Infinitive of the verb vittu 'to leave, to leave behind'. If this analysis is followed, the modelling of the vita-comparative on the deranked simultaneous comtructwn becomes evident: the literal meaning of sentence (32c) wtll then be ,<,ornethmg like 'H1s house, leaving behind our house, is big.' It will be noted that this VIta-comparative is closely related to an Exceed Comparative, both in its meaning and m its structural manifes• tatwn.
7.4
Indeterminate cases
The phenomenon of partial neutralization of spatial marking is relatively frequent in the case of the marking of locative versus allative relations. :tv1y sample contams three cases in which the classification of a comparative construction as either a Locative or an Allative Comparative is affected by this kmd of mdeterminacy. In section 2.3.3, I classified these languages as members of the category of Locative Comparatives. In the discussiOn which follows, I will adduce some justification for this decision. It tnu<;t be kept in mind, however, that classification of
The Allative and the Locative Comparatwe
153
indeterminate cases such as these will, by 1ts very nature, always be arbitrary to some extent. First, let us discuss the situation in Mapuche. As we already noted in section 2.2.5, the standard NP in Mapuchc comparatives 1s marked by the postposition meu, which has a very general locational meanmg; It may indicate positton, but It is also employed as the marker of mdtrcct objects. Cp.: (33)
MAPUCJ/E:
a.
Karlos do,
fucha·l
Fruncesko meu
K.
more tall -3SG F. 'Karlos is taller than Francesko'
on/to
b.
Tam welelcht manshun Antonto rneu his sold-PCP ox A. to 'The ox which he sold to Antonio'
c.
Ruka ni rant
meu
house Its middle in 'In the middle of the house' Thus, on the face of it, the comparative in Mapuche must be rated as an mdetermmate case between the Locative and the Allat1ve Comparative. The reason why I have ultimately classified Mapuche as a language with a Locative Comparative lies in the fact that this comparative has its overt structural parallel m the way m wh1ch ~iapuche encodes Jts Schams. Mapuche dcranks tts ~imultaneou.!:l predicates by putting them tnto the infinttive form, whtch conststs of the bare verb stem and the nominal suffix -n. That these mfinittves are nominais IS brought out by the fact that subjects of deranked simultaneous predtcates must have the form of a gemtive .r.hrase or a possessive pronoun. Now, the pomt b that, in the expressiOn of simultaneous action, the deranked predicate mu~t be followed by the postposition meu: {34)
MAPUCJ/E:
Nz amu-n meu inche ka' amu-a -1'1 Ius go -INF on I too go -HJT· ISG 'When he goes, I will go too' Given this Situation, we can conclude that, If we take Mapuche to have a Locative Comparative, this language forms a direct and stra1ghtforwarct confirmation of Universal JC. In other words, the decrsion to dass1f) Mapuche as a language wtth a Locative Comparative enables us to describe this language as an instance of a regularity which has been attc~ted mdcpcndently for at least eight other languages in the sample. If
154
Testtng the Set of Chatmng-based Universals
•vt· t.hoo-.c.·thc..· oppw.. th: ..uluuon of (,\tl'gori·nng M.lptu.:h~o: a~ .1 c.l')l' ol the s\llatrve Comparcltrve, we must conclude that th1s language 1s a countert·xample to Umversai3B, s1nce no poss1bihty of posterior deranking inC<:hains can be documented in Mapuche. Faced with these alternatives, I 1hmk tt is methodologically justifiable tn opt for the solution which enables us to treat Mapuche as an instance of a regularity. Hence, I have finally decided to classify the Mapuche comparative as a case of the Locative Comparative. A simt!ar line of reasoning can be followed m defence of the deas10n to dassify Cebuano as a language wtth a Locative Comparative. In Cebuano, 1he standard NP in comparattves is put mto the Goal-case, which is marked by the preposittons sa (for definite NPs) or ug (for indefinite 'IPs), or by specific case-affixes (for pronouns). The grammatical function nf an ttem m the Goal-case depends on the voice of the verb in the ·;etence; in active sentences, the Goal-case marks the patient or recipient 1 ,f the action, while m passive sentences the case can be used to indicate the mdirect object, the locatton of an action, or the direction of a movement. Examples in which the indeterminacy of the Cebuano Goal-:ase 15 tl!ustrated are the followmg: {35)
CEBVANO:
a.
ku ug tubaq want-drink I GOAL palm toddy 'I want to drink palm toddy'
b.
Muqadtu ku sa
Muqmum
Banawa GOAL B.
go-PRB I 'I am going to Banawa~
c.
Dthaq
ku sa
Banawa be-present I GOAL B. 'I am m Banawa'
Examples of the comparative construction in Cebuano are: {36)
CEBUANO:
a.
T aqas sJya nzmu tall he-NOM you-GOAL 'He is taller than you~
b.
Maqayu bir ug tubig gond beer GOAL water 'Beer is better than water~
Now, as was the case in Mapuche, we can note that tn Cebuano, tOo, the comparative construction has a direct surface match in one of the
The Allat.ve and the Locattve ComparatiVe
155
1>111111h.uu.·ou~
aclion con..,trurllon" of tlu" lnn~u.l~l'. Tlw dernnked pre~ J~~.:atc m tlu~ S~chain h.l!> the ~(h.:<.tlll·d A!v,trJc.:t Form ("'(.'C Wolft, 1967, I, 346-8), that is, a verbal stem With the prefix pag-/pagka-l•mg-. The form is a nominalization, which requires gemnve case for ib subject; from this, it follows that absolute use of such nominalized predicates is permitted. Now, when such Abstract Forms are used as the deranked predicate in S·
chams, they may opt10nally be marked by the presence of the Goalmarker sa; cp.: (37)
CEBUANO'
(Sa)
pag -qabut mlau sa Urmuk, GOAL ABSTR-arrive their GOAL U. waq na dihaq si papa n!la not anymore be-present the-NOM father their 'When they arrived at Urmuk, their father was no longer there' Thus, we can observe a direct parallelism between the expressions of comparison and simultaneous chaining in Cebuano. Accordingly, we arrive at a classification of this language as a member of the Locative Comparative class~ using the same argumentation wh1ch we have fol-
lowed in the case ofMapuche. 6 Finally, we must consider the rather complicated state of affairs in Tubu. In the comparative of this Saharan language, the standard NP IS marked by the postposition du, an item which has a very general locatlOnal meaning, and which may be glossed as 'in', 'on', 'at', 'to' or 'with', depending on the context. Thus, we may conclude that the Tubu comparative is indeterminate as to its dasstficatton as an Allative or a Locative Comparative. An example of the construction is: (38)
TUBU'
Sa -umma gere du madu his-eye blood LOC red 'His eye is redder than blood'
If we look at the ways in which temporal chaimng IS formalized in Tubu, we find that the locational marker du is also employed as a marker of adverbial temporal clauses. In this case, the item functions as a postpositional marker to a clause in which the predicate has retained its normal finite form. Examples of the construction are: (39)
TUBU'
a.
Arko cidi
du
zapten return-PAST. 3SG
goat cry-PAST. 3SG LOC 'The goat returned weeping'
Testzng the Set of Chazning-based Universals
15 6
b.
Nee
du
tere
be-PRFS. 2SG LOC come-FUT. 1SG
'Whlle you are there, J will come' It IS unclear whether the construction type illustrated in (39alb) is a case
of predtcatc-deranking, or rather a case of clause-embedding. Lukas (1953: 175) calls the item du in this function a 'postposition', contrasting it to items like ago 'when' and nano 'so that', which are clause-initial and are taken to be 'subordinaung conjunctions'. Lukas writes: '[Postpositions] have as the1r essenual task to expand sentences. The Tubu language thus achieves With their help what we achieve by means of subordmate clauses. Hence, these postpositions replace subordinatmg
conJunctions, which are almost completely absent' (my translation). From this quotatton, one might deduce tbat clauses which are marked by 'po~tpositional' clause-final elements like du must be conceived of as NPs, whereas clauses introduced by clanse-imtial conjunctions have the structural starus of sentences. Thus, a case might be made for the derankcd status of the predicate tn the clause marked by du; one might ra.te it as a CJ.!>e m which a whole clause is nominalized. However, one might also rightfully argue that, since there is certainly no trace of dcrankmg on the predtcare itself, the construction is actually a case of dause-embeddmg and hence of no relevance as a confirmation of Universal3C. It must be added that, whatever status one wants to assign to the complement of du m (39alb), the indeterminacy of the typological status of tbe Tubu comparative wtll not be dissolved by it in any case. As it turns out> constructions with clause·final du can have a simultaneous readmg, but the construction also allows freely for a purpose-interpretation. Moreover, if the verb in the clause is in the negative fonn, the clause must be translated as a 'before' -clause, thus indicating the posterior event in a consecutive cham. Cp.: (40)
TUBV:
a.
Turku ga nusu du re jackal ACC he-kill LOC he-came 'He came to kill rhe jackal'
•
Cubbunde
du
adema
fadege
he-stab·NEG LOC woman said 'Before he stabbed her, the woman said ••. ' ln other words, even if we view the du-construction as a case of
predtcate-deranking which serves as a model for the comparative constructiOn in Tubu, we will still be at a loss to decide whether this
The Allative and the Locattve Comparattve
157
comparative should be classified as an Allattve or as a Locative Comparative. In this context, it is useful to poim our that, in addmon ro the duconstructton, there JS al~o a ca&oe of genume, unambiguous !:.ltnultaneous deranking in Tubu. This is represented by the First Temporal Form (Lukas, 1953: 95), which is formed from the (tense-less, but personmarked) Aonst Indicative by means of the suffix -gol-wo. Cp.: (41)
TUBU:
Yir nun -go yan terege come-IMP say-you-TEMP J-run 1-come <When you say "come", I come in a hurry' GIVen the extstencc of such a form, we are allowed to ccm~1dcr Tubu a~ at least indirect confirm.ltlon of Univenul 3C. There remaim, however, one rather puzzling fact. If we look at the functions wh1ch are performed by the simultaneous suffix -go, we find that this element IS also employed a~ an allative marker on nominals (Lukas, 1953: 161). Thus, it seems that the simultaneous action construction m Tubu has been modelled on an allative spatial relation; this is of course highly untypical. The allative codification of S~chains m T ubu has not led to a comparative m which the standard NP is marked by -go; instead, the language has chosen to employ the indeterminate marker du, which LS employed as a postposmon of clauses which can be mterpreted as simultaneous, final or posterior consecutive chains. All in all, we can conclude that the Situation in Tubu is rather muddled, and that the distinction between locative and allanve relations has been neutralized by this language in highly unorthodox ways. However, as I stated above, I do not think that the indeterminacies which can be observed in Tubu should lead to the consequence that th1s language should be regarded as a counterexample to the set of chainingbased universals of comparative~type choice.
7.5
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have tested the validity of Umversal 3B and Umversal 3C against the data from the languages m the sample. Of the 19 relevan1 languages, we have found that 15 confirm the prediction made by e1ther Universal 38 or Universal 3C. Moreover, at least five of these language~ can be shown to exhibit a direct surface par alleltsm between theu comparative and the relevant chaining construction. In three cases, an indeterminacy of the typological status of the comparative construction must be attested. We have argued that It 1& best to com1dcr thc!:>l'
158
Testing the Set of Chainmg-based Untversals
c• lll:ttl'UCtlOll/1 nt., m.~1.1nn·~
8 The Exceed Comparative
8.1 Introduction In the two previous chapters, we have examined the various subtypes of the class of adverbial comparatives. Now, we must turn to the other class of comparatives in which the standard NP has fixed case, viz. the Exceed Comparative. From the listing in section 2.3.4 it can be seen that the Exceed Comparative is among the largest classes of comparative constructions in our sample; 20 languages select this type of comparative as thetr primary option. Also, it is clear that the option for an Exceed Comparative is firmly tied up with SVO word order, at least as far as the primary instances of this category are concerned. In the set of chaining-based universals, the universal which is relevant
to the Exceed Comparative is Universal2A: UNIVERSAL
2A: If a language has an Exceed Comparative, then it may have only conditwnal deranking.
Thus, what we have to do in this chapter is to demonstrate that the languages which have an Exceed Comparative are languages which may derank their predicates in temporal chains, but only if the condition is met that the subjectS of the predicates in the chain are identical. It will become clear below that it is usually the (conditionally deranked) simultaneous construction which serves as the model for the comparative in these languages; cases in which the Exceed Comparative can be shown to be modelled on the (conditionally deranked) consecutive construction are very rare. It must be added, however, that the semantic distinction
between simultaneous and consecutive action has been formally neutrallzed in a considerable number of rhe languages at issue, so that in these cases the Identification of the modelling chaining construction is necessarily mdeterminate.
As we observed m section 2.3.4, the Exceed Comparattve can be attested in three formally distinct variants. It is my op1mon that this
Testing the Set of Charmng·based Universals
160
formal diversification is not caused by factors which are specific to the typology of comparattvc constructions; in other words, I assume that the differences in the surface structure of Exceed Comparatives are not s1gmficant for our typological purpose, and that they are the result of van.tnon with respe<.-t to properties that are independent of the choice of a particular comparanve-type. Some suggesnons as to the nature of these mdependent properties will be presented in the final section of this chapter. In the meanwhile, I will mamtain the tripartite division of Exceed Comparatives, but it must be undemood that my mam reason for domg so is to serve the clanty of the exposition.
8.2 The Exceed-1 Comparative: serialization One highly typical and easily Identifiable variant of the Exceed Comparative as the construcnon in which the exceed-verb and the comparative pred1cate are parts of a so-called 'serial verb string', Before I present the data of those languages in wh1ch such an Exceed-! Comparative can be attested, it may be useful to make some clarifying remarks on this phenomenon of verbal serialization. In particular, I will comment upon the condit1onahty and the semantic funCtion of constructions in whrch verbs are seriahzed. In the words of Hyman (1975: 136), the term serialization 'generally refers to verbs which occur in sequence, but which are not overtly marked for coord1nat1on or subordination w1th respect to each other'. In other words, m a serialization verbs are simply strung one after the other, thus forming a 'serial verb string' or 'Reihensatz' (Dempwolff, 1939: 67).' The phenomenon of scrializarion is widely spread among the languages of West Africa, in particular the Kwa group (see George, 1975), but it also occurs in Mandarin Chinese (see Li and Thompson, 1973alb), m Vietnamese, Thai and Cambodian, and in a number of p1dgms and creolizations (for example Sranan; see Voorhoeve, 1962). Examples of construction& in which such a serial verb string occurs are: (l)
CAMBODIAN:
Ta
yok dong-pakka seese sombotr
old-man rake pen write letter 'The old man took a pen and wrote a letter~ (2)
YORUBA:
Mo fi a
1:
"
-·-·-·- - - - - - - - -
The Exceed Comparative (3)
161
SRANAN:
A qary a
buku kon gr
m•
he carry the book come give me 'He has brought me the book' Whether such serial verb constructions have their d1achron1c origm m coordinate structures is open to d1spute; there seems to be ~me ev.dence tha.t they have (see Hyman, 1971; Awolobuy1, 1973; Li and ThompMm, 1973a/b). But whatever position one takes with respect to diachromc or1gin, there can be httle doubt that, from a ~ynchronic point of view, serial verb constructions can no longer be treated as ">ymmetric structures. In other words, in synchronic syntax serial verb construction~ must be interpreted as structures in whtch the verbs in the strmg are not (or no longer) of equal structural rank: 1t must be assumed that all the non-first verbs are deranked with respect to the verb that occuptes the imt1al position in the string. That this must he the case can be shown from Sranan; in this language, NP-compiements can be extracted from a senal verb string, which proves that such stnngs arc not subJect to the Coordinate Structure Constraint: (4)
SRANAN:
a.
Yu go teki tyari a batra na abrasey you go take carry the bottle to other-;~dc 'You brought the bottle over to the other Side'
b.
San yu go tekl tyan na abrasey ? what you go take carry to other-stde 'What did you bring over to the other s1de?'
A similar phenomenon can be observed •n Mandarin Chmese. In tim language, NP-complements of a serial verb can be placed m toptc position (see Mullie, 1947): (5)
MANDARIN:
a.
W o lsJeng t km ZJOW lai I weigh one pound meat come 'I will buy one pound of meat'
b.
I
kin
ziow , wo ts1eng lai
one pound meat I wetgh come 'One pound of meat I will buy' Other arguments in favour of a deranktng muly~1s of ser1af verb ..:onstruct&on.-. .. rem from the fact th .•n, m .1 'l'n,ll ..tnn~, It 1\ only th(' firc;t vrrh wh1ch o.,ray .. marked for normal vcriMI morphology. A~ (,lv('>n
162
Testmg the Set of Chammg-based Unrversals
(I 'J/5· H4) r~:m.1rb 1
'olll!
o! tht· lir'lt thin~ that m.ty h.•ppcn to er\twlulc
""nal verb; ... " los; of ab1hty to take normal verb affixe>, •uch a• modalities, subJeCt agreement or obJect pronouns. Th1s process 1s obvtously gradual, so that a verb may lose its abtlity to take some affixes but not all at the same ttme.' Furthermore, Giv6n calls attennon to the bet that, in many languages, non·first verbs in a serial string tend to be
syntactically reanalysed as prepositions or conjunctions. (Again, this is a gradnal process so that a serial verb, even when reanalysed, may retain a number of syntactical verbal traits. For one thing, it may remain at the anginal serial verb position, even tf this position is not the one whtch is normally occupied by prepositions or conjunctions.) All these facts lead to the conclusion that senal verb constructions are not a case of syntacttc coordination, at least not as far as synchronic syntax is concerned; despite the absence of overt subordinate marking, they are instances of
temporal chams in wh1ch non-first predicates have been deranked. With respect to rhe condttionality of this type of deranked chaining
SRANAN:
A trowe a
batra go na abrasey
he thrt>w the bottle go to other-side 'He threw the bottle to the other side' Sim1lar cases are attested for Mandarin Chmese by Li and Thompson (1973a). On the whole, however, it must be said that cases such as these occupy a marginal position Wlthin the domain of serialization and that, in the overwhelming maJority of cases, Welmers' observation turns out to
be confirmed by the facts. Hence we may conclude that, from a structural p01nt of view, ser1al verb constructions are instances of conditionally
deranked chainmg constructions. A~ for the semanhc functton of a serial verb strmg! it can be observed that such constructions are e~sentially mdeterminate. This semantic
vagueness IS Illustrated clearly for Mandann Chmese by U and 'Thompson
The Exceed Com{Jaratwe
163
( llJ7H), who note that ~cri.1hzanon m thts langungc m.ly he Interpreted ns IIH.iH.:Clting parallel cvcnn,, conbecutwc cvcnb, .,unult.mcou., n~·nt.,, purro..,cconstrucrions or result·constructlons. LI and Thomp:..on ( 1978: 241) state explicitly: 'What is evident ... is that the senal verb constructiOn IS used to encode a number of different relatwnsh1ps between predicates in Mandarin. These predicate relationships are structurally distinct in most other languages because of the presence of grammatical markers.' Jn short, serial verb strmgs are formal neutralizations of the semantic distinction between simultaneous action, consecutive action and several other semantic relations, in much the same way as balanced coordinations are typically neutral in this respect (see section 4.1). 3 Just as is generally the case with balanced structures, the appropriate interpretation of a serial verb construction must be inferred on the basis of such factors as pragmatic and contextual knowledge, knowledge of the meaning of the particular lexical items in the string, and clues which derive from aspect marking of the first verb in the senes. To sum up, we can say that a senal verb construction is a type of conditionally deranked temporal chain, in which the distmction between simultaneous and consecutive action has been neutralized. Now, if we tum to the 20 languages in the sample which make up the primary instances of the Exceed Comparative, we find that ten of them have the possibility to form a serial verb construction. In these languages, a straightforward parallel between chaining construCtion and comparative formation can be established. As the examples presented below will demonstrate, the comparative in these languages is a special case of the general serial verb construction; to be exact, it is a serial verb string which contains a gradable predicate and an exceed-verb as 1ts members. Obviously, these ten languages provide strong and direct support for the claim which is contained m Universal 2A. Examples mclude:
(7) a.
CAMBODIAN:
Ta
yok dong-pakka seese sombotr
old-man take pen write letter 'The old man took a pen and wrote a letter'
b.
Bony-sreuy khngom crieng pirueh cireng nih elder-sister my sing good exceed this 'My elder sister s1ngs better than this'
(8)
DAGOMBA:
a.
Nana
san -la
o -suli n
-dum mra
scorpion take-HAB h1s-tail PREF·sting people 1 The scorpion stings people with its tail'
164
Testmg the Set of Chaining-based Universals
b.
0-make dpeoo
n
-gare
-ma
he-has strength PREF-surpass-me 'He is stronger than me' (9)
a.
DUALA:
A mala nanga dtwendt he go fetch knife 'He went and fetched a kmfe' .
Nm ndabo e kola buka nme this house it btg exceed that 'This house IS bigger than that' (10)
GBEYA:
a.
Wa kay wa
a'
nu
they take them put ground 'They take them and put them on the ground'
Ngma mo gan 6 ngay gdn nzapa na some thing NEG is strong surpass God NEG 'There is nothing stronger than God' (11)
JABEM:
a.
Ngapale ke-tang ke-ko andu boy he-cries he-remain house 'The boy ts crying in the house' T amoc kapoeng ke-lelec ae su father is-big he-exceed me ready 'My father ts taller than me'
(12)
MANDARIN:
a.
Wo na hwo-penn wm-peul kiu I carry stove outside go 'I carry the stove outside'
Wo na p't ma pt nt na p't ma kwat I this CLASS horse exceed you this CLASS horse is-btg 'My horse IS bigger than your horse' (13)
NGUNA:
a.
Ku po man a paki nta you PFRF do it go~to him 'You have done It to him'
165
The Exceed Comparatwe
b.
Namauriana e parua ltu navtnaga life it great exceed food 'Life is more than food: man does not live by bread alone'
(14)
THAI:
a.
Phom Jang moong arai maJ-hen I stdl look-at thing not-see 'I snll can't ~ee anything'
b.
Khaw rar kwaa phom he h1g exceed me 'He is btgger than me'
(15)
VIETNAMFSE:
a.
Ong khong co dem vo-con qua Ben-Phap be NEG PERF take family go-over France 'He has not brought his family over to France'
b.
Vang qui hon hac gold valuable exceed silver 'Gold is worth more than silver'
{16) a.
YORUBA:
b.
Mo fi ade ge tgi I rook machete cut wood 'I took the machete and cut wood'
lie mi kere JU tiwon house my small exceed theirs 'My house i~ smaller than theirs'
Regarding these examples, we musr make a lew additional remarks. First, it will be noted that m a serial Exceed Comparative of this type it
can be e1ther the exceed-verb or the comparative predicate which
IS
the
deranked (1.e.,non·first) predicate in the construction. This essenuallack
of ordering becomes understandable once we realize that ~uch r,enal vcr~ constructions allow for a definite simultaneous tnterpretanon, and that generally, S-chain; imply no d~rectionality (see ..cnon 4.5). Secondl~, tht· above examples show that the usual form of a dcranked verb Ill a serial verb string is that of a bare verbal stem. which lacks ali morphologiCal marking for tense, mood, aspect or person. Only two cases are e~cepttonal m this respect. In Jabem, we note that the deranked verb has retamed It~ person markmg (see (I1a/b)). Nevertheless, the construction must be considered to be a case of predicate derankwg. Dempv.olff (19l9: 81)
I estmg the Set of Chaming-based Umversals
t:>.phutly ~t.ucs thm there I\ <1 grammancal contrcqucntly, Dempwolff deals w1th cases hkc (11 a) m his section on the s1mplex sentence m Jabem. ConJunctwn with the connective element ma 'and', which is iHustrated in (17)
]ABEM:
Ganggom ke-som bmgmakic , rna ngpapale se -omac G. he-told jokes and children they-laughed 'Ganggom told jokes, and the children laughed' ex: presses 'reme zeithche Folge', that is, a successton of evenrs wtthout the Imphcauon of a total event (Dernpwolff, 1939: 83). In conJUnctions with ma, change of subJects is posstble; a 'Reihensatz', on the othtr hand, can only be constructed under identity of subjects in the string. In Dagomba (sec (8alb)), non-first verbs in a serial verb string have no subJect pronoun, but the cOnJugational prefix -n. In contrast to first verbs in a string, non-first verbs cannot be marked for tense (Fisch, 1912: :.3-4). Hence, in this language too we can consider the senal verb
8.3
Other types of the Exceed Comparative
[n contrast to languages wtth a 'pure', non-overtly marked serial verb :onstruction, other SVO-languages may choose to derank their predicates
m a more overt way. A widely used procedure for this type of deranking mvolves puttmg the predicate into some nominalized (mfinitival) or partlcipialized (adjectival) form. In languages in which this 'overt' deranking procedure is chosen, there is usually a formal distinction between the encoding of simultaneous and consecutive action. In other word~, if a deranking SVO-language does not have a seria] verb string,
then neutralization of mode of chaining is generally abandoned. An illustration of this point is formed by the two chainmg constructions in Igbo, which we discussed in section 4.1. As we w11l see below, Igbo lacks the possibility to form a serial verb string of the type illustrated in the • • prev10us sectton. In the 11 instances of the Exceed Comparative which we w11l deal With in this section, Jt is e1ther the exceed·verb or the comparative predicate
The Exceed Comparattve
167
which is the main predicate in the constructiOn, wh1le the remammg predicate is overtly marked for ~ubordmanon. For e;~sc of reference, I wall usc the term 'Excecd-2 Comparative' toa· t:a~cs where the compt~raH nve predicate has been ;ubordinated, and the term 'Excecd-3 Comparative' for the opposite case. For a large majority of languages which have one of these types of Exceed Comparatives, a direct parallelism between the surface form of the comparative and the form of one of the chaining constructions (usually, the S-cham) can be established. A first case in point is lgbo. As we saw in section 4.1, simultaneous predicates in lgbo are deranked mto abstract verbal nouns, which are formed from verbal stems by means of the prefix aJ~e~; application of this deranking procedure requires identity of subjects. This formation of S-chains has a straightforward match in the Igbo comparative, in which the comparatiVe predicate is put into the form of an adverbially used abstract noun. Cp.: (18)
IGBO:
a.
Ha
no n'oce
na en
nrt
they sat down PRT eating food 'They sat down eating'
Ge ka m tke you exceed me strength 'You are stronger than me' A similar case of surface parallelism can be documented in Marg~. In the Exceed-2 Comparative of this language, the comparative predicate has the form of an abstract nommal; it is constructed here as the complement of the preposition de 'with', and thus functions syntacncally as part of an adverbial phrase. This same adverbial construction 1s used to derank predicates in S-chains; in this case, the preposinon de has an infinitive (which, in this language, IS a nominalized form) as its comple~ ment. This type of •imultaneous deranking can be apphed only if there is Identity of subjects in the chain. Cp.: (1 9)
MARGI:
a.
Nanda ga sha de wiwt they SUBJ came with run-INF 'They came running'
•.
Na;a ga mdia -da de dzegam-kur he SUBJ exceed-me with tall -ABSTR. NOUN 'He is taller than me'
The situation in Banda is practical1y identical to that in Margi. Again,
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
168
we find that the comparative predicate is nominalized into an abstract noun, and that it forms a part of an adverbial phrase as the complement of the preposition de. Here, too, the comparative is matched exactly by the formation of S-chains; predicates in such chains are deranked under subJect-identity Into mfinitives, which must, in this construction, be preceded by the preposition de. Cp.: {20)
BANDA:
a.
Anda ne mo dere
ne ze
de
ayan
house of me exceeds of you with bigness 'My house ts bigger than your house'
b.
Se sete gute
de
ke mbt iti
m
he was returnmg with JNF smg song his
'He returned, singmg a song' In Bari, we find a ca.!>e of the Excced-3 Comparative; the comparative predicate is the 1nain verb in the construaion, while the verb tongun 'to exceed' is deranked mto an infinitive, by reduphcation of the first syllable of the stem. It turns out that such infinitives can also be used as partioples (Spagnolo, 1933: 232), that i•, they may represent deranked predJcates inS-chains under identity of subJects: (21)
BAR!:
a.
A
ktrut Iopeng kwekwindye ngwayik ko
and then he
showed
mugun
the-boys with body
nanyit ~ miJ -mOkin his-own. INF-try
'And then he showed it to the boys with his own body, trymg (the exercises)'
b.
KOrsuk a lokong to -tongun joko is wise INF-exceed 'KOrsuk is wtser than jOkO'
K-
J.
The formanon of the comparative in Yagan is essentially parallel to
Bari. Yagan, too, has an Exceed-3 Comparative; in this case, the exceedverb manaan has been marked by the suffix -a, an element which turns out to be the regular marker for Present Partic1ples. Unfortunately, no full sentence. in which such a Present Participle is used are available. Cp.: (22)
YAGAN'
a.
KikJi-keia manaan-a him -ACC exceed -PCP. PRES 'more ~tnful than him'
ulpaki smner •
The Exceed Comparative b.
169
Kuru-a love -PCP. PRES 'loving'
Uet
-wOschtagu-a
adultery-do -PCP. PRES 'committmg adultery'
Wolof JS one of the rare cases where the Exceed Comparative has a direct surface parallel in a consecutive action construction. In this language, there exists a Consecutive Form, whtch is used w represent posterior predicates in C-chains. Formally, such a deranked predicate consists of a verb in the (subordinate) SubJunctive Mood, preceded by the marker a; identity of subJects 1s obligatory in rh1s construction. Exactly the same construction is used to express NP-comparison. Cp.: (23)
WOLOF:
a.
Dem na ma a• 0 ko go JND l SER. MARK caii-5UBJUNCf hun 'I went and called him' •
na a• bakh gen your mother exceed IND SER. MARK is-good-SUBJUNCf sa bat
Sa
ym
your father 'Your mother
IS
better than your father'
Next, let us take a look at the three Bantu languages in the sample. As might be expected, these languages employ basiCally the ;arne procedure in the formatiOn of their comparatives. In particular, they represent the subordinate predicate in their respective Exceed Comparatives in the form of a noun, which is marked by a prefix as a member of the nomm<1l class of abstract nouns and infimrives. Starting With Swahili, we can note that the primary comparative in this language is an Exceed-3 Comparative, m which the exceed-verb -shtnda has been nommalized by means of the infinitival prefix ku-: (24)
SWA/11/,J:
Mti huu ni mrefu ku -shinda ule tree this is big INF-exceed that 'This tree is taller than that' The use of an infinitive in the Swahili comparative is matched by the fact that such form~ mny al~o be used to rcprcl'!cnt ont.:: of the pred1c\tc~ 111 an
l /0
Testmg the Set of Chaming-based Umversals
\ dr.nrr d thrrr ,., ~tkntlly of o,uhw<.r~. In th1s <'.tM:, the.· two ~unulranl.:ous p1 cJiCi.ltc::. are JOined together by the connective particle na, an item wh1ch can only be followed by nominals and which IS best regarded as the equivalent of the Enghsb preposition with. Loogman (1965: 376) writes, 'When two coordinated verbs are joined together by na, the st:cond fonn is always an infinitive. Between two personal [i.e., non· 6-nte] verb-forms the coordmating na cannot be used.' Brauner and
Bantu (1964: 146) state explicitly that the construction in which na is followed by an Infinitive is limited to simultaneous action, and that idenmy of subJects is obhgatory. An example of the construction at issue
..
) <'
{25)
SWAHILI:
Tuliendela safari na ku -ona njaa we PAST-contmue·it JOurney PRT JNF·be hungry very 'We continued our journey and were very hungry' Another comparative construction in Swahili which appears to have been modelled on the ku-infinitive is the following (Ashton, 1947: 201): (26)
SWAHILI:
Nyumba nyake nzuri sana ku-Jiko nyumba yangu house his it-is good PRT house my 'His house is better than my house'
In this construction, the standard NP is marked by the particle kuliko. In ItS etymology, this item is the infinitive of a verbal stem -liko 'to be at, to he present'; in other words, the construction m {26) has as its literal meaning: 'His house is btg, while there is my house'. Given tltis analysis, one might propose that this particular comparative is an indeterminate case, somewhat similar to the comparative in Telugu (see section 2.5).
The ku/tko·comparative in Swahili is a construction which is modelled on the conditionally deranked simultaneous chain in that language, but, llntypically, this modelling has, in this case, not led to the selection of an 1!xceed-verb. Essentially the same situation as in Swahili can be encountered in Dual a, the only difference being that Duala has (in addition to its serial Exceed Comparattve; see section 8.2) an Exceed-2 Comparative instead
of an Exceed-3 Comparative. In its Exceed-2 Comparative, Duala encodes the comparative predicate in the fonn of an abstract verbal noun tn advcrbtal function. This abstract noun is characterized by the class prefix dt~IJ-. an element which also derives infinitives from verbal stems,
cp.:
The Exceed Comparative {27)
71
I>UM.A:
Milo e /Juki ngo" rangwa dog it exceed pig being-smart 'A dog is smarter than a pig' The chaining construction which matches this Exceed Comparative is completely parallel to the Swahili construction illustrated in (25). Again, we find that, in an S-chain with identical subjects, one of the predicates must be deranked into an infinitival form, which IS preceded by the preposition na 'with'. Cp.: {28)
DUALA:
Di sibi
na
jondea we climbed PRT descend-ABSTR. NOUN 'We climbed and descended' In Kirundi, the last Bantu language in the sample, both an Exceed-2 Comparative and an Exceed-3 Comparative are possible. In the former construction, the comparative predicate is encoded in the form of an (adverbially used) abstract noun in case the predicate is an adjective; if the comparative predicate happens to be a verb, it has the surface form of the infinitive, marked by the nominal class prefix ku-. ht this latter case, the infinitive may optionaUy be preceded by the preposition mu 'in': {29}
KIRUNDI:
A -rusba abaandi (mu) ku -kora he-exceed other.; in INF·work 'He works harder than others' ht the Exceed-3 Comparative, the exceed-verb -ruta has the form of the mfinitive marked in ku-; cp.: (30)
KIRUNDI:
Uyo ni mukuru ku -ruta
urya this is big INF·exceed that 'ibis is bigger than that' It can be demonstrated that these variants of the Exceed Comparative are matched directly by the simultaneous action construction 10 KJtundi. In this constmcrion, one of the simultaneous predicates lS conditionally derauked into an infinitive; again, this infinttive may optionally be preceded by the preposition mu. Cp.: (31)
KIRUNDI:
Ndarushe
mu ku -kora tire-PERF. lSG in INF-work 'I have tired myself while worktng'
·-
172
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
It should be added here that the form of the Exceed-3 Comparative Illustrated in (30) appears to be employed only when the comparative predicate is encoded as an adJective. If the comparative predicate has the form of a verb, the following type of construction is preferred: (32)
KfRUNDl:
A -karwilana a -ka -rusha ibrindi he-fight-PAST he-PRT-exceed others 'He fought better than the others' This latter construction is paralleled drrectly by the Narrative Form, a type of consecutive chain which occurs m various Bantu languages. in this construction, posterior predicates are marked for subordination by the narrative mfix -ka-. The Narrative Form presupposes identity of subjects in the chain. Cp.: (33)
KfRUNDl:
A -kiruka
a -ka
-gwa
he-run-PMT he-NARR-fall 'He ran away and fell' Summing up the cases of the Exceed Comparative diSCUSSed so far, we can state that they all show drrect surface parallelism wrth a conditionally deranked chainmg constructJon; typicaUy" tt is the S-chain which has been selected for this modelling funcnon. Thns, we can conclude that, for a large majority of languages with a primary Exceed Comparative, Universal2A is corroborated m the strongest possible way. Now, the last two languages with which we must deal in this chapter are less straightforward, in that the modelling of their Exceed Comparative on
their chaining formation seems to be tenuous, to say the least. The languages rn question are Hausa and Fularu, both West African languages; the speakers of these languages are in close contact, esperially in Northern Niger~a, but the languages are presumably not genetically related. First, let us present the relevant facts of Hausa. All consulted sources which offer mformation on the Hausa comparative (Marre, 1901; Mtschlich, 1911; Taylor, 1949; Abraham, 1941; Smrrnova, 1982) state that Hausa has a construction of the type which we have called the Exceed-2 Comparative. In this construction, the verb fi 'ro exceed' is the main predicate, wh1le the comparative predicate is morphologically encoded in a nommal form. In some cases, we find that this nominal form is actually a verbal noun, wh1ch ha~ been derived from verbal srem'i by means of one of several nominahzing suffixes. In other cases, the
..:omJMr,,tlve pred1.:Me is codified as
.l!l
abstrnct noun, wh1ch denote'> a
'
The Jix<eed Comparative
173
quality ('strength', 'badness', 'tallness', or the hke). Such abstract nouns are non·denved, primary lexical stents; from a formal point of view, one might say that 'adjectives' are in fact nouns in Hausa, or, alternatively, that in this language there 1s no distinct clas; of adjectives at all, An example of a Hausa comparative which contam~ such an abstract noun is the following: (34)
HAUSA:
Daki -n-nan ya-fi
daki -n-tshan girma
house th1s It -exceed house that 'Th1s house IS b1gger than that hou;e'
bigness
It should be added here that one author (v1z. Marre, 1901: 47) states that the nominal comparative pred1cate in a Hausa comparative may be optionally preceded by the preposition da 'with': (35)
HAUSA:
Marokachi ya-fis
' '
''
-shi da muganta beggar it -exceed-him with crazmess 'The beggar is crazier than h1m'
Now, if we look at the expressions for temporal chammg in Hausa, we find that an asyndetic coordination is the preferred procedure. It seems that C-chams can never be deranked in Hausa; the normal way to express consecutive actton seems to tnvolve the formation of a para tactiC strmg of finite verbs. A typical example is:
''
j
(36)
HAU.;A:
Di/a
1
ya janye
nama, ya tafi
waJe
, ya tshanye
jackal he took-away meat he went outs1de he ate ~The Jackal took away rhe meat, went ou~idc and ate 1t' With simultaneous chains, too) a balanced con~trucuon .seems to be the rule. An example IS (37), taken from Smirnova (1982: 41):
'
(37)
HAUSA:
Ya-fi
, (kuma) ya-(i su it -exceed them abundance also it -exceed them amfani I
i
'
i
su
yawa
use 'It is more abundant, and also more useful than they are' However~ in the case of simultaneous chammg Hausa turns out to have a secondary option, wh1ch mvolves the use of pre~ent parttelples. These partiaples are denved from vethal nouns by the prefix mal-. EtymologJcally,
this prefix seems to be a contraction of the prepositic;m ma 'to· and the
17·1
Testmg the Set of Chammg-based Universals
pe1sonal pronoun yah 'he'. Hence, tts origmal meanmg must be thought of as somcthmg like 'the one to whom IS •• .' or ·rhe one who has .. .'
(Abraham, 1941: 28); thus, the participle mai-zuwa 'coming' would mean literally 'the one to whom an event of coming ts~. Gaven this an.1lysis of the prefix ma1-, 1t w11l not be surprising that this prefix can also be used to derive possessor nouns from concrete nouns (cp. mai-doki 'horse owner' from dokJ 'horse'), and that It can even derive attributive mod1fiers from abstract nouns. In other words, the encoding of adjectival notions in Hausa is diametrically opposed to that m English. Whereas in English the attributive adjective good may be derived into the abstract noun goodness, in Hausa the primary abstract noun kyau 'goodness' is the basis upon which the attributive modifier mai-kyau 'good' can be formed. 'The use of mm-partioples m the representation of one of the predicates in a Hausa S-chain turns out to be restricted by condrttons of subjectidentity. The following example, taken from Mischlich (1911: 19) IS an illustration of this pomt: [38)
HAUSA:
Matshe ma1-azumt
ta
-na zamne tshan
woman PCP-fast
she-is sitting there
%e woman is sitting there fasting'
Fmm thrs we may conclude that the Exceed Comparative in Hausa is indirectly matched by at least a secondaty posSibility in this language to fo ·m conditionally deranked Simultaneous chains. G1ven the facts of Hausa presented above, the reader may well wonder why I conSider th1s language to be problematic at all. It IS true that Hausa IS only an indirect confirmation of Universal 2A, whereas all other languages in this class show direct surface parallelism. But, one might argue, the fact that a language does not show overt surface parallelism has not kept us from rating, say, Brim as a confirmation of Universai3A. In short, one m1ght ask why indirect confirmation in the case of Universal 2A should be any worse than mdrrect confirmation for other universals. Nevenheless, I still thmk that the situation in Hausa gives rise to some problems. These problems are not of a mere correlational nature; on that score, the facts in Hausa are not in confhct w1th the prediction made by Universal 2A. To me, the main problem with this language is that the facts seem to be at odd• with the background assumption wh1ch forms the basis of the set of chaining-based universals. As we stated in chapter 5, the mam claim in this study is that temporal chaining must be seen as the conceptual model of companson, and that hence the encoding of the comparattve construction is parasttic on the encodmg of (one of) the
The Exceed Comparative
175
chaining constructions in a given language. Now, with all other cases of
the Exceed Comparative thos modelling relat!On has been shown to be oompletely straightforward. Indeed, for these languages one might go as far as to say that the oomparative construction IS a temporal chain, mstead of being merely modelled upon it. In Hausa, however, the relatwn between the relevant temporal chain and the Exceed Comparative 1S unclear. Thus, we do not find that present partiCiples of the type presented in (38) can appear as the expression of the comparative predicate; a sentence like (39)- which, if it occurted, would constitute a case of direct surface parallelism- IS ungrammatical: (39)
f/AUSA:
'Daki -n-nan mai-girma
ya-fi daki -n-tshan house this PeP-bigness it -exceed house that 'This house is bigger than that honse' In short, one cannot suppress the feeling that a simulcaneous chain like (38), conditionally deranked though it may be, is not really the model upon wh1ch the formalization of the Hausa comparative is based. This uneasy feeling about the data in Hausa is strengthened further by the fact that, in this language, we can identify another syncactic pattern wh1ch, unlike temporal chaining, does seem to provide a direct parallel to tbe Exceed Comparative. In the formation of adverbial manner-phrases, abstract nouns are commonly used in Hausa. In this case, they must be preceded by the preposition da 'with', an element which - as we saw in (35) - may also optionally precede the abstract noun on the Exceed Comparative. An example of this formation of manner adverbials in Hausa is: (40)
HAUSA:
Audu ya zo da zaufi A. he come-PAST with rapidiry 'Audn came quickly'
G1ven the obvious parallel between a sentence like (40) and the Exceed Comparative, one might conclude that the Hausa comparative is not so much a special case of temporal chaining as, rather, a special instance of adverbial modification. This conclusion runs counter to the general modelling-assumption which forms the background of our chainingbased universals. Evidently, all our troubles with Hausa would be over if it could be demonstrated that, in natural languages, the encoding of manner adverbials also takes some form of temporal chatning as its model. While there is evidence that such an assumption ts not completely Without grounds, 4 it will be understood that a systematic exploration of
176
Testmg the Set of Chainmg-based Universals
this latter modelling-assumptiOn is way beyond the scope of the present study. Turning now to the situation m Fulani, we find that it is similar to tha.t Ill Hausa In a number of significant respects. Fulani, too, has ~ in addition to Its Mixed Comparative; see section 2.5 - an Exceed-2 Comparative, and again we find that the comparative predicate in this construction has received a nomina] form. Since in Fulani, as opposed to Hausa, predicates which denote qualities are morphologically encoded as verbs, Fulam shows no variacion in the form of the nominal in the comparative construction. In all cases, we find that the Infinitive is used, a nommal form derived from verbal stems by suffixes such as -ugo, -de or -ki. Leith-Ross (1922: 57) notes that this infinitive in the comparative can optionally be preceded by the preposition 1 'with'. Examples of the Exceed Comparative in Fulam include: (41)
FULANI:
a.
Samba buri
Amadu
mawn~de
S. exceed A. big ·samba ts taller than Amadu'
b.
-INF
Zaznabu buri Fatdima i wad -ugo Z. exceed F. with be a utiful-INF 'Zama is prettier than Fatdima'
Similarities between Hausa and Fulani can also be observed in the possibilities for the expression of temporal chaining. Like Hausa, Fulani appears to be predominantly balancmg for both S-chains and C-chains: (42)
l'Ul.ANI:
a.
'0 may• 'o ach1 bmgel he died he left son 'He died leaving a son'
b.
'0 famtt fandu woru 'o tawi
dinarute o fudatti he split gourd one he found gold-coin he repeated 'He spht one gourd, found a gold-com and began again'
Also on a par wtth Hausa, Fulani has a secondary possibility to form partictples. These are essenua.lly adjectival forms, which agree m gender and number with the noun which they mod.fy. The formation of these participles is rather complex (see Gaden, 1909: 20). We will confine ourselves here to the formation of the Present Participle, wh1ch, in case it functions as a modifier of a singular noun With personal gender, is derived from the Present or Aorist Tense by means of the suffix -dol-zdo. Thus, from a fimte form like 'a !ami 'he rules' the Present Participle lamt-
The Exceed Comparatwe
177
do 'ruler, ruhng' can be formed; other examples of Present Participles are kallu-do 'bad' (from ha/11 'it is bad') and pent-do 'killer, kdlmg' from cl1c verb form fen '(he) kills'. To sum up, Fulani is essentially the same case as Hausa, and hence It confronts us with the same problem. The occurrence of Present Participles of the type Illustrated above guarantees that an (admmcdly not straightforward) correlanon berween the Exceed Comparanve and a condltlona.ly deranked S-chain can be established in Fulani; in this sense, Fulani is not
a counterexample to Universal 2A. However, infinitives like the ones employed in the Fulani Exceed Comparative are never used as the representation of deranked simultaneous or consecutive predicates, and, conversely, the Present Partictples which offer a secondary pos~tbthty of conditional simultaneous derankmg never appear as the form of the comparative predicate. A~ a consequence, the general moddhugassumption behind our universals IS brought mto jeopardy by the Fulam facts. In Fulani, hke in Hausa, we can observe a direct surface parallel between the formation of the Exceed Comparative and the en.:odmg of manner adverbials. Infinitives like tho;e wh1ch appear m the Exct'ed Comparative are freely used in manner-adverbial modification, preceded by the preposition i 'with': (43)
FUI.Al'il:
Mz windi i
hakkilo
I wrote with care 'I wrote carefully'
A second possib1hty for a direct parallel to the Exceed Comparative m Fulani IS offered by the encoding of purpose-constructions. It appears that, in such a final sequence, the posterior predacate can be condition. tHy derankcd into an infinitive (Leith-Ross, 1922: 52; Taylor, 1921: "9). Cp.: (44)
!'ULAN/:
Mt yeht hotJ -ugo ledde 1 went fetch-INF wood '1 went to fetch wood' Thus, Fulani could be rated as a direct confirmation of Umvcrsal2A 11 we are wilhng to accept that, just for thts once, an Exceed Comparative has been modelled on a purpose-construction instead of on a temporal ch un. Under this assumption, Fulani would be an exceptional case of the same type as Kanuri (see section 7.23), a language wh1ch IS, incidentally, are ally related to Fulam. But 1t goes Without saymg that th1s solution for the
Testmg the Set of Chaming-based Untversals
l?b
Fulm1 prohlt.·m ,.., opt·n to di..,putt', .tnd that it cmnot be dt·1m·d that thi~o~ lan:~u.\g,~ n.·prcwm ....1 rc(ah:1tr.1nt c.1~c, 1f not tor Umvc:r~allA, then tor our ~ct of chammg-based universals.
8.4 Factors in the surface variation of the Exceed Comparative In the introduction to thts chapter I claimed that the tripartite variation among the formal manifestanons of the Exceed Comparative does not consntute a typologically significant fact, and that the occurrence of this vananon must be attnbuted to the operation of independent structural
parameters. At this pomt m the exposition, I would like to elaborate on th1s suggestion, by pointing out one structural property w1th which the vananon in Exceed Comparanves seems to be correlated. This factor inv•)lves the way in which predicatwe ad1ectives are represented in the languages that are relevant here. Ewe look at the predicattve adja::tivewconstruction (i.e., the construe..
tion which is the eqwvalent of the English expression fohn is tall) in the lanJUages which have an Exceed Comparauve, we find a strtking opposition between two subgroups. In one group, predicative adjectives
are treated on a par with 'normal' verbs (albeit that 'adjectival' verbs are commonly restricted to one single tense or mood form). In other words, m these languages we can note a ca.tegorial overlap (and sometimes even
Identity) between the encoding of adjectival concepts (i.e., properties) and verbal concepts (typically, evems or states). Some examples of languages which are verby (see Ross, 1972) with respect to the categor· 1zauon of adJectives are: (·IS)
YORUBA:
a.
Mo lo I go-PRES. IND 'I go'
•
Mo tob1 I big·PRES.IND 'I am btg'
Onzsowo ni
mt
merchant COP I 'I am a merchant' ( 46)
MANDARIN:
a.
Wo k'iu I
'l go'
go-PR!:S. IND
The Exceed Comparalwe • h.
179
Wo kwai I
b•g·l'lU~. lNIJ
'I am big'
Wo shih tsai-tsjoe I COP rich-man 'I am a rich man' In other languages, the opposite affiliation has taken place. Here, prcdtcative adjectives are nouny; they are taken to belong to the same category as nouns, and appear in the same predacative construcnons as nouns do, opposed to verbs. Examples of nouny Exceed-languages are: (47)
MARGI:
a.
Na1a a he
-wi
PRES-run
'He runs'
b.
Naja ngu
COP brother-your
'He is your brother' (48)
SW AH/Ll:
a.
A -li
-kwenda
3SG·PAST·go 'He/she went'
b.
Mti m
mrefu
tree COP tall
'The tree is tall'
c.
Mtoto huyu ni
mwivi
boy this COP th1ef 'This boy is a thief' In Hausa, we find that there are no (or almost no; see Abraham, 1941: 49) such elements as adjectives at all. Here, the assignment of a property to an individual (that is, the semantic function which is performed by our adjectives) is syntactically encoded by means of a complex which has the form of a prepositional phrase, consisting of the instrumental/comitative marker da 'with', and an abstract noun which denotes the intended property. Cp.:
180 (49)
Testmg the Set of Chaming-based Universals HAUSA:
da karfi Ya-na he-PROG with strength ~He is strong' I will view such 'prepositional' cases as a special instance of the nouny construction of predicative adjectives. I have no explanation to offer for this distinction between nouny and verby languages; that is, I do not know what makes a language choose either of these alternatives. l am of the opinion, however, that such an explanation would lie beyond the scope of this inquiry in any case. Sinc.e the dtstmction between nouny and verby adjective-categorization is not hm1ted to languages with an Exceed Comparative, it is safe to assume that the princ1ples undcrlymg this distinction are largely independent of the pnnciples which govern the chmce of a particular type of compara~ rive. What is Important here is that, apparently, the cho1ce between the van ants of the Exceed Comparative is correlated with the nouny 01 verby character of a language. Moreover, this correlation turns out to hold as a bt-directional tmp!tcation. If we look at the 20 Exceed-languages in the sample, we find that the followmg implications obtam: (50) a. If a language has an Exceed-1 (t.e., a serial) Comparative, tl ts
verby. If an Exceed-language is verby, it has an Exceed-1 Comparattve. b. If a language has an Exceed-2 Comparative or an Exceed-3 Compar.J.ttve, it ts nouny. If an Exceed~language ts nouny, it h.JS either an Exceed~2 or an Exceed-3 Comparative. A few languages may illustrate this remarkable parallelism. Examples of languages wtth an Exceed-1 Comparative and verby adJectives are: (51)
YORUBA:
a.
Mo tobt I big-PRES 'I am big'
b.
Mo tobt 1u u I big-PRES exceed him 'I am bigger than him'
(52)
MANDARIN:
a.
Wo kwai I btg-PRES 'lam b1g'
The Exceed Comparattve b.
181
Wo pt nt kwai I exceed you big '] am bigger than you'
On the other hand, languages with an Exceed-2 Comparative (like Igbo) or an Exceed-3 Comparative (like Swahili) are typiCally nouny: (53)
/GBOc
a.
alo load Is-describable-as heavmess 'The load rs heavy'
b.
Ibu d ka ibu aho alo load thts exceed load that heaviness 'Thts load is heavter than that load'
(54)
SWAH/L/c
a.
j\1tz nz mrefu tree COP brg 'The tree is tall'
b.
Mtz huu ni mrefu ku -shinda ule tree thi::. COP big INF-excccd that 'This tree i::. taller than that one'
Ibu dt
In thts context, a particularly telling case is presented by Duala. Th 1s language has both an Exceed-1 and an Exceed-2 Comparative. Th1s fact can be correlated with the fact that m Dual a some adJeCtiVal notions a1 e encoded a":: verb::., whereas others are encoded as nouns: (55)
DUALA:
a.
Bono ba kola boat It big-PRES 'The boat IS brg'
b.
Bono bo kola buka ndabo boat It big-PRES exceed house 'The boat IS bigger than the house'
(56)
DUALk
a.
Modi e bwala M. COP-PRES. 3SG lazy/laziness 'Modi is lazy'
b.
Modt a bukt Edimo bwala M. he exceed E. laziness 'Modi 1s lazier than Edtmo'
cl(·~tmg
1H2 llm'-1,
W('
(an
thl' Stl of Chaming-based Unfl!('YStlls
lOIH.Judl'
th.n the dwkc (or one of the v.tri.mt~ of the
Exteed Comparative can be shown to be correlated With a parameter thai rs not unique for language~ with an Exceed Comparauve. To av01d mlSIJnderstandings, let me pomt out that the statements in (SO) are not mtended as an explanation for the Sllrface variation in Exceed Comparativ~ •.
These statemmts are purely descriptive observations, wh1ch register the -existence of a particular duster of properties in languages of a specific
type. Eventually, such observanons will have to be integrated m a bro.1der explanatory framework. For the moment, let it suffice to say that the variatoon in the forms of the Exceed Comparative is, in all probabihty, cau:.ed by factors which are mdependent of the typology of comparative con")trucnons as such.
8.5 Conclusion In this chapter we have tested Universal 2A agamst the facts of the 20 languages in the sample which have a primary Exceed Comparative. We hav., found that 18 of these languages confinn Universal 2A in the strongest possible way, by showing a direct parallel between their comparanves and one of the1r chaining constructions. Of the two problematic cases, Hausa and Fulam, the latter is a case in which the corr·parative has not been modelled on a temporal chain in the strict sense, but on the semantically cognate purpose-construction.
9 Derived-case Comparatives
9.1
Introduction
Now that, in the foregoing chapters, the primary mstances of the various subtypes of fixed-case comparatives have been examined, it remains for us to do the same for the other major type of comparative constructions, viz. the derived-case comparatives. Within the set of chaining-based universals, the relevant universal for derived-case comparatives is Universal I A, which reads as follows: UNIVERSAL
lA: If a language has a denved-case comparative, it must be balancing.
Thus, the first thing which we w1ll have to do in this chapter is to show that the languages with a primary derivakase comparative are languages in which temporal chains are (predominandy or obligatonly) expressed in the form of coordinations. For one subtype of derived--case comparatives, viz. the Conjoined Comparative, this demonstration can be very straightforward. We can even be a bit more specific about this class, and show that the following implication is valid: UNIVERSAL 4:
If a language has a ConJoined Comparative, it must have a balanced simultaneous construction.
For the remaining mstances of denved-case comparatives, the so-called Parncle Comparatives, the correlatiOn between the comparative and coordinated chaimng constructions is much more obscure; a d1scussion of these cases will be given in section 9.3 and section 9.4.
9.2 The Conjoined Comparative The 20 languages in the sample which make up the primary instances of the ConJoined Comparative all provide for straightforward corroboration
..184
__ ..•..._.;....._....;.·-----"-
-..;·
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
of Universal lA and Universal 4. This, of course, IS hardly surprising; mdeed, the existence of languages with a Conjoined Comparative has been one of the prtmary reason<.t for setting up the set of chaining-based universals in the first place. Smce the languages in this class have a S~ struc~
comparattve construction whtch has the surface form of a balanced
chain, a statement to the effect that such balanced simultaneous tures are poss1ble in these languages becomes almost trivial. Therefore, l trust that the data presented below will need no further comment: (1)
a.
ABIPON:
Negetmk chik nali , oagan nihirenak Ia dog not bad yet ttger 'A ttger IS more ferocious than a dog'
Eneha klatum-keen evenek,
nad
already bad
oagan netachkaik
he maybe beautiful yet bashful 'He 1s beautiful, but neverthdeS$ bashful' (2)
a.
CAYAPO:
przk , bubanne ba i prt' you you b1g but I I small 'You are bigger than me' Gan ga
Ga }a , nium no you stand he lie-down 'You are standmg, and he is lying down' (3)
a.
DAKOTA:
Mastmgcala ktng waste, tka singthela
king sice
rabbit the good but rattle-snake the 'The rabbit is better than the rattle-snake'
'Iyaye -wact , tka oyuspapz want-go-3SG but catch-3SG. ACC.-3PL 'He wanted to flee, but they caught him' {4)
a.
BKAGI:
Akta oaa
ko ibo ko beu , ama ko ibo
your house 11 b1g It not my 1t 'My house is bigger than your house'
Ino
big
JOoni-gai , tno animakz-gaz some stand-PRES. 3Pl. , some sit -PRES. 3PL
'Some are standing and some are stttmg'
bad
Derived-case Comparatives (5)
GUMBA/NGG/R:
a.
N7ammi djammet jungu , nigar darut woman very bad man good 'The man ts better than the woman'
b.
Gudgu mgar nayinggt dulungmt over-there man sit-PRES smtle-PRES 'The man ts sitting there smihng'
(6) a.
H/XKARYANA:
b.
(7)
185
Kaw-ohra naha W araka , kaw naha Kaywerye tall -not he-1s W. tall he-1s K. 'Kaywerye is taller than Waraka' Hohtyakon hati , nenahyakon hatz she-was-pickmg-it they-say she-was-eating-it they-say 'They say that she was pickmg It and eatmg tt' KOBON:
a.
U kub u pro that big th1s small 'This IS bigger than that'
b.
Pi hagub a7ang a/ -ei -a child pandanus-fruit pith shoot-DUR-REM. PAST. 3SG nap au astk mid-et -a his-father there sit be -DUR-REM. PAST. 3sc 'The child threw down the piths of the pandanus-fruit, and ht~ father was sitting there (i.e., at hL~ father who wa~ stttmg then-)'
(8)
MANGARAY/:
a.
' Ngaya nga-balayi , nangt na -JtJga I lSG-big you 2SG-small 'I am btgger than you'
b.
Na-wuwa balan na-wunggu daymmgan this-stde non-sacred that-side sacred 'Thts stde is not ~acred, that side ts sacred'
(9) a.
MAORI:
He
waka pakari tenet , he waka ou INDFF. ART canoe old this-one INDEF. AR1 canoe ne\v ten a that-one 'Thts canoe 1::. older than that canoe'
'J e~tmg the Set of Charnmg~based Umversa/s
I 86
b
E
anam taku , e apara tone PRES orange mine PRE~ apple hers 'I have some oranges, she has some apples'
(10)
MENOMINJ:
a.
Apeqsek tata'hkesew , nenah teh kan more he-is~strong I and not 'He is stronger than me'
b.
Nekanet wekewam , eneq teh weh~amehneh rot-PERF house thus and topple~PRES 'The house has rotted, and therefore It is toppling'
(1 1)
MISKITO:
a.
Yan kau tukta , man almuk I more young he old 'I am younger than him'
b.
• Man disa , man yamm sna he drink-PRES. 3SG he good be-PRES. 3SG 'He drinks and is merry'
(12)
MIXTEC:
a.
Luu caa nuu yaha, nasuu nuu ndtjnu good very people this not people Tlaxiaco 'This people is better than the Tlaxiaco people'
b.
Chunaa yo pasaje yo te quihin yo pay ADHORT. 1PL passage our and go ADHORT. I PI. 'Let us pay our passage and go there'
(13)
MONUMBO:
a.
Tsek angam, ek put you tall I short 'You are taller than me'
b.
Korumbe mho-wen , pangarang mbo~wen children 3PL -die adults 3PL -die 'Both children and adults may die'
(1 !}
MOTU:
a.
Ina na namo herea, una na dta namo thts Js good more that is not good 'Th1s is better than that'
Denved-case Comparattves
187
E gwauheni-gu , e kwadt-gu he scold -me he beat -me 'He scolded me and thrashed me' (15)
CLASSICAL NAHUATL:
a.
In
Petolob cualli , zan oc-cencah cua/li in Xuan ART P. good but more good ART X. 'John is better than Peter' Ni-cocoxqui , zan ti -quaJ/i I -sick but you-good 'I am sick, but you are well'
(16)
PALA:
a.
A
hansik kanin , a tamat kanin the small-one this the big-one that
'This one is smaller than that one'
Da enum ra tamat ma da so one-will eat the big-ones and one-will plant ra hansik the small-ones 'The big ones (i.e., yams) wdl be eaten and the small ones will be planted'
(17)
SAMOAN:
a.
Ua loa lenei va'a , ua puupuu lena is long this boat is short that 'This boat is longer than that boat' Ua lelei isi tama , ua leaga zsz tama is good some boys is bad some boys 'Some boys are good, some boys are bad'
(18)
SHIPIBO:
a.
Nato aibo bakun , wuitsa kiskaribi thiS woman beautiful others not-be-so
'This woman is more beauttful than others' b.
E ra kai sobo -n , xunz sobo -wuowuon yakatt I am going house-in man house-near sit 'I went into the house, but the man remamed stttmg near it'
(19) a.
SIKA:
Dzarang ttca gahar , dzarang rez kesik horse that big horse this small 'That horse is bigger than this horse'
"
188
Testing theSetofChaming·based UniversaLs
b.
Cilu caung cenang nei manu , trap my catch PERF chicken crlu aung cenang net buro trap your catch PERF falcon 'My trap has caught a chicken, and yours has caught a falcon'
(20)
YAVAPAI:
a.
mme: rav -a kmtuqwath-c ke watcrmelon-DEM-SUBJ tasty very-TNS cantelope ·SUBJ not . ' mme: rav -a om-z tasty very-TNS not-TNS 'Watermelons are tastier than cantelopes'
b.
Ktthtye-v
Kmtu
·V
·C
·c pa ·qeyat-i , pa -kelkyoa-c doctor ·DFM·SL'BJ person-much-PRES person-police ·SUBJ
pe msay-e and mean-PRES 'Doctor~ are nch and policemen are mean' With respect to the comparative constructJ.on in thts last language, Yavapai, Kendall (1976: 146) remark.: 'Such implicit or explicit cornparathes are obviously not derived by transformational operat1ons. They are straightforward strings of sentences, loosely conjoined or not conJoined at all.' Somewhat further, the author states as her op1n1on that ·rhe derivatiOn of Yavapai "comparatives" is netther problematic nor parttcularly Interesting. Given that they are formally equivalent to other assertions, they may be accounted for in the PS-rules for non-complex declarative sentences' (ibtd.: 147). Gtven the general framework of the present study, it will be evtdent rhar I disagree with Kendall's contention that Conjoined Comparatives hke the one m Yavapai are 'not particularly interesting'. On the ~.:ontrary> l da1m that the occurrence of such comparatives ts primary evidence in favour of our hypothesis that, in natural languages, the formal expres~ sion of comparison is modelled on the codification of temporal chaimng. Tins pomt asJde, however, Kendall's remarks are right on target.
9.3
Particle Comparatives
Although Particle Comparatives form a residual category which, in all probahrhty, i• nor homogeneous, they share ar least the feature that they ,nc 1!1\t.l!H..l'l, o( dcnvcd-~.:.1\L' ~.:omp.u.uivc!-. Therefore~ the muv<.•r-..,1
"
7
Derived-case Comparatives
189
which is relevant to them IS Universal lA; we should be able to demonstrate that languages with a Particle Comparanve formalize thetr chaining constructions preferably as coordinated structures. The exarnination of the 18 cases of pnrnary Particle Comparative~ m the sample can be structured on the basrs of the fact that, m many constructions, the comparative particle can be identified Js an Item whrc h performs yet other function:. m the language. Thus~ for example~ we fird in a number of cases that the comparative parttcle is also in use as the marking element in some type of coordmate construction. Most of the examples that are relevant m this context have already been presented m section 3.3~ so that a brief summary may suffice here. First, the sample contains one example of a Parucle Comparative In which a straightforward parallel between the comparative and t1e expre:.:.ton of and-coordination can be established. In Javanese, the particle karo marks the standard NP m comparatives, but is also employed as a conjunction or adverb whteh marks (;~multaneous aod consecutive) chams (see sentences (3.4a!b)). Secondly, there are languages m the sample whiCh employ a compa··ative particle which is also used as an adverbral element in a balam ed consecutive cham. Such is the case m T obJ Barak, where the com par .lt,\ e particle asa can be identified as a temporal adverb Wtth the meanmg 'then', 'and after that' (see examples (3.5a!b) ). In Standard Dutch, we note that the item dan, which mtrodu.:es standard NPs and standard clauses m comparatives, ts at least homonymous, if not htstorically Identical, to the temporal adverb dan 'th(n', which mtroduces the second member of a paratactic, and balJnLed, temporal cham (see examples (3.6alb)). Several author., on the dtachronic syntax of Engli!:.h {Matzner~ 18>50; Skeat, 1901; Small, 1923; Curmc, 1931) claim that the English comparative particle than is historically identical to the adverbial item then, which marks consecutive successiOn of balanced pred1cates or clause~. However, the identification of English than with then is not undisputed; fo1 an alternative analysis sec, for mstance, Joly (1967). We will say more about the properties of the comparative construcnon of Enghsh in the next section. For the moment, we will confine ourselves to the observation that, whatever the status and origin of the part1cle than may be, Enghsh If!. certainly a confirmation of Umversal 1A, smce temporal chams are preferably balanced in this language. Finally, in section 2.5 we discussed the status of the element nona m the comparative of GoaJiro. We argued there that this Item musl be looked upon as an adverb (meanmg 'thereafter') rather than
Testmg the Set of Chammg-based Umversals
] 90 ( .o,IJII~) I'~
.llangu.tgc w11h ,1 P:lrttdc <:omparauvc. Tlw, f.1u rhat l.~cham~ 111 GoaJJro .1re balanced: (21)
t:-t
nl.lh.hctl hy lhl'
GOA}IRO:
Na ~sanai terta-ka , na ~Jeehai they-took-It mat -the they-brought-it 'They took away his mat and brought it with them' A thtrd group of Pamcle Comparatives is formed by constructions in wh~eh the comparative parude is represented by an item which has also
the function of marking adversative relation between coordinated sentences or clauses. This is probably 1 the case in the primary comparative .:onstruction In Basque, where the comparative particle barnolbainan functions as the adversative conjunction 'but' (see examples (3.8a/b)). The same observations as for Basque can be made in the case of Ilocano wtth regard to the status of the comparative particle ngem (see sentences (3.9.,/b)), In thts connection, we should also recall that the element but is sometimes used as a replacement of comparative than in earlier English and m several modern English dialects (see sentences (3.10) and (3.11)). A'i a fourth type of Particle Comparative, we must call attention to the comparative construct10n m Scotttsh Gaelic, where standard NPs and standard clauses are marked by the particle na (see sentence (3.16a)). This particle na functioned in all Middle Celtic dialects as the marker for negative coordination 'nor' (see Lewis and Pedersen, 1974: 187), and continues to do so in a number of Modern Celtic languages. Thus, apparently, Scottish Gaelic has modelled its comparative on balanced chaias which have a negativewconjunctive interpretation. This situation is matched by Scottish English, m which the element nor is used as the particle of companson (see sentences (3.14aib)). Positive temporal chains (both simultaneous and consecutive) are expressed in Modern Scottish Gae.ic by means of balanced constructions with the connective particle agm 'and'. Thts particle also function~ as the marker of the comparative of equality. Cp,: (22)
SCOIT/SH GAELIC:
Is beag agus mt 1s small PRT me 'He ts as small as me' In connection with this type of Particle Comparative, we should also repeat that a comparative parucle with the original meanmg 'nor' is also present m (one of the variants of) the Particle Comparative in Latvian (see sentences (3.18alb)). A fifth variant of the Particle Comparative is represented in the
Denved-case Comparattves
191
..,,11nplt· hy CLlsl-.lcnl Gn·c:k. Tht~ l.111~tl.l~<.· ,·mploy~ ,, rmnp.lr.ltiVt'IMrUdc
e, wluch l!:. 1dentu.:al to the ttcm wh1~.:h connects bJI.mccJ lh~)unct1ve clauses or phrases (see sentences (3.12alb)). It should be noted that posittve, non-disjunctive tempnral chains in Classical Greek are balanced (though not obligatorily so; see section 10.5). Both in S-chains and C-chains the conjunction kai 'and' can be used: (23)
CLASSICAL GREEK:
Hoi polemioi etoxeusan kai Kleomenos the enemies-NOM shoot-AOR. 3PL and K.-NOM etoxeuthi
ilioot-AOR. PASS. 3SG 'The enem1es shot (their arrows) and Kleomenos was hit' Funhermore, it should be recalled that a comparative particle with the original meaning 'or' can also be encountered in East- and Westflemish (see examples (3.13a/b)), in Gothic, and in several other languages (see section 3.3). In the above five groups of Particle Comparatives, the connection with coordinated structures is fairly direct; all comparative panicles discussed so far are coordinate markers of some sort. In other cases of Particle Comparatives, this connection is less transparent; there are even cases where the particle employed is unique for the comparative construction, and where the etymology of the item <>ffers no decisive indication of its categor1al status. In a Sixth group of Particle Comparatives, we lind that the panicle IS also 10 use as an element with the meaning 'like' or 'as'. In all of these cases, th1s element does not govern a fixed-case NP, so that it cannot be classified as a preposition. A very straightforward example of a 'like'-comparanve can be observed m Sranan. In the primary comparative of this language, standard NPs are preceded by the element /eki, which has irs direct origin in the English conjunction like: (24)
SRANAN:
I-lugo can !on moro betre leki Rudi H. can ron more better PRT R. 'Hugo can run better than Rudi' In its representation of temporal chaining, Sranan has the ability to form serial verb strings; this possibility is matched directly by the older, secondary, Exceed Comparative (see section 10.3). The pnmary Particle Comparative of Sranan is matched by the fact that balanced temporal chaining is the predominant option:
192 (25)
Testing the Set of Chaimng-based Universals SRANAN:
Mi btgt , da
yu ptkin I b1g and you small 'I am b1g and you are small' A second language m the sample in wh1ch the comparative pamcle is an 1tem w1th the meaning 'hke' 1s Malagasy. According to Ferrand (1903: 165), the element noho, which appears as the comparative particle, must be translated as Fr. 'comme': (26)
MALAGASY:
Lehtbe noho ny zana-ny Rabe tall PRT the son -his R. 'Rabe IS taller than his son'
The Parocle Comparative in Maldgasy has its match in the predominantly balancing formalization of temporal sequencing. In cases of sentential coordination, the connective item ary 'and' is used, while the conJunction sy 'conJoins only phrases, never sentences' (Keenan, 1978: 320). Cp.: (27)
MALAGASY:
a.
Mtsotro taoka Rabe ary mihinam-bary Rabe drmk alcohol R. and eat -rice R. 'Rabe is drinkmg alcohol and Rabe is eating rice'
b.
Misotro taoka sy mihinam-bary Rabe drink alcohol and eat -rice R. 'Rabe is drinking alcohol and eattng rice'
In Modern Hungarian, the normal particle in comparatives ts the element nuntlammt, which is also m use as the marker of the comparison of equality 'hke'. Etymologically, the element mtntlamint is probably an obsolete case form of the neuter interrogative/relative pronoun amt 'what'. Cp.: (28)
HUNGARIAN:
a.
Istvan magasa-bb mtnt Peter I. b1gger PRT P. 'Istvan is b1gger than Peter'
•
Fenyltk vala mtnt a vtllam sparks were hke the hghming 'The sparks were like hgbtmng'
Accordmg to Suuony1 ( 1907: 427-~). the '"e of the clement mmt ·" .1 m.lrkcr of comp.u·,..,on of mcqu.thry ,.., .1 rd.HIVdy recent dcvdopmcnl. In l'.1rlicr ,l,(,lJ!.l'" of llung.Jn.Hl, lOIIlhlll.liiOil\ of the dcnwnl 1111111 'l!l..c' wuh
Derived-case Comparatives
193
the negative 1tem sem were preferred m th1s function. The use of these complex forms has grJdually been abandoned in favour of the stmplex equality-marker., but a form like mmtsem 1s snll wtdely used m tnequallty~ comparatives whtch contain a standard clause: (29)
HUNGARIAN:
Kevese-bb htte vagyon mintsem az ordog-nek less fatth ts-to-htm like/than the devtl ·at 'He has le" fatth than the dml has' The situahon m Hungarian IS) 1n some respects) stm!lar m that In Larin. As we saw in sect1on 2.1, the pnmary comparative tn latin employs the parttcle q11am to front of standard NPs and standard clauses. As far as I have been able to find out, the etymology of the pantde qr
Fem1nme Singular of the relative/interrogative stem »quo-; m this way, quam should be taken to belong to the """e d""- of adverbtal formauons as the items tam 'so, so much' {derived from the demonstrative stem ,. to-), nam 'for, because, thus' (derived from the demonstrative stem "'no-}, and iam 'already' (from a pronomtnal stem •ro-). If this etymolof,Y of Latm quam i!, accepted, the element ha!io an ongm which IS &im1lar to that of Hungarian mi11t (see above). Another itmdarity wtth HungJn.ln IS the fact that Latin quam has also a limited po&&ibihty to mark equ..tlity) 1:1 the combination tam ... quam 'as much ... a&'. Cp.: {30)
I.ATIN'
a.
Ctcero est eloquentior
quam Cato
C. t> more-eloquent PRl C. 'Ctcero is more eloquent than Cato' b.
F.st tam dwes quam {rater i1 PRT rtch PRT brother 'l1e IS as r1ch as h1s brother'
Wlule the combtnatton tam . . . quam IS commonly used to expre% equality m Latin, tdenrity or dtfference usually requtrc the prc~ence of the particles ac or atque {see sentence (31a)). The elements ac and ..ztque occur freely as coordinators of balanced construt,;ttons, as sentence ( ~ 1b) w1H show. Now, the mreresung thmg I& thJ.t we cAn find Latm ::.entences in whach the equahty-constructwn (wtth tam-quam) and th~:: .<.tmliJnt~~ .:Ortstructton (with adatque) appear to have been contaminated (Ernout .1nd Mcillcr, 1979: 5Sl). That ''· next to tlw regular Ul'tWIKc of th<· sum h1 rltyMconstructwn 111 (31 b), we al ..o find '>4-:tUcncet. m whKh tht· p.n·tu.l('\ clc /,1/,f/11' h.lvt· hn·n n:pl.ltnl h)' tht·unu •!"•'"'·
194
Testmg the Set of Chatnrng-ba>ed Unrversals
(31)
LATIN:
a.
lllt sunt alio ingento atque tu they-NOM are different-OAT character-OAT PRT you-NOM 'They are of a different character than you' (Plautus, Eudolus, 1134).
•
Senatus ac populus et gent• ~ratus erat senate-NOM and people-NOM this-OAT tribe-OAT angry was 'The senate and the people were mad at this tribe'
An eandem Romams tn bello vzrtutem Q same-FE!d. SG. ACC Romans-OAT Ill war·ABL V!rtue-ACC quam m pace lascrvzam adesse PRT in peace-ABL mdiscipline-ACC be present-INF credztJs believe-PRES. 2PL ·or do you beheve that the Romans have the same VIrtue in war as the in
ALBANIAN:
Hekuri asht ma
rantie
se
guri the-Iron lS more the heavy-one PRT the-stone 'Iron is heavier than stone' t
If we look for further uses of the 1tem se, we find that it is some kmd of l:t16nn/U(\re.£11~dit:!.i!.i.n7,.g..m.u~1pa\:ok..Ln .it" ..fPNtk.\\Vtr\'S""CCigh;,u that or French que. Thus, It is used to mark direct object clauses like the
one in (33), and
Denved-case Comparattves (33)
195
ALBANIAN:
Tha
se
VJen
say-PAST. 3SG that come-PRES. 3SG 'He said that he wtll come'
According to most authors, the comparison of equality IS mdicated in Albanian by the element si 'like', The followmg example is taken from Weigand (1913: 49): (34)
ALBANIAN:
Asht i kuk1 st mol/a is the red:one hke apple 'It is as red as an apple' Whether there is a relation, or even identity, betweeTJ this latter item st and the comparative particle se remains unclear. Some authors make a clear distmction between the two items, while others seem to imply an 1dent1ty between them, by pomting out that both elements can also be used in instrumental adverb tal function, with the meaning of 'how'.2 As a last case of a 'hke'-comparativel we can adduce one of the variants of the Particle Comparanve in Latvian. In addition to the 'nor'comparative mentioned above, standard NPs m Latvtan comparatives can also be mtroduced by the clement ka 'like', which may be a fossilized locative adverb (see Endzelin, 1922: 467). To conclude this section, let us consider the Parttcle Comparatives in Russian, Finnish and French, which may be viewed as a seventh group. Above, we noted the cases of Latin and Hungarian, where a comparative particle is employed that has its etymologtcal origm in an oblique case form of the relative/interrogative pronoun. Now, in Russian, Fmmsh and French we find the >arne situation, the only difference with Latin and Hungarian being that the comparative particles in the former three languages do not occur as items with the meaning 'like'. The Russ1an comparative particle cem is generally considered to have been developed from the instrumental case of the neuter torm of the relative/interrogative pronoun cto 'who, what'. It may be added that the Russian instrumental case also covers essive functions, and must often be translated as 'as X, like (an) X'. An example of the Russian Particle Comparative is: (35)
RUSSIAN:
On umn7ee cem Ja he clever-er PRT I 'He is more clever than me'
196
Testing the Set o(Chainmg-based Universals
Modern French has a pnmary Particle Comparative in which the standard NP or clause is preceded by the item que- From a synchromc point of v1ew, thts parttde is homonymous with the general suborchnanon marker que ~that~; historit:ally, however, we have a case of syncretism here- While the subordinating marker que has Its origin in the Vulgar Latin subordinator quod (i.e., the Accusative Neuter of the interrogative/ relative pronoun stem *qu-}, the cornpararive particle que is onginally the Ablative Neuter of this same pronominal stem, viz. quo. A• the Ablative case disappeared m Old French, borh forms comc1ded mto quod, and hence they turned up as que m Modern French. We may conclude, then, that the ongmal mc:c1ning of the French compar,ltlve particle has been somethmg along the lines of 'by which'. An example of the Particle Comparanve m Modern French is: (36)
FRENCH:
Angilzque est plus channante
que Marte
A. 1~ more ch.1rn1111g·fEM PRT M. 'AngChque 1s more chanrung than Mar1e'
In the pnm.lf}' Particle Comparative in Fmni~h, the standard NP or standard dJuoe IS marked by the pattide kui11. Etymologically, thi; Item IS presumablr \ome fo~s1.hzcd loc.ltive case of the intercogative/rehJ.tiVe pronommal stem ku- (cp. also ku-n 'when', ku-nves 'until', ku-ka 'who?'). Th.1t the p.1rricle kum" not a •patial marker is clearly brought out by the fact that the standard NF which It precedes is not in a fixed case, but derives 1ts grammatical function from that of the comparee NP. Cp.: (37)
FINNIS/1:
Hiin on ptte-mpt kutn sma he IS big -PRT PRl you 'He is b1gger than you'
Hungarian, Latin, Albanian, Russian, French and Finmsh are all languag"" wh~eh h•ve d limited (and, m general, styli•tically marked) po~s1b1hty of derJ.nking the1r temporal chains under absolute condihon~; we will see in the next chapter that th1s possibility of deranking 1s matched by the secondary comparaTives of these languages. However, the unmarked way to cxpre~!! Slmulraneou~ and consecutive actiOn in
these languJgc!! 1~ to ...:on~truct VP!! or sentences as a balanced configura~ hon. in whKh 1lu.· nu:mh"·r' .u4,· 1)p1ully ("otHlrcrcd hy a conJU11Lt1011. Fx.unplro;; 1114. l11t It"
Derived.. case Comparatives {38)
{39)
197
HUNGARIAN:
janos egy a/matt vett es Vtlt 6t evett ]. one apple bought and V. 11 ate 'Janos bought an apple and VII• ate 11' l-ATIN:
Caesar venzt et vzcit C. come-PERF 3SG and conquer-PERF 3SG 'Caesar came and conquered~ (40)
Al-BANIAN:
At degJoi fishki!lltmiin e lokomotwes he heard whtstle-the-AC.t. of locomotive-the e pa trenm and saw train-the-ACC 'He heard the wh1~tle of the locomotive and sJ.w the tr.un' (41)
RU.\MAN:
On wysmorkalts1a i torzJestwenno ulybnu/tsJ.J he blew-nose and triumphantly smiled 'He blew ht~ nose and snuled mumphantl)' (42)
FRioNCH:
jean se levait et s'en allait ]. self lifted and went-away 'Jean stood up and left' ~43)
F!N/1:/SH:
Syo-t -mme ;a men-1 -mme elokuvt-tn cat -I,AST· 1PL and go -Pf\ST-1 rt ctncma-to 'We ate and went to the cine-ma'
Summarizing this section, we may conclude that Umver!:lal L\ t!:l confirmed for all 18 languages in the >ample which have some kmd of primary Parnde Comparative. Thus, the real problem wtth Particle Comparatave~ IS
not so much a mcttter of descnpnon; It IS rather a question of explanation. In contrast to what can be ob!:lc:rved for Conjomed Comp.lrativo, the modelhng functlOn of coord1nated chain~ is far from self~ev1dent m a number of in'itances of the Parttde ComrJrdtive. Indeed, lt looks as 1f the correlal!on between coordinated <.:h.uns and Particle Comparative&, real though ic may be, 1!. nothmg more rhan accidental for a number of relevant language!:!. Moreover, giVen that coordmated chams ar< already employed d> the model for Con1omed Comp.u.UJvc,, on~o: may
at .111.
well .l'.k wily P.Ht!dt• f'omp.lLitiVl""> ... hould
~·XI'>f
Testmg the Set of Charnmg-based Unrversals
198
Tlu: IX'lUIMr phc.·nomc.·non of l).trt1dc.· Comp.u',ltiVL'~ will be: dt~cu,..,~td further Ill d!Jpter 15 wuhm the general context ol Jil explanJtlon of comparatiVe-type choice. In ordrr to explore some ba&~c concepts whtch may play a role in such an explanation for Part1cle Comparatives, I will conclude thiS chapter with a more detailed discussion of the facts in two specific Particle Comparatives, VIZ. the primary comparatives in Dutch and English.
9.4
The comparative construction in Dtuch and English
In the precedmg sectiOn, we established that Dutch and Enghsh are both languages w1th a Particle Comparanve; their comparative particles are dan and than, respectiVely. Smce these two languages are both predommantly balancmg in thm formalizatton of temporal chaimng, they can he conSidered confirmations of Universal 1A. In this sectton, I want to d1scuss the comparanves in these l.mguages in some detail. I hope 1t w1ll become clear that the correlation between the occurrence of a Particle Comparative and the possibility of coordinated chainmg in these languages 1s not a merely accidental fact, but that it can, at least giVen some speofic assumpttons, be explamed on the baSts of the modellinghypothesis which forms the explanatory background of our investigation. Furthermore, I hope that this discussion will shed some more light on the peculiar status of Parncle Comparatives in general. From the facts in Dut< h and Engli•h, and from the contrasts which can be observed bern.een them, I thmk some m>tghts can be gamed which can be put to use in chapter 15 withm a more general explanatory context. E\en if we limit ourselves to pubhcations which were written Within the theoretical framework of transformational-generative grammar, the hterature on the comparative in English and other European languages is conSiderable. Apart from the role whtch the study of comparative• has play.,d m general theoretical debate, the construction Itself has been subJected to hngu1snc analys•s from various pomts of vJew, givmg rise to quesnons such as the corret."t phrase structure analys1s and transformational denvation of the constructiOn {lees, 1961; P1lch, 1965; Doherty and Schwartz, 1967; Bresnan, 1971, 1973; Klooster, 1972, 1979; Seuren, 197_1; Hendnck, 1978), the exact nature of the rule system needed to denve elhptical comparatives {Bresnan, 1975; Kuno, 1981 ), the negative polanty which can be observed in comparative clauses Uoly, 1967; Seuren, 1973; Mlttwoch, 1974; Napoh and Nespor, 1976; Cantrall, 197 7; Seuren) 1984) and the syntacto~semantic analysis of degree words (Klooster, 1976, 1978, 1979; Seuren, 1978).
Denved-case Comparatives
199
Dllkrcntly tuned .lppro.Khc'> lo thl' ~.:omp.lr.ltiV(' problem ~m·lmmd 111 pn:~>cnt-d.ty 'lonna! ~>cmJntlc::.', lll p.trtlcular 111 :,tmhc:, by Cr~.·M,well (1976), Hellan (1981), Hoeksema (1983), Klem (1980) and von Stechow (1984). These studies have in common a general predilectton for 'surface semantics', i.e., the view that no separate level of semannc representation is required for a semantic calculus to work upon. It is an exphcit aim, in th1s form of semantics, to circumvent all obstacles, traditiOnal or newly discovered, to surface semantics by the application of new formal techmques. Without denying relevance to such work tn other contexts, we mL1 St decide that in the context of the present study the relevance of this work IS, at least at this moment, not apparent. Thts is mainly due to the fact that the psychologtcal relevance of work m formal semantics is either low or not apparent, as is widely recognized. The present work, on the contrary, is clearly oriented towards criteria of psychological relevance (see part three), as is most work in universalist linguistics. Moreover, the surface semantics v1ew adopted in current formal semantiCS excludes accounts of grammatical structures m terms of historical reanalysis from ongmally transparent constructions. Now, as will be made clear in section 9.4.3, our analysis of Particle Comparatives IS based on the theory, proposed by authors such as Giv6n (1979), that historical development of grammancal structures often involves a process of 'grammaticalization', by which a semantically transparent construe~ tion 'jells' into a new and separate denved grammatical construction which is then no longer transparent_ Smce for formal semantics all constructions are by definition semantically transparent, provided a powerful enough formal apparatus IS applied to sentences, there is no room m formal semantics for a theory involvmg grammatical reanalysis through time. Yet, the evidence for such processes is 1mpress1ve. We shaH, as a general rule, leave the formal semantic treatments of comparatives undiscussed. Thus limiting ourselves to the framework of the present study, we must conclude that not all research results obtamed or claimed in those hngmsnc approaches that fall withm our scope are of equal relevance. To name but one top1c, It must be recalled that the approach adopted in this study is essentially model-neutral, at least as regards the models that fit into our framework. Hence discussions centrmg around the question of the exact formal nature of the (transformational or PS) rule system needed for the derivation of vanous types of comparative constructions are largely outside our domain of interest. We shall discuss the comparatives of English and Dutch with a specific problem in mind: our a1m here is to argue that, despite superficial mdtcations to the contrary, the Parnde Comparanves in the!>e languages can be shown to be modelled on
200
Testmg the Set of Chaining-based Universals
balanced chammg constructions, albeit that this modelling has come to be obscured by the operation of interfenng processes. Gtven th1s aim, the empirical issue whtch is of specific interest to us concerns the grammatrcal status of the Engltsh and Dutch comparattve clause (i.e., the clause followmg dan/than). In particular, it is of relevance for us to know whether this dame must be thought of as a subordmate clause or a mam clause; if the latter alternative can be made plausible, the conclusiOn must follow that the comparative in Dutch and Engh&h consists of two matn clauses, which would suggest an analysis of thts construction in terms ot coordmation. Related to this issue of the status of the comparative clause IS the matter of the categorial status of the comparative parttcle; gtven our general demarcation of the problem, it IS relevant for us to determine whether the items dan and than must be conceived of as preposrtions c.q. subordinating conjunctions, or rather as temporal adverbs wh1ch mark balanced chammg constructions. In what follows, I Will first deal with some structural properues ot the Dutch Particle Comparative. Following that, I will contrast the Dutch data with the facts of the Enghsh comparative. As it will turn out, the comparatives m the two languages have a significant number of features in common, but they can also be shown to differ in some interesting respects.
9.4.1
The grammatical status of the Dutch comparative clause
Apart from cases of NP-comparison like the one in (44), the particle dan 1n Dutch can be followed by a large variety of other structural units, such as full clauses (see (45a)), adJeCtive phrases (see (45b)), prepositional phrases (see (45c)), verb phrases (see (45d)), and strings which do not form single constituents (see (45e) and (45()): (44)
DUTCH:
Ik ben ouder dan mi1n nee( I dffi older than my cousin 'I am older than my cousin' (45)
DUTCH:
a.
Vltegen 1s goedkoper dan U denkt flying is cheaper than you think
b.
Ht] he
c.
1S
eerder dam
dan slecht
JS
rather stupid than malicious •
•
Onze ploeg speelt beter dan m het vorzge setzoen our team plays better than in the last sea~on
201
Deriued-case Comparatwes dan wordt verondersteld Joggen zs gevaarli1ker assumed Joggmg is more dangerous than is Ik besteed meer geld aan boeken dan Jan aan eten I spend more money on books than J. on food 'I spend more money on books than Jan does on food' Beter een vogel m de hand dan tien m de Iucht better one b1rd m the hand than ten m the sky 'A b1rd in the hand is worth t\vo rn the bush'
Now, with respect co comparative constructions like those in (45), It 1s generally assumed m the literature that they must be accounted for by the application of some procedure of ellzpsis) wh1ch relates them to ~truc tures wtth 'full' comparative clauses. The position on these 'incomplete' comparative clauses (whtch can be encountered not only 1n Dutch, but also in other languages with a Particle Comparative) IS summed up
succinctly by Hankamer (1973: 182), who,
tn
hi; dJScu;swn of the
Particle Comparatives m Latin and Classical Greek, writes: the conJunctiOns of compan~on [1.e., Latin qumn J.nd Greek e] may be followed by all kmd'i of com.tttuents, and even by non-commuents. Tlw-, \.l.m~e-1unk' can be accounted for only a!l- the remams of unded~mg full dJ.u::.e~ v.hu..h have undergone elhpsts. Any other ai..count would fail to capture the gencrahLJtton thJ.t the JUnk m comparanvc expresstons IS c1lways po!l-Mble left-overs from a full clause, and never, !l-ay, two verbs in succe~~•on, or three NPs m the genmve ca~e. Since the facts of the 'incomplete comparatives' in Latm and Clas\tcal Greek are completely parallel to the facts 10 Dutch, we w11l take Hankamer's analysis to apply also to the sentences in (45), and we will therefore assume that all these sentences have an underlymg representatiOn in which the comparative particle dan ts followed by a full, non-
elliptical clause. It should be added here that it ts a moot pomt whether tht'> elliptiCal analysis of the sentences m (45) can also be extended to cases of NPcompanson m Dutch. Hankamer (1973) argues that, at least m Enghsh, NP-compari::.on ha::. structural properties whtch are dtffcrent from those of clause-companson. Th1s leads him to the conclusron that, tn Enghsh, NP-comparatives are non-elliptical, and that therefore there must be assumed to exist two ttems than in Engli::.h, one element bemg a preposition wh1ch takes NPs as its complement, whtle the other ts a clause-ininal particle. I will present the mam points of Hankamer's argumentation tn sectiOn 9 .4.2, and demonstrate there that the structural differences between NP-comparison and clause-companson m English arc largely ab .. cnt in Dutch. For the moment, however, r wtfl not deal
202
Testmg the Set of Chatmng-based Unzversals
wnlt .1\t"'> ol NP-uunp.m'lnn 111 Dutth~ I will coJKl'lltr.nc on romp.lr,ltlvc., '.uch ,1~ tho&e 111 (45), that lb, ca~e!:> of Dutch comparative~ for wh1ch the cltusal status of the stnng followmg dan is undisputed. Now, given that, in sentences like those in (45), the comparative parttde ts followed by a clause, the main question which will concern us here IS whether this comparative clause must be conceived of as a subo1 drnate (adverbtal) clause or as a main clause, Under the first alrcrnanve, the element dan is seen as a subordinating conjunction, which 1s of essentially the same type as other elements which introduce Dutch adverbial clauses, buch as voor 'before', smds 'smce' and terwzJI 'while'. If we accept the second altcrnattve, we are forced to conclude that the Dutch comparatJve contains two roam clauses. A plausible way to account for this would be to assume that, at least in some stage in the denvation, the comparative m Dutch has (or had) the form of a coordinauon, and that the comparative particle dan is, at least in its origin, identical to the temporal adverb dan which marks balanced temporal chams tn Dutch. In what follows, I will argue that both positions on the structural status of the Dutch comparanve clause have theu strong pomts. Given the dilemma created by this, l will offer an analysis of the Dutch comparative m whtch the notton of 'syntactlzation', as developed in GIV6n (1979), plays a cructal role. Perhaps the most relhng argument m favour of a subordinate status of the Dutch comparative clause stems from facts with respect to the word order m thl!> clause. In Dutch, as in German, there is difference in word order between main clauses and subordmate clauses; while roam clauses are bastcally SVO, subordinare clauses have obligatory verb-final order: (46)
DUTCH:
Ik zag hem voor hij mtJ zag I saw htm before he me saw 'l saw htm before he saw me' b. ·· lk zag hem voor hij zag m11
a.
Now, lt 1~ clear that the word order in Dutch comparative clauses is verb~ final: (17)
DUTCH:
a.
lk zag hem eerder dan hii ml{ zag [ saw him earlier than he me saw
..
'I saw him earlier than he saw me'
b.
• Ik zag hem eerder dan htJ zag mtJ
Ob'nously, the complete word~order paraHehsm between sentences (46a)
203
Denvcd-case Comparatives
.111d (47a) 1~ a ~tronp, argu111cnt for lhc ~uhord1n:ltl' .w.dyM~ of Dutch Lomp.lr.tliVC d.tu~c~. A second argument which militates strongly m favour of th1s ana!yr,1s can be derived from the fact that, in Dutch adverbial clauses, the clauseimtial conjunction can often be optionally followed by the general subordmating conJunction dat 'that'. Although, at least ln some cases (for instance, in adverbial clauses introduced by terwijl or sinds), the use of the additional element dat is considered somewhat substandard, sentences hke the b-exarnples below are frequently encountered in colloquial Dutch: (48)
DUTCH:
a.
Ik heb hem opgebeld voor
hi1 naar Afrika vertrok
I have him phoned before he to 'I phoned him before he left for Africa'
Africa departed
b.
Ik heb hem opgebeid voordat hii naar Afrika vertrok
(49)
DUTCH:
a.
Sinds we in Belgii!
wonen , voel ik me
gelukkig
Since we in Belgium live feel I myself happy 'Ever since we've lived in Belgium, I feel happy' b. ? Sinds dat we in Be/gil! wonen, voel ik me gelukkig (50)
DUTCH:
a.
Terwii/ hii dat zei, /achte
hii afkeurend
as he that said laughed he disapprovingly 'As he said that, he laughed disapprovingly'
b.?r Terwtil dat hii dat zei, lachte htJ afkeurend Now, the optional occurrence of the complementizer dat in adverbial clauses JS paralleled completely by the optional appearance of this element m Dutch comparative clauses: (51)
DUTCH:
a.
Htj praat meer dan goed voor hem is
he talks more than good for is 'He talks more than ts good for him: he talks too much for his own good' b. ? Hii praat meer dan dat goed voor hem is What is more, the same feeling of non~standardness which is generated by the use of dat in some adverbial clauses can be observed among Dutch speakers with respect to the use of dat in comparatives. Thus, on the face of it~ it looks as if matters are fauly straightforward. The above observations point unequivocally to an analysts of the Dutch
204
Testing the Set of Chaming-based Universals
comparative clause as an mstance of adverbial complementation, m which the element dan functions as a complementlzer. I think it is useless to deny the validity of these observations. However, below 1 would like to point out a number of facts which appear to be at odds with a subordinate analysis; these data suggest that, at least in some dcnvanonal stage, the Dutch comparative clause must be considered to have mainclause status. First, 1t can be observed that Dutch comparative clauses are restricted m the posJttons which they can occupy in a sentence. In general, adverbial clauses (and other adverb1al elements) in Dutch can occupy at least three d1fferenr posmons in a main sentence: they can be sentenceinitial, or sentence-final, or tn a posttion immediately following the finite
verb. The examples in (52) Illustrate this relative freedom for Dutch adverbial clauses: {52)
DUTCH:
a.
Hij is erg
veranderd smds hii hoogleraar is
he ts a lot changed since he professor is 'He has changed a great deal since he became a professor'
b. c.
Hi7 ts, smds hlJ hoogleraar is, erg veranderd Smds htj hoogleraar is, ts hi; erg veranderd
Now, tn contrast to this, comparative clauses introduced by dan are allowed neither m sentence-inttial nor m post-verbal position. 3 Thear only di.!.tnbuttonal option ts the sentence-final position, i.e., the posttion m whiCh we \VOt!ld expect them to show up if we were to asstgn to them the status of coordmate clauses: (53) DUTCH: a. Hq zs meer veranderd dan Je zou denken
he is more changed than you m1ght think 'He has changed more than you might think' b. * Hi} zs dan Je zou denken meer veranderd c. ·' Darz }e zou dettken is ht} meer veranderd Secondly, mam~dause status for Dutch comparanve clauses can be argued from the behaviour of certain sentential adverbials. Dutch has a class of sentential modifiers, such as eerlyk gezegd 'to be honest' and naar ik vrees 'I fear', whtch can occur only m main clauses and m daLises for which a roam-clause ~tatus has been argued, such as unrestncted relative clauses: (54)
DUTCH:
a.
H'l is , eerl,k
gezegd , nogal sa at• honestly sa1d rather dull
he ts 'To be honest, he 1s rather dull'
205
Derived·case Comparatives
Onze burgemeester, dte , eerb/k gezegd, nogal saar zs rather dull JS our mayor who honestly satd 'Our mayor, who, to be honest, is rather dull'
•
~
Het zs een fezt dat htJ, eerbjk gezegd, nogal -;aar It IS a fact that he honestly satd rather dull
H
1~
As can be expected, these modtfiers cannot be permitted m adverb1rtl clauses mtroduced by voor or srnds: (55)
DUTCH'
a.
HtJ /rep weg voor tk ecn mttwoord had he walked away before I an answer had
b.
>
'He walked aw.-ay before I could think of an amwer' Hi! /iep weg voor ik, eerltJk gezegd, een antwoord had
In contrast to tht~, comparative ciJu~es m which such modifiers occur do not gtve n::,e to unacccptabdity: {56)
DUTCH'
HtJ beweett meer dan htJ, eerll}k
gezegd, kan bewt)zen
he clatms more than he honestly said can provl 'Itt. He claims more than, to be honest, he can prove'
As a third pomt, let us consider the operatton of a specific deletiOn rule in Dutch. Ju;t like Engli;h, Dutch has a rule of GJppmg, wh1ch deletes a fimtc verb in a coordinated sentence, g~ven the identity of th
DUTCH:
a.
Jan spaart postzegels en tk spaar munten ). collects stamps and I collect cams 'Jan collects ~tamps and 1 collect coms'
b.
jan spaart postzegels en ik munten
It is gencrJ.lly .l!!!!Umed that G.1pping IS defined only for coordmate structures.4 Hence, it is not surprismg that verbs m .1dverbw.l cLtUses cannot be deleted by this rule: (58)
DUTCH:
a.
Ik zag hem voor ht] mtJ zag 1 saw him before he me saw
b.
.,
'I saw him before he saw me'
Ik zag hem voor htJ mrj
However, we c.une o;,tructural conditiom) is applicable to comparative clause!! m Dutch:
206
Testmg the Set o(Chammg-based Umversals
(59)
DUTCH:
a.
lk koop meer boeken dan jan platen koopt I buy more books than J. records buys 'I buy more books than Jan buys records' Ik koop meer boeken dan jan platen
b.
G1ven the grammat!Cahty of (59b) as opposed to the 111-fonnedness of (58b" one may argue that Dutch comparative clauses should be viewed as having the essennal properties of coordmate clauses; it is only under thts c:.ssumption that a generalized formulation of Gapping m Dutch can be kept Intact. In ~ummary) we can conclude that the facts m Dutch are contradJctory as far as the grammatiCal status of the comparative clause ts concerned. In other words, It seems that the Dutch comparative clause IS a 'hybnd' com• ruction, whJCh may be the object of 'multiple analyses', m the sense of Hankamer (1977). Now, m order to get our of the d1lemma which is created by these confhcttng data, I propose the followmg analysts. I assume that the Dutch comparanvc has its ongin m a coordinated structure, wh1ch IS modelled on a balanced temporal chain; there ts no conjuncnon in the chain, but temporal chaming IS indicated by the occurrence of the temporal adverb dan m the second sentence. Furthermar{', I assume that the second sentence m this cham has undergone, in the course of the development of Dutch, a process of syntacttzatzon. The concept of synrawzanon has been developed by Giv6n (1979), who defires this term as refernng to a dtachronic process by whtch 'loose, para tactic, «pragmanc" dtscourse !.tructures develop- over nme - mto ught, "gramrnancahzcd" syntactlc structures' (Giv6n, 1979: 208). Evidence for the operatiOn of such a process stems from a large diversity of g1 ammatical phenomena, such as the relation between topicallzarion and passivization, the relation between top1calization and relanve-clause formatiOn, the r1se of complex genmve constructions, the development of inflectional verbal morphology, and the formation of cleft-constructwns and WH-questions ('ee G1v6n, 1979: 206-33). Of particular interest to the present discussion is the cla1m made by Giv6n (1979: 213-15) that various cases of verb-phrase subordination (~uch as the mfinitival complements of verbs which impose Equi-conditions, and the serial verb constructions m Niger-Congo languages and Mandarin) must be explained on the basis of a process of 'condensation', which gradually transforms a loose, conJomed pattern mto a tighter, subordtnate pattern. It IS thts kind of process which I assume has been at work in the development of the Dutch comparative; from a paratact!C pattern, modelled on a temporal cha1n, a construc[lon has been developed wh1c:h has definite subordinate traics. It is probable that thts process has been helped along by the fact
Dertved~case
that the adverbial marker dan
tn
Comparattves
207
paratact:Ic Dutch coordmations
IS
preferably clause-initial: (60)
DUTCH:
,)i" ,Jo~tc;.l•.,.ht,J:"'ru{,u -;'"YA~Ji'" ,!r"!Jcr-grtJcr,. first is the light red then is it green 'Forst the light is red, then it is green'
lO -tV,
b.
Het Iicht is eerst rood, dan 1s het groen c. • Eerst is het Iicht rood, het IS dan groen d. • Het l~eht is eerst rood, het IS dan groen
Smce the adverbial marker dan 1n paratact1c coordmanons has, as it were, been 'frozen' into clause~inttial position, a reanalysis of this item as a complementizer does not meet wtth stmctural impediments, as complementizers, too, are always clause-initial in Dutch.. It must be
added that, in Dutch at least, the assumed process of synractization does not seem to have yet reached its final stage. The Dutch comparative clause, while having certain defining surface charactenstics of subordinate clauses, still retains several properties which are reminiscent of 1ts erstwhile coordinate status. By a:.suming a process of syntacozation in the formauon of Dutch comparative clauses, we have created a framework in which the observed contradictions in the data on this construction can, at least in principle,
be accounted for. It may be added here that the wish to reconcile these apparent contradictions is not the sole motiVation for the postulation of a symacnzation process; thts process is supported by some further obser· vations on the Dutch comparative, which are of a lexical and a synchronic syntactic nature.
F1rst, we have srated that the comparative particle dan is at least homonymons with the temporal adverb dan, and that one might venture the hypothesis that these dements ate in fact historically Identical. In the (admittedly, very scanty) literatwe on the etymology of the Dutch comparattve particle, I have found no indication that such an identification should be rejected. In this connection, I may also point out that m High German the particle denn, wh1ch has its origin 1n a phonological variant of the temporal adverb dann 'then', has also a limited function as a comparative particle. The normal particle in H1gh German comparatives is als: (61)
HIGH GERMAN:
Er ist dummer
als
tch
he is more stuptd than I 'He is more stupid than me'
208
Testmg the Set of Chaming-based Universals
However, if a comparative construction in High German threatens to receive a surface form in which two occurrences of the item a/s would succeed each other (a situation which may arise as a result of the fact that the item als is also used as the equarive or essive marker 'as\ 'like'), chen the comparative parucle will be repl•ccd by the item denn:' (62)
HJGH GERMAN:
a. • Er spzelt besser als T orwart
ais
als Mittelstitrmer he plays better as goal-keeper than as centre-forw~1rd
b.
Er spielt besser als Torwart denn ais Mittelsturmer 'He plays better as a goal-keeper than as a centre-forward'
Evrdenrly, an etymological idenrificatron of the comparative parttde dan Wrth the temporal adverb dan will prov1de for direct support for our claim that the Dutch comparative has Its origm in a modellmg on a temporal cham in which the temporal adverb dan occurs. Another p~ece of support for the proposed process of syntacnzauon can be denved from the parallchsm wh1ch can be observed to eXISt between the output of Coordination EllipsiS and Comparative ElhpSIS. Above, we saw that Dutch comparative clauses can undergo a reductiOn process which has the same effect as the application of Gappmg in coordinate structures; tim fact distinguishes comparative clauses from 'real' adverbial subordmate clauses. In addition to Gapping, other types of C".oordinatlon Ellipsis have theu parallel in elliptical comparative clauses in Dutch. As 1s shown by the pam of sentences in (63), SubjectVerb~Deletion 1~ permitted both in comparative clauses and m coordinations in Dutch. In contrast, the pairs m (64) and (65) demon>trate that Subject-Object-Deletion and Forward Object-Deletion are forb1dden for both constructton types:
{63)
DUTCH:
a.
Ik koop boeken en zk koop platen
b.
I buy books and I buy records 'I buy books and I buy records' lk koop boeken en platen (Subject-Verb-Deletion)
c.
lk koop eerder boeken dan (dat) •k platen
koop
I buy rather books than that I records buy 'I buy books more readily than I buy records' Ik koop eerder boeken dan platen (Subject-Verb-Deletion)
Derived-case Comparattves (64)
209
DUTCH:
a.
Ik koop boeken en ik lees boeken I buy books and I read books 'I buy books and I read books' b. ' Ik koop boeken en lees (Subject-Object-Deleuon)
c. Ik koop eerder boeken dan (dat) zk boeken lees d. ' Ik koop eerder boeken dan lees (Subject-Object-Deletion) (65)
DUTCH:
a.
Ik koop boeken en jan leent boeken I buy books and J. borrows books 'I buy books and jan borrows books' b. ' Ik koop boeken en jan leent (Forward ObJect-Deletion) c. Ik koop eerder boeken dan (dat) fan boeken leent d. * Ik koop eerder boeken dan Jan leent (Forward ObJect-Deletion)
Gtven these facts, we can conclude that there 1s some ev1dence wh1ch suggests that Hankamer's (1979: 386) clazm that, for Engh•h, 'the Comparative Redurnon Rule is formally Similar to the rule of Coordinate Deletion' can also be apphed to descnbe the situation In Dutch. It must be added nnmediately, however, that, becudeb the abo~;e cJses of parallelism, there are also cases of ellipsiS m whzch the matchmg ol comparative clauses and coordinate structures in Dutch appears to break down. The pairs of sentences in (66) show that deletion of zdenncal subJects is possible m coordmations, but not m comparative clauses. On the other hand, deletion of zdentical VPs (see (67)) IS readily permmed m comparative clauses, whereas this operation in coordtnate structL re~ leads to results whzch are only margmally acceptable: the onl) wa} ro make (67b) well formed is to provide It wzth heavy contrastive stress on tk and fan. Cp.: (66) a.
b.
I>U"ICH:
Ik lees boeken en zk draat platen I read books and I play records 'I read books and I play records' Ik lees boeken en draaz platen (SubJect· Deletion)
c. Ik lees eerder boeken dan (dat) tk platen draat d. • Ik lees eerder boeken dan platen draai (SubJect-Deletion)
Testmg the ,)'et of Chammg~based Universals
210
(<•7)
1!11/111:
a
11.:.
koop lJOcken en
jan koopt bueken
l buy boob Jnd J. buy; books 'I buy books and Jan buys books' b ''? Ik koop boeken en jan (VP-Deletion) c.
d
Ik koop eerder boeken dan (dat) Jan hoeken koopt Ik koop eerder hoeken dan Jan (VP-Deletwn)
Now, m my opmwn these apparent differentiatiOns in the respective outputs of Coordmation Deletion and Comparative Ellipsis can be neutralized completely, if we are willing to assume that it is not the normal and-coordmanon, but rather paratactic dan~chammg on whtch the comparative construction in Dutch has been modelled. Sentences (68~llb) demonstrate that balanced paratactic dan-chains, unlike coordmations With and, do not permit deletion of identical subjects either. If there IS identity of subjects in a dan-chain, Dutch has no other choice than to pronominalize the second subject. Since sentence (66d) shows that the same condition holds for comparative clauses, a parallel between dan~chains and comparatives can be established on this point: (68)
DUTCH:
a.
Eerst lees ik boeken, dan draai ik platen 'First I read books, then I play records' b. .} Eerst lees lk boeken, dan draai platen (Subject-Deletion) Secl)ndly, It can be noted that VP~ Deletion IS much more normal in pantactic dan-chains than m and-coordinations (see sentences (67b) and (69b), respectively). Again, since VP-Deletion is freely permitted in comparanve clauses (see sentence (67d)), the parallelism between danchams and comparanve clauses in Dutch will be evident: (69)
DUTCH:
a.
Eerst lees rk het hoek, dan leest jan het hoek 'First I read the book, then Jan reads the book' Eerst lees rk het hoek, dan Jan (VP-Deletion)
b.
Fnully, It can be observed that, m those cases of ellipsis where andcoordinations match comparative clauses, paratactic dan-chains do so, too. Thus, dan-chains permit Gapping and Subject-Verb-DeletiOn, while dtsallowing SubJect-Object-Deletion and Forward Object-Deletion. Cp.:
Dertved~case Collt{Jarattves
{70)
/lUTC/1:
a.
Lersc kcm{l tk een bvek, .1 rcx:ord'
b.
Berst koop ik een hoek, dan jan een plaat (Gappmg)
{71}
DUTCH:
a. b.
Berst koop ik boeken, dan koop ik platen 'First I buy books, then I buy records' Berst koop ik boeken, dan platen (Subject-Verb-Delenon)
{72}
DUTCH:
21
Berst koop tk bet hoek, dan lees ik het hoek 'First I buy the book, then I read the book' b. • Berst koop ik het hoek, dan lees (Subject-Object-Deletion)
a.
(73)
DUTCH:
a.
Berst koop ik het hoek, dan Jeent jan het boek 'First I buy the book, then Jan borrows the book' b. ' Berst koop ik bet hoek, dan leent Jan (Forward Object-Deletion)
We can conclude that there is complete agreement between dan-chains and comparative clauses m Dutch with regard to the possibilities of ellipsis. Evidently, this agreement provides strong evidence in favour of the clatm that the comparative construction in Dutch is modelled upon a balanced, paratactic dan-chain.
9.4.2
Contrasts between Engltsh and Dutch
In the previous section I presented an array of seemingly confltcting facts about the Dutch comparative and, following that, I offered an analysis m wh1ch these conflicts can be reconciled. Brtefly speakmg, I have argued that the Dutch comparative should be conceived of as a construction wh1ch has its origin in a modelling on a balanced dan-cham, but which has undergone a process of syntactizanon by which the original coordmate status has gradually faded to yield a subordmate construction. This process of syntactization can be elucidated somewhat further by looking at the Particle Comparative m Enghsh, contrasting the English than-comparative with the correspondmg construction in Dutch. First of all, then, we can note that English, too, offers some indtcation of an erstwhile coordinate status of its comparative clause. Most 1mportandy, elliptical rules of the kind Illustrated for Dutch can also be found in English. Hankamer (1979) and Kuno (1981) prov1de examples
212
Testzng the Set of Chaining-based Universals
m which the parallel between Coordmation Ellipsis (or Coordmauon Reduction, as Hankamer calls tt) and the reduction of comparative clauses IS demonstrated: (74)
ENGUSH:
a. b.
Jack ts cunnmg and jack ts brave~ jack ts cunntng and brave john lzkes soccer and Btllltkes soccer~ john likes soccer, and Bill, too John has /wed m New York and john has lived m LA ~John has lived m New York and tn LA john gave a d11ne to Susan and john gave a nickel to Sandy-·-> john gave a drme to Susan and a mckel to Sandy
c. d. (75)
ENGLISH:
a.
Jack ts more cunnmg than he zs brave~ Jack zs more cunnmg than brave John likes soccer more than Btllltkes soccer~ john likes soccer more than Bill john would rather /we tn New York than he would live in LA~ john would rather /we m New York than tn LA I would rather gtve a dzme to Susan than I would give a nickel to Sandy -7 I would rather gwe a dime to Susan than a ntckel to Sandy
b. c.
d.
As we have noted above, Hankamer {1979: 386) arrives at the conclusion that the rule whtch reduces comparative clauses is formally similar to the rule of Coordination Deletion. In both cases, we have a rule which is downward bounded, i.e., it cannot reach mto embedded clauses: {76)
ENGLISH:
a. jack is cunning and Mary thmks he is brave b. -. jack IS cunning and Mary thinks brave (77)
ENGLISH:
a. b.
jack is more CU1'l'ntng than Mary thmks he is brave jack JS more cunnmg than lvfary thinks brave
"~-
Furthermore~
both the reduction of comparative clauses and the reduction of coordmations are subJect to the condition that the deleted constituents are tdentical with corre~ponding constituents in an identical structure. In Hankamer's terminology, these reductions are instances of 'blanket rules', that is, delenon rules m which the identity condition 'cannot be formulated With reference to any partkular constituent, c;ince any constituent ... can be deleted under tdentlty with a "corresponding" constituent m the matrix' (Hankamer, 1979: 385). As such, the reduction
Dertved·case Comparatives
213
of comparative and coordtnate structures ts opposed to other types of
deletion rules, wh1ch can delete elements only 1f the Identity w1rh some particular constituent in the matrix ts speufied. From the fact that the reduction procedures for comparatives and coordmauons turn out to be so closely sim1lar, one may denve .an argument In favour of (at lea~t 50IIle degree of) coordinate >tatu> for the Engh;h than-clause. It must, however, ah.o be noted that the coordmatc ~rant!> o( compa•auve clauses IS considerably more obscure m Enghsh than m Dutch. Thus, we can observe that a number of coordmative trans of the Dutch
comparative cannot be attested in English. For one rhing, English d"es not allow the applicatton of Gappmg m L"Ompararive dau,.,. The followmg fact• are taken from Hankamer (1979: 383), who Judges (7/lc) robe ungrammatical, although he add• that 'some people, m fact, find [it] not roo bad': (78)
ENGI.ISH:
a.
john writes more radical pamphlets than Harry wrrtes scarological letters b. john writes more radical pamphlets than Hmry does sca:ological letters c. ' john writes more radical pamphlets than Harry rb scato· logiCal letters
Furthermore, sentence adverbials like to be honest or I fear y1dd awkward, if not unacceptable results when they are mserted mro English comparative clauses: (79)
ENGLISH:
a. * jack ts more cunning than he is, I fear, brave b. ' Jack" smarter than, to be honest, he looks These facts suggest that the process of syntacuzarion, wh1ch leads ultimately to the transformation of a coordmate clause into a sLhordinate structure, has gone farther in English than m Dutch. One m1ghr say that, with respect m the syntactizatlon of the comparative clau~e, EngliSh is the more 'radical' of the two. ThiS rad1calne" of English m cornpanson to Durch can, I rhink, be dlusrrared clearly by contrasrmg rhe propernes of NP-comparanves in both languages. There are a number of conMderat1011S wh1ch mihtate aga1nc;t the position rhar the Dutch comparative particle dan, when followed b) a smgle NP, ha~ the categorial status of a preposrtzon. Fltst, unlike 'real' prepositions m Dutch, which invariably govern .accusatiVe case, the particle dan does nor require a fixed case form of 1ts followmg NP. In other words, the NP-comparative in Dutch is a derived-caM: compJranve:
Testmg the Set of Chatning-based Unzversals
214 (WJ)
llln< II:
a.
lk uertrouw JOU meer dan hq I-NOM trust you·ACC more than he·NOM 'I trust you more than he (trusts you)'
b.
Ik
vertrouw JOU meer dan hem l~NOM trust you-ACC more than him-Ace 'I trust you more than (I trust) h1m'
It must be added, though, that there IS a tendency in Dutch to use the accusative case for NP-comp\ements of comparative dan regardless of the
grammatical function of that NP. Although it is still considered poor style m wntten Dutch, colloqmal Dutch gradually develops into a situation m which a sentence ltke (81a) is considered normal usage, in adc!Jnon ro the 'more correct' sentence (81 b): (81)
DUTCH:
a.
Hq ts een betere schaker dan miJ• he is a better chess-player than me·ACC 'He ts a better chess-player than me'
b.
HtJ ts een betere schaker he ts a
dan ik
better chess-player than I-NOM
'He is a better chess-player than l (am)' G1ven the framework adopted here, we may say that, in Ducch, the process of syntactizatiOn m the formation of comparatives gradually leads to a Situation m which the ongmally reduced coordinate dause dan + NP comes to be reanalysed as an adverbial phrase, in whtch dan acts as a preposltlon. Now, it can be ob6erved that this process has started to apply earlier m English than 1n Dutch. As Visser (1963: 249) notes, mstances of accusative case for underlying subJem m English comparative clauses can be attested from the first half of the sixteenth century onwards. The process has developed into a situation in whtch a sentence
like (82a) IS rated as good usage, while the variant (82b) is considered to be snlted and old-fash1oned: 6 (82)
ENGLISH:
a. h.
You're stronger than me You're stronger than I
The dtffercnce in the extent to whJCh English than and Dutch dan have been syntactictzed into prepositions in NP-comparattves can also be shown from the dtfference m the application of movement rules. As Hankamer (1973: 18) states, there is an increasing posstbthty in at least
Dertved-case Comparatives En~!J,h dtolecr< ro compJI'
'ome I!>
215
.tpply WH-Movcmenr to
treated as a stranded preposmon, on a par wtth cases of 'real'
prepostnon strandmg like the one m (83b): (83)
ENGUSH:
a.
Who is he bigger than? Who tS he looking at?
b.
In contrast, application of WH-Movement to standard NPs IS completely forbidden in Dutch. While Dutch normally allows preposition stranding (see (84a)), a sentence hke (84b) IS absolutely ill-formed, even in colloqmal and non-standard speech: (84)
DUTCH:
waar ki7kt btl naar? where looks he at/to 'What is he looking at?' b. • W aar is bij groter dan? a.
To sum up, I think that the above comparison of Dutch and Enghsh comparatives demonstrates that syntacttzatlon must be seen as a gradual
process, which aUows for intermediate stages; apparently, the process has progressed further in English than m Dutch. In the present situation m Enghsh, it IS not unjustified to claim that there are, m fact, two thans in English, one a preposition and the other a subordmating particle (see Hankamer, 1973 ), ln Enghsh, there is an mcreasing tendency to treat the strmg than + NP as a prepositional phrase, and, as a result, the relation
between NP-comparison and other comparatives becomes gradually weaker. In Dutch, too, we can observe some first s1gns of this Increasing
independence of NP-companson; one may very well expect that, in a not too distant future, it can be argued that there are two dan's in Dutch. For the moment, however, the Dutch comparanve stilJ hangs together as a
homogeneous construction type. 9.4 .3
Further comments on the process of syntaaizatmn
lf we accept the syntactization analysis for the comparanves in Dutch and Enghsh, it does not seem to be Implausible to extend thiS analysis to all other types of Particle Comparatives. A nmnber of features of the Dutch and English comparatives wh1ch argne for this analysiS can also be attested for other instances of the Parnde Comparative; m particular, all Particle Comparatives have in common that the standard NP in NPcompararives has derived case tnstead of fixed case. Moreover, we have noted that, in a considerable number of Particle Comparatives, the
216
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
relation Wtth an erstwhile coordmate structure has been retained directly in synchronic surface structure; in such languages, the particle m the comparative construction is h1stoncally identical to some conJunctive marker, For these reasons, I will adopt the working hypothests that some proces~ of ::.yntacuzatiOn is at the basis of the development of Particle Comparative~ in general. To this, however, it should be added immediately that I do not claim that the coordinate structure which gets syntacticized into a Particle Comparative has exactly the same form for all the languages at issue. That IS, while I claim that all Particle Comparatives are rhe result of a gradual downgradmg of a coordinate clause into a subordinate clause, I do not intend this to imply that this coordinate 'input'~structure ts formally mvanant across the relevant languages. As we will see shortly (and more fully m chapter 12), thi~ coordinate input~structure must be considered to allow a range of formally distinct (though semantically equivalent) varrants. As a consequence of this variation in the input~ structure of syntacrizauon, it follows that the process of downgradmg will not nece~~arily always mvolve the same mechanisms. It is an unfortunate fact that the intermediate stages m the syntactization of comparative dauses can be documented only for a few languages, and even m those cases our knowledge IS far from complete. Hence, any statement about r:he actual mechanisms of syntactization wtll., of necessity, contain a large amount of vagueness and speculation. Nevertheless, we can give at least some general comments on the nature of the syntactization process which have a reasonable degree of plausibiltty. F1rst~ it appears that a necessary condition for the start of any syntactizarion of a comparative clause lies in the ability of the language to reduce clauses by means of e!IIptical rules. In other words, If a structural configuration is to be syntacticized mto a subordinate clause, the language will have to pos~ess the means to reduce this clause. For some languages with a Particle Comparative, thts process of Coordination Redm.:tton appears ro be not only a necessary, but also a sufficient prereqUisite for the formation of the comparative constructiOn. In languages hke Basque, Javanese, Toba Barak and Ilocano, we find a situation in whtch the comparative clause has the form of a reduced coordinate clause which has gradually come to be reanalysed, to a greater or lesser extent, as a subordinate structural unit. For languages of this type, it seems plaus1ble to assume an 'mput'-structure which consists of the mere coordinatzon of two positive clauses. In other languages, however, the form of the mput-structure seems to he more complex, and hence the syntactllation of the comparative dau~e
'>ccms to uwolvc more dun just clhpo.,i<>. 1n <;ome language~-. with
Compar:U1vc, thrrc
tlrC
ground.:; to
,t\'\UIIH.'
the
prcsclll'C
of a11
.1
PartJCk
wtdc•rlyin~
Derived-case Comparatives
ll7
negatwe element in the coordinate input-structure of their comparative clauses. The fact that such an underlying negation tends to crop up ut comparatives must presumably be accounted for in terms of the semantics of comparison; I wtll say more about this in sectiOn 12.3. For the moment, I will rescrict myself to the consequences which the prescnc~~ of an underlymg negation has for the proce~s of syntJ.Ctlzation of comp.1ra· rive constructions. For some languages at tssue here, syntact1zat10n of the comparative clause appears to involve the morphologicalmcorporattoll of the under· lymg negative element mto the comparative particle. Clear and straightforward CJ!..amples arc Gaelic, Scottish English, Latvian, and perhaps also Classtcal Greek;7 in these languages, the comparative particle It&elf has the morphologtcal form of a negative COiliUOCtlon. In addltlon to these cases, we can also find mdtcations for the presence of an underl) mg negatton m a number of languages where the comparative particle doe!> not {or not overtly) show mcorporation of a negative element. Thm, 10 French the neganve particle ne shows up obhg.at()flly m a comparative clause tf that clause contains a fimte verb: (85)
FRENCH:
II est plus grand que vous '" he is more tall than you 'He Is taller than you think'
NEG
pensez dunk
A ;imdar phenomenon can be observed in ltaltan (see Seuren, 1973: 535). In formal Italian >tyle, clausal comp.u-arives an: introduced by the particle che, which (Just hke Its French counterpart que) has its etymological origm In Latm quo 'by wh1ch'. U.e of che m comparanvcs reqmres the presence of the negative item non m the comparative clause, and the verb in the clause has to be m the SubJunctive Mood (cp. (86a)). An alternanve formation of Italian comparative clauses mvolves the use of the complex comparattve particle dt quello che. In thts case, the verb in the clause is m the Indicative Mood, and the negauve Item non t!) no longer present. Cp.: (86)
ITALIAN:
a.
Gtannt
e
ptu
grande cbe non pensasst
G. IS more tall than NEG thmk·PAST. SURJl!NCT ISG 'Gianni is taller th•n l thought'
b. c.
'
Giannr e' piu
grande dt quel/o che non pensasst Gtanm pn'· grande dt que I/o che pensavo G. I\ mor(.' tall rh ,1n thmk-PA~I INil '( .t.uuu t\ t.tll~:r th.m I th~ml!,llt'
e
j\(,
218
Testmg the Set of Chammg-based Umversals
The mtimate relationship of the comparanve construction With negation m aL least some of the languages with a Particle Comparative lS also suprorted by a number of observations from English and Dutch. As 1s noted by Seuren (1973, 1984), comparative clauses m these languages may contain so-called neganve-polarity items, 1.e., lexical Items or idioms wht
ENGLISH:
a. I would never have thought that John was an impostor b. * I would ever have thought that] ohn was an impostor c. john is a bigger !tar than I ever would have thought (88)
DUTCH:
a.
Ik kan dte mensen niet /uchten I can those people NEG put up with 'I can't put up wtth those people' b. * Ik kan die mensen luchten lk heb er al meer mensen gezien I have there already more people seen dan ik kan luchten than I can put up with 'I have seen already more people there than I can put up wtth•
Opposed to this, so~called pos1tive~polarity Items (i.e., lexical items or idioms that ca.nnot occur wtth negat1on) are excluded from English and Dutch comparative clauses: (89)
a. b. c. (90)
a.
b.
eNGLISH:
You have already eaten too much ' I haven't already eaten too much ' He has got more support than you already have DUTCH:
HtJ is verdomd verve/end he is damned boring 'He is damned boring' ' HtJ ts ntet verdomd verve/end
c. '' H lJ ts vaker he 1s more often verve/end bonng
onderhoudend dan verdomd • • than damned entcrtammg
Denvcd-case Compllratwes
219
Further syntactic argument~ for the presence of a negatiOn m English comparative clauses are advanced m Mlttwoch (1974) and Napoli and Nespor (1976). Fmally, we may add here that, for ~orne authors at least (see Joly, 1967: 17), the English particle than has developed from thonne, that ts, a combmation of the instrumental ca~e of the neuter demonstrative article thaet and the neganve item ne ·not'. If th1s etymology is accepted, English than may be counted as another example of the mcorporat10n of a negative element mto the comparative pam de. Apart from Coordmation Elhp!:.ts, and (for at least some of the languages at tssuc) the mcorporatwn c.q. retammcnt of underlymg negative Items, syntacuzatton of comparative clauses sometimes seems ro mvolve a process wh1ch shares essential feature~ with relattvtzation, Straightforward ev1dence for ~uch a process IS presented by those languages m which the comparative part1cle is historically an adverb1al case form of the relanve!inrerrogattve pronoun; examples are Russ1an, Italian, French, Fmmsh, and probably also Latm and Hunganan. We may add that, for English, It ha> been argued repeatedly m the literature that the particle than is, in its etymology, closely related to a demonstrative/ relative stem, It being either an obhque case form of thJs stem (Campbell, 1959) or a combination of such a ca:,e form with the negative element ne Uoly, 1967). In addmon to these etymological data, there are also several structural arguments whKh point to a close S1m1larity of Relative Clause formation and Comparative Formation m English. Observations to this effect are presented m Bresnan (1971, 1973). One of the most tellmg arguments in favour of thts analysis IS the fact that, m c;ome non~standard varieties of English, this relativization even shows up overtly in surface structure, givmg rise to construcnons hke (91)
ENGLISH:
john ts a lot smarter than what you'd thmk (he 15) On the basis of the data g•ven m Bresnan (1973) and of observations like (91), Hankamer (1979) proposes an analysis of Enghsh comparative formatiOn in which tne comparative clause contains a constituent whtch IS marked for relativization. Apphcatton of Relative Clause Formation (wh1ch implies the fronting of the relativtzed constituent m the comparative clause) results in non-standard forms hke (91); m standard English, the relanve element what IS obhgatonly deleted. A syntactic analysis of English comparative clauses wh1ch IS roughly comparable to Hankamer's account IS put forward m Kuno (1981). Accordmg to th1s author, the quantified consntuent in the underlymg comparative clause undergoes promotion by a rule of X-Quantlfier Ratsmg, leavmg behmd a clause
Testing the Set of Chaimng-based Umversals
220
wh1ch can then be reduced further by some elliptical rule. All in all, It thus seems plausible to conclude that, for English at least, the formation of comparatives involves a set of formal procedures which is essentially stmtlar to the rule system needed in the formation of relative clauses. As I ~ee it, this 'ondu~1on holds independently of the specific formulation one chooses for the rule system at issue. If we accept the above conclusion, we must ask ourselves what the form of the 'mput structure' for the Particle Comparative in English should be assumed to be. As an approximation of a solution to thts problem, l w1ll adopt the analysis of the English comparative which IS proposed by Seuren in several publications. In this proposal, English comparatives are analysed in terms of an underlying structure which crucially mvolve'l existentzal quantr{icat10n over extents. Thus, a comparative like jim is taller than joe is analysed as (92)
3
e:extent
(jim is tall toe A- (joe is tall to e))
or, to rephrase this analysis in a non-logical form: 'There 1s an exrent e such th.:tt jim IS tall to e and joe is not tall to e.' There are several mdependently motivated arguments for the correctness of an analys1s of this type. Apart from the fact that the analysis accounts for the underlying negation whtch must be assumed to be present m English comparartve clauses (see above), the quantification over extents whtch ts embodied m thts proposal prov1des a framework for the descriptiOn of the phenomenon of posmve and negative connotations of English gradable adjecn>e> (see Seuren, 1973: 535-7), and enables us to account for the occurrence of adverbial measure~phrases in comparative clauses (Seuren, 1984). Furthermore, it can be shown that this analysis is able to Jeal With the ambigmty in a sentence hke (93)
ENGLISH:
Planes are safer now than they were 30 years ago in a srraightforwdfd fashion (Seuren, 1973: 528-9; Seuren, 1984). From the pomt of view of the present study, the main attractiveness of Seuren's proposal lies in the fact that 1t is able to reconcile two .!Jeemingly contradictory requirements on the '1nput structure' for rhe Enghsh Particle Comparative. On the one hand, we have argued that the inputstructure for dll Particle Comparatives should be viewed as basically a coordmated structure; thts reqmrement IS met by the presence of the andconjunction m (92). On the other hand, we have also concluded that the formation of the Enghsh comparative involves some procedure of
Derived-case Comparatzves
.!21
relativization. Structure (92) offers a po.stbtlity for the apphcatton of thiS procedure, in that it specifies an exi&tennally quantified antecedent for a constituent of the comparative clause; this con~tituent (viz. the ext1:nt~
phrase e) becomes thereby eligible for relativization. 9.5 Conclusion lu this chapter, we have examined the vahdit) of Untversal lA Jnd
Universal 4 against the facts of the languages 1n the sample wh1ch have a primary derived-case comparative. As could be expected, languages with a primary ConJoined Comparative confirm these two universals m a
sttatghtforward fashton. Regardmg the more problematic class of Particle Comparatives, we have put forward the hypothe;is that thm occumnce must be understood on the basiS of a diachronic process of syntacnzauon. We have assumed that Particle CompJratovc; are mmally modelled on balanced temporal chains; under th•s assumption, the fact that languages with a primary Particle Comparat•ve are all confirmations of Universal lA can be immediately accounted for. Furthermore, we have claimed that the coordinate status of the comparattve clause m these languages ts gradually undermmed by the operation of a downgrading process. \s a result, the comparative construction loses Its semantic transparency to a greater or lesser extent. The comparative m these languages may thus eventually be reanalysed as a new, mdependent construcrton type. Alternatively, the comparative con~trucrion may come to be fined mto
the mould of a constructiOn type that already exms m the language. Tins is what we da1m IS happening m English, where NP-compan;on " gradually ally1ng itself to the already available preposinonal pha;e •
construction.
In order for the downgrading process to start, a mmtmal reqmrement seems to be that the language be able to apply elliptical rules to 1ts coordinate structures. For some languages, rhts appears to be also a sufficient requirement for the formdtion of a Particle Comparative. Hence, for these languages a coordinate input-structure conststmg of two positive sentences seerns to be the appropnate hypothesi.,. In other languages, however, the coordinate input-structure must be thought of as being more complex. Some of the languages at ISsue seem to have a negative sentence in the1r mput-sentence; th1s may (but does not ha ... e to} lead to the incorporation of the neganve element mto the comparative particle. Still other languages must be assumed to have .a coordmate mput-&tructure with quantification over extents; in these languages, s1gns
222
Testmg the Set of Chaming-based Untversals
ol !t'LtltVII,l!IOil (typtl,llly 1\l,llHk'-ll'd 111 the form of the romp.lr.lllH' pJtt!dc) LJfl be tr.Kcd. hnJlly, there .uc ~ome !Jngu.Igc~ (v!!. l;ngh\h,
French, Italian, and possibly abo Dutch) in whiCh both an underlymg negat wn and an underlymg existential quannficatwn must be assumed for the coordmate input-structure of the comparative constructton.
10 An Examination of Secondary Choices
10.1
Introduction
In the preceding sections of part two, the set of cha1n1ng-based universals formulated in chapter 5 has been tested against the primary comparative type options of the languages in the sample. Now, it IS my da1m not only that tlus set of umversals should be conSidered to state predictions for primary comparatives, but that it should also be able to prediCt correctly the occurrence of seoondary options for a g1ven language. Therefore, thiS final chapter of part two w1ll be devoted to a testmg of the relevant universals agamst the secondary chotce of comparatiVe type. As has been noted in the tables in chapter 2, the !>ample contams no less than 34 cases of secondary comparative-type cho1ce; for some languages, there is even more than one secondary opnon available. In general, however, it will
turn out that the discussion of the cases at 1ssue can be merCJfully brief. Another matter connected with the phenomenon of secondary comparative choice IS the questiOn of whether there are any regulanties in the combmations of primary and secondary comparative types in natural languages. That IS, one m1ght a>k whether or not the chou:e of a secondary comparative m a language may be completely mdependent of the ch01ce of the pnmary comparative made in that language. I will pursue this question further in chapter 15. For the moment, however, our ~ole attention will be with the secondary options them-;elve-;, and wtth tho extent to which they can be shown to be confinnanons of the set of chammg·based umversals. 10.2 Secondary derived-case comparatives
I wdl start the exammation of •econdary comparative-type choices by lookmg at those languages which have a secondary der1ved-case comparauve, char is, a Conjoined Comparative or some vananc of a Particle
224
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
Comparative. Followmg UniversallA and Universal4, we should be able to demonstrate that, for these languages, the secondary comparative is matched by the possibility of havmg balanced temporal chaimng constructtons.
The sample contains six languages with a Conjoined Comparative as thetr secondary ch01ce. To start with, let us consider the case of Banda, a language wh1ch has an Exceed Comparative as its primary option (see &ection 8.3). As a secondary option, thiS language possesses a ConJoined Comparative of the polar variety. Rather trivially, this option is matched by a balanced Simultaneous construction: (1)
BANDA:
a.
Anda ne mo gere nzm. e ne ze house of me big not It of you 'Your house IS bigger than my house'
b.
Mo owe
anr
, ane ant
ta
oboe roe
you chase them and they say not thing 'You have chased them, and they haven't said anything'
In secnon 7.7 I argued that the best way to deal with the pr1mary comparative m :..tapuche is to classJfy It as a Locative Comparative. In addtuon, .Mapuche also permits the use of a Conjoined Comparative of the polar kind. Naturally, this secondary option is matched by the occurrence of a balanced 5-chain: (2)
MAPUCHE:
a.
Karlos dot knni , Francisko doi kim -Ia ., K. more know-3SG F. more know-not-3SG 'Karlos knows more than Franc1sko'
b.
Manuel aku-la ·• M.
, FranciSko kafei aku-/a -i go -not·3SG , F. too go -not·3SG
'Manuel does not go, and neither does Francisko' Nuer is a language with a primary Allative Comparative; as we noted in section 7.2.2, this Allat!ve Comparative is matched by the so-called Narrative Mood in Nuer, which IS employed to derank posterior prechcates m C-chams. However, it appears that this deranking procedure IS avatlable to Nuer only for cases of consecutive chainmg; in ~Imultaneous chains a balanced construction appears to be required. Thus, Nuer is one of the very few languages in the sample which do not show a structural parallelism in the encoding of the two semantic subtypes of temporal chammg. Parallel to the balanced S-cham of Nuer we find a ConJoined Comparative of the antonymous kind:
An Examination of Secondary Choices (3)
NUER:
a.
Ditd ne Jin , kwiy ne giin b1g be you small be I 'You are bigger than me'
b.
Loke Je , ke ce nl!ok reJect-PRE;. 3PL him but not accept-PUT. 3SG 'They reject him, but he wtll not accept tt'
225
Ilocano, a VSO-language with a pnmary Parncle Comparatn e, IS reported m Lopez (1928) to have the additional optiOn of a ConJomed Comparative: (4)
ILOCANO:
Nasayaat m Dolores • sumangka-sayaat pay pretty-one SUBJ D. more -pretty even nt Enkarnaswn SUB) E.
'Enkarnaston ts prettier than Do lore~' Since the Particle Comparative in llocano can be directly connected With a balanced simultaneous construction, in that thts comparati\e employs the item ngem 'but' as a particle (see section 9.3), the matching of the secondary Conjoined Comparative with the relevant chaimng con·.truction ts trivial. In sectiOn 8.3 we showed that the primary Exceed Comparative m Swah1li has a direct parallel m the Simultaneous action constructiOn, which, in the unmarked case, ts an Instance of condttional derankmg. However, Swahili has also a secondary comparattvc, namely, a ConJoined ComparatiVe of the antonymous subtype. It turns out that this secondary option is modelled upon a marked subtype of Simultaneous balancing in Swahili. As Loogman (1965: 375) reports, the normal deranking procedure for $-chams m Swahili cannot be applied 1f the chain has the semantic content of an opposition. In such a case of adversative chammg, the structure appears to be obligatorily balanced; the two members of the structure can be juxtaposed wtthout any connective element. Parallel to this coordmated type of simultaneous chaining we find the secondary comparative of Swahtlt: (5)
SWAHILI:
a.
joogoo wa Ali hodari , yule wa ]uma dhmfu rooster of A. strong that of J. weak 'Ali's rooster is ~tronger than juma's rooster'
I estmg the Set of Chammg-bascd Unu•ersals
226
h.
NHne ~leta machungwa , u -me -leta ndtZI 1 ·PiRF-bnng oranges you-PERF-bnng bananas 'I h.ave brought oranges, you have brought bananas'
Exactly the same situation as that 1n Swah1h can be attested for Kmmd1. This Bantu-language, wh1ch ha~ a pnmary Exceed Comparative, 'la~ m, secondary Conromed Comparative rn1tched by a balanced Schatr: (6)
KIRUNDI:
a.
Uyo
nt
mukungu • urya nt mworo
thi!l IS nch that 1t. poor 'Th1s one IS nchcr th~m that one'
b.
Ntz-htzca umtr.wnu , huca abasavy1 not-koll kmg koll courte;ans 'It's not the kmg who!-'> murderou~, i£'s the courtesans'
In .1ddmon to the stx languages wtth a secondary ConJoined Comparanvc, ~he sample contams two languages wh1ch select some other type of denv·~d#case comparative as thctr ~econdary optwn. One of these languages, v1z.. Ban, has already been Introduced tn sectwn 3.4. As we saw .n sentence (37a), the Parncle Comparative m Ban mvolves the elem< nr na gwon tf the standard con;ntuent is a clause. We can add here that the Item gwon (whoch "pos>Obly ;orne fossohzed form of the verb 'to be') •·· deleted when the standard constituent ts an NP. Cp.: (7)
BAR/:
a.
Nan ktta bya na gwon do yeye1u I work more PRT you thmk "I work more than you thmk'
b.
Monye a lo'but bya na tore lonytt father IS good more PRT 5on h1s ·The father IS heucr than h1c., '"on'
The r J.rtldc na'na gwon ha!> J number of other functwns m the syntax of Ban. For one thmg, na gwon can be used a5 the advcr~at1ve conJunction 'but' (Spagnolo, 1933: 266). Also, na or na gwon may be used as the equtv alent of our temporal COOJU11Ctton ~while'; m this case~ the temporal dauo;;c• l-'> marked at 1t11 end by a repennon of the part1de na (Spagnolo, 1933 257). Fmally, we find cases of clauses marked by na ... na m wh1ch a consecunvc mterpretatJon o;;eem.;; to be 1mphed (Spagnolo, 1933: 256). Relevant exampteb arc:
227
An ExaminatiOn of Secondary Choices (8)
BAR/:
a.
S6r6mundt kata • na gwon kala 'baym ground-nuts ex1st PRT teeth not-exlst ·we have ground-nuts, but no appetite'
b.
Na gwon kl 1010n na
, ngutu gwogwolong kadr
it rain PRT people be-at 'Whtle it rains, the people stay inside the house'
house
PRT
c.
Na Komandan a1e jam kulya srne na PRT commander was say
a
,
words these PRT
ngutu aku,ono
pank
and/ then people become-afraid very much 'After the Commander had said these words, the people grew much afraid' GIVen these examples, I think it IS safe to conclude that the secondary Particle Comparative in Bari has a direct surface parallel in the balancing procedure which the language employs to encode its various forms of temporal chaining. As a last case in thts category, we must draw attention to the secondary comparative in Classical Nahuatl. In section 9.2 we saw that the primary option for this language is a Conjoined Comparative. In addition to thiS, Andrews {1975: 350ff.) lists a comparative of the type Illustrated in (9)
CLASSICAL NAHUATL:
Nehhuatl oc-acht
nt-tlamatint1 tn ahmo iuhqur tehhuatl
I a bit more I -learned 'I am a bit more learned than you'
PRT
you
As we can see, the standard NP in this construction is preceded by a senes of items. In this item stnng, the element ahmo is obligatory; this element is the general negative element 'not'. In the comparative construction at han~ the negation ahmo is commonly preceded by the item in, an element which functions as a general adjunctor and 1s, among other things, the eqwvalent of our definite articles and relanve pronouns. Furthermore, the negative ttem in this construction may optionally be followed by the element tuhltuhqui; in its origin, this element is a verb with the meaning 'to be so, to be thus'. The whole of the item string precedmg the standard NP IS glossed by Andrews {ibid.) ao 'while not thus, I.e., than'. Given this translation, and given the etymological origm of the Items involved, It seems appropriate to rate this secondary comparative as a type of Particle Comparative; to be exact, we might see It as a Particle Comparattve in whiCh both the procedures of relativization
228
Testing the Set of Chaming-based Universals
and negattve mcorporation have been effectuated (see section 9.4.3). Since Nahuatl has a Conjoined Comparative as Its primary option, Lt wtll come as no surpnse that the secondary Particle Comparative, too, can be matched by a balanced chammg construction. As a matter of fact, Classical Nahuatl appears to be a l.mguage which IS predommancly, tf not strictly, balanctng. A further example of a coordinated structure m thts language ts: (10)
CLASSICAL NAHUATL'
o -tlacuah 0 -motlalzh , zhuan he~sat down moreover he-ate 'He sat down and ate'
10.3
Secondary Exceed Comparatives
Next, we turn to the six languages tn the sample which select an Exceed Comparative as theu secondary option. Of these languages, Umversal2A prcdtcts that they ~hould have either a conditionally deranked S-cham, or a condiuonally deranked C-chain, or both. As it turns out, all six languages at issue can be sho\o\•n to fulfil this reqUirement; in some cases, however, we will come across specific problems which deserve some further comment. Relatively strmghtforward cases m this class are Sranan and Sika. In Sranan, an Engltsh-based creohzation) the modern comparative IS a Parttcle Comparative which employs the particle leki 'like' (see section 9.3). This constructiOn has replaced the older Exceed Comparative, which was modelled on the senahzation construction that formed a part of the African substratum of Sranan. As sentence (11b) shows, seriahzat10n is still a hvmg syntactic option 111 modern Sranan: (11)
-\R.4N.-L'\'
a.
A kont pasa mt he smart surpass me "He tS smaner than me'
b.
A tyarz a buku kon gz mt he carry the book come give me 'He has brought me the book'
Stka IS a language with a primary ConJoined Comparative. This primary optiOn IS matched by the fact that a balancing procedure ts largely favoured in the encoding of both smmltaneous and consecuttve chams in S1ka. However, it appears that a form of serialization IS
An Examination of Secondary Choices
229
permitted for a hmJted number of case&; the language has a numba of verbal forms which are constructed as the postenor element In a sntalverb-strmg, and which gradually adopt the function of prepositiOn&: (12)
SJKA:
a.
Nimu tutur nora guru he talk have teacher 'He talks about the teacher'
b.
Cau ou whelz micu ceca I search give you food 'I will search food for you'
From these examples, It will be clear that this construction can be used only if the subjects of the predicates involved are tdcnttcal; morc•Jver, these examples show that the serial construction tn Stka covers instances of both simultaneous and consecutive chaimng. As we have seen m section 8,2, these are general characteristics of serial verb strings. The serialization construction in S1ka is directly matched by the 'ecor.dary comparative for this language: (13)
SJKA:
Au gahar tot
wuce
aung
you big excel brother your
230
Testmg the Set of Charnrng-based Unit,ersals
(14)
MAASA/:
a.
E -yookz
a -tur 3sc-do m the mornmg INt. SG-d1g 'He Will d1g Jt m the mommg' I -yook: -kt aa -tur 2-do m the mornmg-PL INf PL-dig 'You (PL) will d1g It m rhe rnornmg'
The fact that there is number agreement between the two verbal forms suggests that the mfimnves m (14) are not cases of direct-object complementation, but rather a deranked form of a simultaneous predicate. There are two facts of Maasa1 syntax which further strengthen this wggesnon. Fm.t, It appears to be the case that, in Maasa1, mfinnives are never u::.ed to represent subject-clauses or object-clauses; if such clauses have a non-finite form, the language employs a type of verbal noun, which is characterized by the suffix -atal-oto. FormaHy, such formations are to be classtfied as feminine nouns; thetr logical subjects and objects take the gemtive case. Cp.: (1 i)
MAASAI:
Stdm en -kzrnt-ata enye oo ktshu IS-good the-FEM. SG-herding hts oi-the-MASC PL cattle 'Itt. HIS herdmg of the cattle IS good: It IS good that he herds
cartle 1 As a second pomt, we must note that the infinitives in (14) cannot be con'i1dered as cases of action nommals m the Singular or PluraL That is, it 1s not adequate to gloss the sentences m (14) as 'He will do (a) digging' or 'Thev WJII do diggings', smce the elements a- and aa- are not in use as nommal number markers in Maasa1. Given these facts, It seems best to conclude that the mfiniuves m (14) represent a case of senalizatwn, in which the posterior predtcates have lost some, but not all, of their verbal morphology. If this analysi::. of the constructions m (14) is correct, MJa•,at is a regular mstance of Umversal 2A; the secondary Exceed Comparative m Maasa1, which matches the senahzed construction tn (14), has the followmg form: (16)
MAASAI:
Sapuk ol -kondi a ·lang ol -kibulekeny Is-btg the-deer INF. SG-excel the-waterbuck 'The deer is bigger than the waterbuck' In summary, we can state that Maasa1 can have both an Allative Comparanve and an Exceed Comparative by virtue of the fact that thb
An Exammat10n of Secondary Chotces
231
language, untypically, deranks tts C-chains hke a VSO-Ianguage and tts S-chams in the typical manner of an $YO-language. Thts particular double optton for Maasai may be connected with the fact that thts language, while having basic VSO -order, has subject prefixes on verbs, so that tn cases of pronominal subjects the order of elements IS SVO. Cp.: (17)
MAASAI:
a.
E -tur
ol -tungani en -kunna be-hoes the-man the-field 'The man hoes the field'
E -tur
en -kurma
he-hoes the-field 'He hoes the field' Next, we must constdet the case of Quechua and Aymara, two languages which are posstbly genetically related. As we saw in sectiOn 6.2, these languages have a primary Separative Comparative which is modelled directly on the absolute consecutive construction; in early Qucchua, this consecutive construction employs a separative marker on the Perfect Infinitive, a form which consists of a bare verbal stem with the suffix -ska. Now, the simultaneous counterpart of this Perfect Infinitive in early Quechua is the Present In£naive, a bare verbal stem with the suffix -spa; etymologically, the suffix -spa can be tdentified as the nommal genitive case suffix., so that the fonn 1s commonly referred to as the Gemttve Infinitive (see von Tschudi, 1884: 449). Regarding the semantic function of this infinitival form, von Tschundi (ibid.) remarks that it has 'allzeitige Kraft~, i.e., ir derives tts temporal reference from the temporal marking on the main predicate, and indicates simultaneity or concessivity. Based on this procedure of Simultaneous deranking is the Gemtive Comparative in early Quechua, in which the standard NP bas been put into the genitive case: (18)
QUECHUA:
Kam noka-pa
sintsi
you me -GEN strong 'You arc stronger than me' Now, the interesrmg structural property of the Present Infinitive is that, somehow, this form bas lost the abtlity to appear under absolute condmons. That is, m present-
s.
subjects are not identical, Quechua has to use the SubJunctive, a finite subordtnate form. Cp.:
232
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
(19)
QUECJJUk
a.
Muna-spa -m manan utsa -tsi -nki want -GEN-PRT not achieve-FUT·2SG
'You want it, but you will not achieve if
b.
Muna-ptr
-ykt -pas manam hamusah -tsu want -SUBJUNCT -2sc-even not come-FUT. 1SG -NEG
'You want It, but I won't come'
Given the fact that the Present Infinitive can nowadays be used only under identity of subjects, the set of chaming-based umversals predicts
that a modelling of comparative formation on the Present Infinitive must lead to the selection of an Exceed Comparative in modern-day Quechua (following Umversal 2A). This predtction 1S borne out by the facts; von Tschudi (IS84: 389) notes the occurrence of the following Quechua comparative, m which either the comparative predicate or the exceedverb bas been deranked into the form of the Present Infinitive: (20)
QUECHUA:
a.
Tsaskz-y tsaski-ykt -ta purz-spa ya/i -n boat -my boat -your-Ace go -GEN exceed-3SG 'Itt. My boar exceeds your boat whtle gomg'
Tsaski-y
tsaski-yki -ta
yair -spa puri-n boat -my boat -your-ACC exceed-GEN go -3SG 'Itt. My boar goes while exceeding your boat: my boat is faster than your boat'
In this context, we may add some facts of Imbabura Quechua, wluch are presented m Cole (1981: 93). Thts northern, Ecuadorian dialect has an Exceed Comparative, in which the verb yali 'to exceed' is constructed as a free relative clause, marked by the suffix ·J. Cp.: (21)
IMBABURA QUECHUA:
a.
Marya rtku-1 runa M. see ·PCP. PRES man 'the man whom Mana sees' Tumas-ka Marya-la yalt -J alt T. -TOP M. -ACC exceed-PCP. PRES good traba}a-n work -3SG 'Thomas works better than Maria'
Tbe participial form in -1 can only be used m Imbabura Quechua if its subJect 1s identk.tl to that of the main predicate. In addition, lmbabura
An Exammation of Secondary Chozces
233
Quechua has also a form which can be used for absolute simultJ.n.~ous deranking. Tlus form has the suffix -shpa, that is, the same suffix whJCh in other dtalects of present-day Quechua can only be used for conditiOnal simultaneous deranking (see (19aib)). From this, we can conclude that lmbabura Quechua, although it has a form for ab;olure deranbng, has come to model Its comparative construcnon on the conditional ~unul taneous form. Wtthm the framework that is adopted in thts study, such a move should normally lead to the emergence of an Exceed Comparative m a language. Imbabura Quechua, as well as other dtalects of Quecnua, can be ~een as a corroboration of this predtction, and hence they provtde strong evidence for the correctness of the general modelling-hypotheMs on which our set of chaming-based umver~d!~ i~ founded. The situation tn AymJra is completely parallel to the one encountered m QuechuJ.. Again, we find that the ~econdary comparative contains an exceed-verb which has the form of a present participle, and that the panictplal forms involved can be employed only under 1dent1tv of subjects: (22)
AYMARA:
a.
Napt huma
llallt
-sma
saratha
I you-ACC exceed-Per_ PRE.~ go-PRES lSG 'I walk faster than you'
Cusist -sma saratha be merry-PCP. PR~.; go-PRES. lSG 'I go while being merry' To conclude this section, we must comment upon the secondary comparative in Tamazight. In section 7.3.2 we argued that the primary comparative m this Berber language should be classified as an mstance of the Locative Comparative. In addition to this, several authors :e.g. Hanoteau, 1896: 52) mention a ~econdary comparative which is of the Exceed-type. Cp.: (23)
TAMAZIGHT:
Aka/
m
tmmek'keren t -oufi akal ennek country my 3SG-blg-PRES 3sc-exceed country your '~1y country ts btgger than your country' Now, if we look at the various w.J.ys in which temporal chammg IS expres~ed m Tamaztght, tt seems fairly certJm that the secondary Ex(eed Comparative has been modelled on the so-called Narrative Form, which is used to de rank postenor predicates in C-chams. The existence of su ..:h a
Testmg the Set of Chaming-based Untversals
234
con'iecunve derankmg pos.;;tbtlny IS observed by various authors on Berber syntax. Destamg (1920: 120) wntes: 'In a discourse, m a story~ a definne past whrch ts placed m inmal position is always expressed by a Perfect; the followmg verbs whtch are m the definite past are generally expn ;sed by the Imperfect' (my translanon). In La oust (1918: 187-8) we
find !he following observation: 'When the first verb of a sentence or a story IS m the preterite, the verbs of the followmg propOSitions are put mto ~he Aonst and express a past' {my translation}. In a stmilar vein, Johrhon (1966: 135) remarks: 'In narratives, verb-phrases non-initial m a sene~
following a verb-phrase m the perfect tense are often
In
the
narrative aonst: 1) the verb-phrase has the unmarked form, as in the imperfect, but the lPF (t,e., the imperfect tense] prefix does not occur; 2) the movable affixes [whiCh indicate person, number and gender] are postverbal, as m the perfect tense.' Examples of this type of consecutive cons~ructlon, which, gtven its morphological characteristics, may be rated as an instance of derankmg, are the sentences in (24). The corrt'spondence of this chammg constructiOn with the secondary Exceed Comparative in (23) will be obvwus: (24)
IAMAL/GHT:
a.
/nkr ugelltd , 1 -aSt sSt( -ek 3SG-stand up-PERF king , 3SG-take sword-his, t -ddu dar tuaya t -nna-yas 3SG-go to negress , 3SG-say -her 'The kmg stood up, took h1s ~word, walked up to the negress, and said to her .. .'
b.
Tamgart
da -t
-gan
ar-ammas n -iid
,
the-woman HAB-3SG. FEM -sleep to-m1ddle of-night,
t
-nker zik , t
-sag lqendil , the
-azzem
3SG. fEM-rise early, 3SG. FEM-light the-lamp, 3SG. FEM-dress 'A woman usually sleeps until midnight, rises early, lights the lamp, gets dressed ... '
Thus, we may conclude that the secondary comparative in Tamazight has its direct surface parallel m a consecutive construction in wh1ch derank· ing of posterior predicates takes place. This conclusion, however, leads to a specific problem, which has to do With the condinonaiity of the C-cham involved. It must be noted that the Narrative Form m Tamazight is not limJted to chains With subjecHdentity; m other words, the Narrative Form is not a case of conditional dcrankmg. To be sure, the normal Situation m the expresswn of narratives is that the topic is kept constant throughout successiVe event~, but there IS no syntactic restriction wh1ch
An Exammatton of Secondary Chou.es
235
prevents a deviation from th1s unmarked case; It IS posstble, at least in pnnctple, to mtroduce a new topic tn the narrative, so that absolute use of the NarratiVe Form is a defimte, albeit rather uncommon, option. Hence, If we assume that the Narrative Form functions as the model of the !,CCondary comparative in Tamazight, our set of chaming-based umversals (and especially Universal 3B) would lead us to expect an Allat1ve Comparative as a secondary opnon in Tamazight rather than the Exceed Comparative, which presupposes condiuonal deranking pro· cedures. Now, there are indeed some indtcations that an Allative Comparative is a margmal possibility m at least some Berber dialects; Laoust (1918: 279) points out that the preposition s 'to' IS sometimes employed to mark standard NPs m comparatives. On the whole, however, 1t seems that the Allat1ve Comparative in Berber has given way to an Exceed Comparative of the type wluch we Illustrated in (23). For the moment, I am unable to present a satisfactory solution to this particular problem w1th the secondary comparative in Tamaztght. One po~stblc way out mtght be to argue that, since the Narrative Form in T amaz1ght typically occurs in contexts where the subjects in the cham refer to the same individual, conditional C·chains are the norm in this language, so that an Exceed Comparative would be the obvious option. Alternatively, one might invoke the concept of syntactiC borrowing. It IS certainly true that the African languages with which Tamazight is in contact all select an Exceed Comparative as their primary opnon. Whatever solution one adopts, 1t can be added that the unclear situation regarding the secondary comparative in Tamazight is matched by the indeterminacy of basic word order in that language; while some authors (e.g., Hanoteau, 1896) mention basic SVO order for Tamazight, other grammarians (e.g., Johnson, 1966) list this language as basically VSO.
10.4
Secondary Locative and Allative Comparatives
In thts section, we wtll occupy ourselves with an exammatton of those languages which have a Locative or an Allanve Comparative as thetr secondary option. As will be recalled, Universal 3C predicts that languages with a Locative Comparanve can be shown to have absolutely deranked S·chains; Universal 3B predicts that the occurrence of an Allative Comparative can be matched by the occurrence of C-chains in whiCh the postenor preillcate IS deranked under absolute conditions. One of the languages which we have hsted in section 2.3.2 as having a secondary Allative Comparauve can be shown to have yet another secondary option of comparatrve-rype choice: T amtl combmes its
236
Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals
secondary Allattve Comparative with a secondary Separative Comparative. The same goes for one of the languages With a secondary locative Comparative; this language, viz. Basque, can be shown to have an additional Separative Comparanve. 1 have preferred not to split up the discusston of these two language& over two separate sections, and hence I will deal With them in the next section, where secondary Separative Comparatives are presented in detail. This, then, leaves us wnh nine cases of secondary comparative-type choice to be dtscussed in this section. For one of these cases, viz. Nama, I must concede nght away that its secondary Locative Comparative wdl be a counterexample to Universal 3C, in exactly the same way in which its primary Separative Comparative is a problematic case for Umversal 3A. As we saw m section 6.5, the problem With the Separative Comparative in Nama IS that the deranked C-chain which is supposed to match it cannot be shown unequivocally to permit absolute use. We find a parallel situa
NAMA:
Ara-se gye tgaba gye ha cry ~PCP. PRES PRT servant PRT come 'The servant came in crying'
In all the examples wh1ch I have been able to find, Present Part1ciples are constructed under subject-identity with the main predicate. At the present stage of my knowledge of Nama, I am unable to decide whether this s1tuat10n ts due to a lack of data or to a genuine structural restricnon on the occurrence of participles in tlus language. If the latter IS the case, then we mu>t decide that the locative Comparative m Nama, of whieh sentence (26) is an example, forms a contradiction to Universal 3C, at least as far as the conditionality of the S-chains m this language is concerned: (26)
NAMA:
Gob neb gye noub ga-e1 a xnou-acha boy thiS PRT that on is smart 'This boy is smarter than that boy' The other etght languages which are relevant to the discussion in this section can .1ll be shown to corroborate Universal 3B or Universal 3C, in either a direct or an indirect way. To start with Hungarian) Tompa
!37
An Examination of Secondary Chozces
(1968) mentions a secondary comparative m which the standard NP IS marked for Adessive case ('at', 'by') by means of the ca~e suffix -neli-"lal. This Locative option IS matched by the fact that Hungarian has the po~~ibility to derank simultaneous chains; one of the predicates m a Hungarian 5-chain may optionally be repmented by the Present PartiCiple in -val-w, \.vhich at least marginally Jllow~ for absolute use: (27)
HUNGARIAN:
a.
A konyha vi/lagos-abb a pmce -nel the kitchen bright ·PRT the cellar·ADESS 'The kitchen is brighter than the cellar'
lgy
allvan
a
dolog , elmentunk
thus standing the matter go away-PERF. lPL 'Matters bemg thus, we went off' Uke all Balt1c languages, Latvtan deranks 1ts predicates mto verbal adJectives; if simultaneity is implied, the language employs a set of forms known as Present Participles. If the constru,tton has Identity of subJects, the deranked simultaneous predicate has the form of the Present Partiople in -dams, which agrees in case, number and gender with its antecedent in the mam clause. In contrast, non~Ldentity of subJects in an S-cham requires the use of the Absolute Dative constructiOn. In this constructJOn, the deranked simultaneous predicate has the form of a stem wh~eh ~~ marked by the suffix ~nt; m modern Latvian, the usual endmg of the predicate m this construction is -uot. As Endzelm (1922: 721) remark;;, tt IS probable that this absolute verbal form 1s a fosSilization of an old dative case of the Present Participle. 1 The sUbJect of the deran <:ed simultaneous predicate has retained its dative case marking even m modern dialects. An example of the Absolute Dative IS g1ven in senrence (28a); the construction is matched by the ~econdary Lm:ative Compz,rative in Latvian. Cp.: (28)
LATVIAN:
a.
Man
stenu
veduot
, uznaca
1-DAT hay~ACC enter- PCP , come down-PA~I
ltetus ram
'As l was bnngmg in the hay, it started rammg'
b.
Anna smukaka aiz Trrnas A. prettier-FEM on T.~GEN 'Anna is prettier than Trina •
In Dakota, and the closely related Assinibome, the primary opnon for the cornparati\·e IS the use of 'two contrasting clauses, one with a positive, the other wtth a negative verb or adverb' (Buechel, 1939: 96);
238
J'estmg the Set of Chatmng-based Unwersals
an example of this ConJomed Comparative has been presented m section
9.2. In addmon, Dakota has also a comparative of the adverbJal kmd. In thiS case, the standard NP IS marked by the postposinonal elements ISam, tsangb or twangkab, wh1ch probably originate from adverbtal forms of verbs that have lost the ability to occur mdependendy; the form tsam, for example, must be seen as the adverbial form of the obsolete verb sang-pa 'to sutpass', to whtch the mstrumental prefix i- 'agamst, in reference to, by mean• of' has been attached (Boas and Delona, 1941: 143). 2 In presentday Dakota, these elements function as locative postposinons, meaning 'on' . 'on top of' or 'above'. In Assiniboine (seelevm, 1964), we find that the standard NP m the secondary comparative is marked by the postposmon aka 'on'. Thus, it seems plaustble to dasstfy the secondary comparanve 1n these languages as instances of the Locative Comparative. Cp.: (29)
DAKOTA:
Hokstla kmg atku -ku isam hangska boy the father-hts on tall 'The boy " taller than his father' (30)
ASSJNJBOINE:
Ne mt-aka haska he me-on tall 'He ts taller than me'
The occurrence of a Locattve Comparative in Dakota IS matched mdtrecdy by the fact that, m this language, predicates m S·chams may be advt'rb•ahzed by means of the suffixes -ya, -ye/a, ·ha, -kef or ·I, wh1ch are attached to the bare verb stem (Boas and Deloria, 1941: 137). These forms have the definite possibtlity to appear In absolute use. Cp.: (H)
DAK07A:
a.
Tt-tle hceha-1 Mato e/' t house burn -PCP. PRF!t Bear there arnved
'While the house wa& on fire, Bear arriVed there' h.
Yu -spa-ye
-ya egnaka
CAUS-wet-rAST-PCP he put It away 'He put it away, it having been wetted'
Mandmka has a Locattve Comparative as its primary chmce (see sectJon 7.3.2). The s-econdary Allative Comparative in thts language has its ind1rcct parallel m the Injunctive Form, whtch 'marks •.. that the acC(Imphshment of the actwn or the acquJsmon of the state 1~ sub-
An Exammation of Secondary Chozces
239
ordmated to the accomphshment of another action or the acqmsition of another state' (Labourer, 1934: 202; my translatwn). ThiS verbal form, wh1ch absolutely deranks postenor predicates m C-chains, is characterIZed by the introductory particle ka and the absence of tense marking. Cp.: (32)
MANDINKA:
a.
A ka gya m -ye he is big me-to 'He is bigger than me'
•
A wuli-ra ka a fa he rise -PAST PRT it say 'He stood up and said it'
The next language which must be discussed in this context is Gumbainggir, an Australian language. Th1s language has a Conjoined Comparative as its primary choice; however, Smythe (1948: 52) remarks that a Locative Comparative is also an option m Gumbainggir: (33)
GUMBAINGGIR:
jarang nzgar banuar.-ga nanJu-mbaia this man b1g -PRT me -on 'This man is bigger than me' It follows, then, that we should be able to locate cases of absolute simultaneous deranking m Gumbainggir, 1f th1s language is to be a regular instance of Universal 3C on its secondary option. I think that it can be argued that such constructions do mdeed exist m Gumbainggir, but the relevant data are rather unclear and ment some speafic di~cusston. Both sources which I have consulted (Smythe, 1948; Eades, 1979) state explicitly that the normal, unmarked form for S-chams m Gumbainggir conststs of a paratactic, balanced construction of finite predicates. This fact ts, of course, matched directly by the occurrence of a ConJoined Comparative as the primary optwn m this language. In add1t10n, however, Gumbainggtr has also a construction which ts employed for the general subordination of predicates and clauses; this construction is called the 'Relative Clause' by Smythe (1948: 72), but, as we shall see, liS domain of application covers more than just the equivalent of our relative clauses. Formally, the Relative Clause is characterized by the presence of the suffix -ndzl-andi, which is identified by Smythe (ibid.) as the possessive suffix. Semantically, the construction has a very general subordinative interpretation; it functions as the equivalent of our relative clauses, conditional clauses and causal clauses ahke. Cp.:
240
Testing the Set of Chaintng-based Universals
(34)
GUMBAINGGIR:
a.
Buwar Jarang dulungmi-ng niga-da -ndi btiamba-ng baby-SUIIJ this smile ·PAST man•LOC·PRT eat ·PAST 'The baby smiled at the man who was eating'
•
Ngaia wah-w b1Jaga7a -ndi biiamba-w lSG·SUBJ dte -RIT not-PCP -PRT eat ·FUT 'I will dte if/because I don't eat' Ngmda nagari-w -andt gidu -da gulunay-gu barway 2sG-SUBJ play ·FUT·PRT sand-!.OC ram ·FUT big-SUB) 'If you play in the sand, there will be btg stonns'
In addition, Smythe (ibtd.) presents an example in which this construe· tion has a definite s•mnlraneous interpretation: (35)
GUMBAINGGIR:
Guram -gundt ngan gawart·ng bilagara-ng ·andt poor man-GEN leg break ·PAST nm ·PAST·PRT 'The poor fellow broke his leg while running' Thus, it looks as if the Relative Clause in Gumbatnggir must be viewed as an abstract, syntactically homogeneous clause type, m which different semantic nuances have come to be neutralized. This syntactic umformity of the Gumbamggtr Relative Clause, which 1s defended exphatly m Smythe (1948: 70-5} but questioned by Eades (1979: 327}, can be supported by data from other Australian languages, in which a similar type of clause can be attested. Hale (1976} argues tbat the relative adjoined clause itl Au;tralian language; must be seen as a multifunctional formal construction, which has a looser, more paratactic relation to the main clause than is usually found in subordinate structures m natural languages. The analysis proposed by Hale is adopted by Merlan (1982} in her description of the 'generalized subordinate clause' in Mangarayi (p.l2), a consrrucnon which has roughly the same distribution as the Relative Clause m Gumbainggir. One of Metlan's examples is the following sentence (p.l5}: (36)
MANGARAYI:
Wurg·ga -m wanggiJ Jang? hide -3SG/3SG·AUX·PAST. CONI' child-ABS d1e
-0 -ma -n SUBORD·3SG·AUX ·PAST. PERF 'He h1d the chtld who'd died'
wa
An Examination of Secondary Choices
Of this sentence, Merlan remarks: 'There
IS
241
no absolute criterion wh1ch
distinguishes the given translation from an adsenccntial interpretation
"He hid the chdd when he died".' Whether a generalized &ubordmate clause in Mangarayi can (or should be) mtcrpreted as a relative clause,
lS
a temporal clause, or as both, appears to depend on the interplay of a variety of formal and contextoal factors (&ee Merlan, 1982: 15-18). All in all, we can conclude that 'in Mangaray1 we find a smgle formal subordinate clause wh1ch IS variably understood as adnommal or a j. sentennal moddier' (ibid.: 13).' Given these facts of Gumbainggi.r and other Austrahan languages, I thmk we can be JUstified in concluding that Gumbamgg~r has the posSibility of formmg deranked pred1cat1ve constructions wh1ch m.1y have the temporal interpretation of a Simultaneous cham. Since, a~ the examples above have &hown, the subordinatively marked predicate does not have to be in construction with the subJect of the m.un predicate, Jt
can also be concluded that simultaneous deranklng m Gumbamggtr c.m be absolute. Hence, the secondary comparative in thi&language turm out to be a confirmanon of Umversal3C.
Speaking of Mangarayi, ,it should be noted that thiS language has apparently modelled its secondary comparative option not on its generalized subordinate construction, but rather on a construction which
deranks consecutively interpreted sequences. Merlan (1982: 10-11) mentions the fact that Mangarayi bas a "'clo.iderative-intenrional' construction. Predicates in this construction appear in a nommahzed form, and are further marked by the suflil< -wu, wluch is also in use a& a ca&e suffix to mark dative and genitive case 10 nouns. D~rect objects of tl>e nommalized verb are put mto the geninveldative ca&e form. An example
of this construction is: (37)
MANGARAYI:
Na -bamar-wu na ·fllYa -wu 0 -ninga-n NOUN·steal ·OAT NOUN-meat·DAT 3SG-come-PAST 'He came to steal the meat' This 'absolute dattve• (Merlan, 1bid.)
IS
'usually semantically purposl\e'
(Merlan, 1982: 10; my italics). Again, one ought deduce from this formulation that the construction at ISSUe here has a certain amount of semantic indeterminacy, and that, therefore, It might be rated as a case of consecutive deranking, to which (as we saw in sectton 4.2) <\ purpo~-e reading IS naturally attached. Alternatively, one mtght v1ew Mangarayt as one of the rare cases of 'purpose-modelling' of comparatives, m tne same way as Kanur1 (~e ~ction 7.2.3). In any case, the 'dcsidcratl\e-
Testmg the Set o{Chaming-based Umversals
24.!
mtl!ntwnal' constructton turns out to have Its direct parallel m the secondary Allattve Comparattve of Mangarayi. Merlan {1982: 68) ob!>crves that Mangarayi has 'a le!.!. common (but nevertheless span~ taneously produced) construction type', in which the standard NP is marked for dative/purposive case: (38)
MANGARAYI:
Na-yaba na-balayt ngan1u brother big lSG-DAT 'My brother JS bigger/older than me'
The last two languages m the sample wnh a Locative ComparatiVe as the1r secondary opt1on are Maori and Samoan. From the hterature on vanous Polynemn languages it can be derived that they onginally had C0'1Joined Comparanves, but that in recent times a Locative Comparatlv< has been gammg ground. This Locative Comparative ts typtcally marked by means of the multifuncttonal preposition tie 'at' on the standard NP. Examples of this Polynesian Locattve Comparanve have been attested for Samoan (Marsack, 1975: 67), Marquesan (Dordtllon, 19c• I' 12), Fl)Ian (M>Iner, 1956: 34) and Maon (Rere, 1965: 16). Cp.: {l9)
SAMOAN:
Ua
stli
tele le mauga
i
/e
fale
PRES more high the mountain at the house 'The mountam is h1gher than the house' (·10)
MARQUrS.~N:
Mea mettat Ionane 1 Iakopo thing good I. on I. 'lonane is better than lakopo' (41)
~/f!AN:
Sa
levu na ka
oqo e
na ka
oqort
PRES b1g
the thmg this on the thmg that 'ThiS is bigger than that' (42)
MAORI:
Teia te rakau roa ake i tena this the tree big more on that 'This tree IS higher than that one' Botll Samoan and Maon can be shown to be unproblematic Instances of Umversal 3C. In these languages, hke in all Polynesian languages, it Is pos.'>lble to derank simultaneous predicates by means of a nominahzation. Tht s, rhe predicate m the simultaneous clause 1s turned into a derived
An Exammatwn of Secondary Choices
243
noun, and the tense-aspect-mood parncle whJCh as obhgarory for fimte verbal forms is replaced by a marker of spec1fic1ty. In East Polynesian languages such as Maori, the nommahzation rule also involves the attachment of some alternant of the nominahzmg suffix -anga to the verb stem (see Chung, 1978: 298); m the Samoic-Outlier branch, of wh1ch Samoan is a member, the derived noun has the morphologlcal form of the bare verbal stem. Nominalized predicates must be structurally rated as heads of NPs; their subjects are marked for genitive case by the particles a oro. In Maon, deranked (i.e., nommahzed) simultaneous predicates may be constructed either as a free NP, or as a prepositional phrase marked by the preposition t 'at'. In this latter case, direct surface parallelism between the ~econdary comparative and the deranked S-chain is achreved: (43)
MAORI:
a.
Te tae
~nga
o Hutu kz raro
the arrive -NOUN of H. to below 'When Hutu arrived in the underworld .. .' (Chung, 1978: 300)
b.
I te
are -nga
o ' tera tangata na taatat , at the walk-NOUN of this man along beach kua site i tetai pai PAST see ACC one ship 'While this man walked along the beach, he saw a ship'
In Samoan~ simultaneous nommahzarions are often preceded by the prcdicarional particle 'o. This particle has a number of dtfferent functions (see Marsack, 1975: 20-2), the most important of which appear to be the marking of nouns and pronouns 'standing by rtself and not forming part of a sentence', or the markmg of the subJeCt when It precedes the verb. The deranked 5-chain in Samoan IS Illustrated by sentence (44}, which has been borrowed from Chung (1978: 306). Cp.: (44)
SAMOAN:
'0 le sau a le ta'avale a leo/eo ' PRED the come of the car of police 'ou te /if malamalama 't Ql I UNSPEC not understand to It 'When the police car came, I wasn't aware of It'
10.5
Secondary Separative Comparatives
To conclude our examination of secondary opnons m comparative-type choice, we must consider the nine cases m our sample which have a
244
Testing the Set of Charnmg-based Umversals
secondary Separative Comparative. Following Universal 3A, rhese languages should have the possibility to form consecunve chains m which the anterior predicate is deranked under absolute conditions. As it rums out, all nine languages are clear confirmations of the universal at issue. Startmg w1th Tamil, we have remarked earher rhat this langnage has an unusually large variety of comparatives at its disposal. In addition to the Locative Comparative and the vtta-comparanve discussed in section 7.3.2, several authors mention a secondary Separative Comparative and a secondary Allat1ve Comparative for Tamil: (45) a.
b.
TAMil.:
Ten ·zn -um rnttu emta honey-from-and what sweet 'What IS sweeter than honey?' Ittu·ku atu nallatu this·DAT that good 'This is better than that'
The secondary Separative Compar.nve in Tamil is matched by rhe occurrence of the so-called Vimzryeccam (Bcythan, 1943: 103), a gerundial form With rhe suffix -ttu attached to the verb stem. The form IS the obligatory representation of anteriOr predicates in C-chains, and can be used freely under absolute conditions: {46)
TAMIL:
Naan panam kudu-ttu avan sinimaa-vukku • I money give ·PERF. GF.R he mov1e -to poonan go-PAST. 3SG cl gave h1m money and he went to a movie
The Allative Comparative illustrated m (45b) is modelled directly on the purpose-con~truction which Tamtl employs. In this construction, too, the predicate is deranked into a non-finite form. If there is 1dent1ty of subjects between the main predicate and the predicate of the purposeclause, this latter predicate has rhe form of the Infinitive in -a; in other words, m this case the purpose·construction has the same surface expression as the simultaneous action construction (see section 7.3.2), If, however, the subjects are non-identical, the predicate of the purposeclause must be de ranked into a verbal noun, which is then pur into Dative case. It is this latter construction wh1ch provides the direct parallel With the secondary AHa rive Comparative in Tamil. Cp.:
An Examination of Secondary Chotces
245
(47)
TAMIL:
a.
Engka ammaa-ve paakka naan Cengkat-tukku pooreen our mother-ACC see-INF I C. -to go-PRf"'.l >G 'I am going to Chengam to see my mother'
b.
Avan pustaka-m vaang-kina -tukku pana -m he-NOM book ·ACC buy ·PAST. NOUN-DAT money-ACe kututteen give-PAST. 1SG 'l gave hun money so that he could buy a book'
The remaining eight languages with a secondary Separative Compa,·attve are all European Parncle-languages. For some of these languages, direct surface parallelism can be attested. A case in point is Basque; tn addition to the Particle Comparative dtscussed tn sectton 9.3, Lafitte (1944: 139--40) mentions two secondary (and somewhat archa1c) Basque comparatives of the adverbial type. In one of these constructJOns, the
standard NP is in the Mediative case, which is marked by the suffix -zl-
az, and which normally mdicates cause, manner, mottve and temporal duration ('while, during'). Cp.: (48)
BASQUE:
Cure }ite
-az
goragoa
our nature-MED higher 'supertor to our nature' Th1s Mediative Comparative correspond~ with the posstbiluy of stmultaneous derankmg m Basque. Deranked predtcates m S-chains have the form of the nommal Infimtive (with the suffix -te) or the Supinum (wtth the suffix -i or -n), which are then put mto the Mediative case. For both forms, absolute use is permitted. If the deranked prediCate has the form of the Infinitive, the subJeCt is put either mto the Geninve CJ.se (that ts, the Infinitive is cons1dered to be a noun) or into the Nominative c.q. ErgatJVe case (that is, the lnfimtive IS taken to be a verb). The Supmurn IS a verbal form; tts subject is always in the Nominative c.q. Ergative case. Cp.: (49)
BASQUE:
a,
Aita Jt -te -az atsegin dut father-NOM come-INF-MED happy l-am 'Now that my father IS co•ning, I am happy'
b.
Atta -ren ji -te -az atsegin dut father-GEN come-INF·MED happy l-am 'Now that my father is commg, I am happy'
Testmg the Set of Chammg-based Unwersals
246 c.
Htra
J1
-n
atsegin dut
-ez
he-NOM come-SUP-MED happy
l-am
'Now that he is commg, I am happy'
In 1 he other ~econdary comparative m Basque, the standard NP ts put mto the Elanve case, marked by the ~uffix -tk. This Separative Comparative has Jts duect parallel m the way m which C-cham~ can be represented m Basque; anterior pred1cates are deranked into the form of the Supmurn, whiCh is then marked for Elat1ve Ca~c. The form clearly allows for absolute use, with subJeCt<; either m the Nominative or m the Ergative cast:. Cp.: (50)
BA>QUc:
a.
Nztar-tk
gorago-ko
norbatt
me -ELAT higher -GEN someone 'someone who is supenor to me
Harek erra-n -1k
badagzku
he-ERG say -SUP-ELAT knoW-It-PRES. l.PL
·Now that he has sa1d
It,
we know It'
As we saw m section 2.1, Latm ha.s a secondary comparative 1n which the standard NP I!> put Into the Ablative case; this is a case which
ind1cates the agent of an action, and which
used furthermore m the complement of both locative and separative prcposmons (cp. ab urbe 'from the town' and in urbe 'm the town'). Hence, there is a certam lS
degree of mdetermmacy m the classification of the secondary Ablative Comparative m Latm; we mtght rate It as an mstance of the Separanve Comparanve, but there is al<;o somerhmg to be said for a classification of thi!t construction as a Locative Comparattve: (.> 1)
LATIN:
Cato C.-NOM
Ctcero-ne
c.
-ABL
eloquentwr est more eloquent IS
'Cato 1~ more eloquent than Ctcero'
The 1ndetermmacy of the status of the Ablative Comparative is matched by the parnal neutrahzatton of the ways m which S-chains and C-chams are represented m Latm. As we saw in section 4.1, Latin deranks prechcates m temporal chams by puttmg them into the form of pamc1plcs; If the cham IS sunulraneous, the Present Participle i-; used, whereas in consecutive chams the antenor predicate gets the form of the Perfect Paniciple. In cases of absolute dcrankmg, the participle and tts subJect are both put mto the Ablative case, whtle the participle muse agree With
An Exammatwn of Secondary Chotct•s
247
subJect in number and gender. Examples of ab')olutely deranked Schams and C-chams m Laun are the followmg:
Its
(52)
LAflN:
a.
Servzs cantanttbus dommus slaves-ABL ~1ASC. PL sing-PRhS PCP.-ABL. MASC. PL master-NOM btbtt dnnk-PRES. 3SG
'Wh1le the slaves sing, the master dnnks' Caesar
Pompeto
vzcto
C.-NOM P.-ABL. MASC. SG defeat-PCP PERF. PASS-ABL. MASC. SG
Aegyptum ad11t A.-ACC go to-PERF. IND. JSG 'After Pompe1us had been defeated, Caesar marched mto Egypt'
lt will be clear that the parallelism between the formalizatiOn of S-chains and C-chams m Latin is fairly far-reachmg, in that It has led to nearneutralizatiOn; the only d1fference between the two types of chainmg constructions lies in the tense marking of the participles mvolved. Given that the Ablanve Absolute construction can be used for both $-chams and C-chams (depending on the teme of the pamctple employed), there IS no tcllmg whether the Ablative Comparative in Lalln has taken the Simultaneous construCtiOn or rather the consecutive construction as its model. Thus, we see that the near-neutralization in the formalization of chaming constructions has its counterpart in the indetermmacy of the classificatiOn of the Ablative Comparanve in Latm. A Situation which IS very ~Jmllar to that m Latm can be encountered m ClassiCal Greek. In this language, the secondary comparative was formed by puttmg the standard NP mto the Genitive case, a form which had taken over the functiOns of the defunct ablative and locative ca'ies. Again, we see that thl& mdeterminacy IS matched by a near-neutraJJZat10n in the forrnahzation of S-chains and C-chains; Classical Greek deranked the predicates m ItS temporal chains Into partiCiples, wh~eh under absolute conditions agreed in case, gender and number with its subJect, wh1ch had to be m the Genitive case. Examples. of the Gemnve Comparative in Classical Greek, and of the Gemtive Absolute constrncuon for both Schains and C-chams are the fo1lowing: (S l)
CLASSICAL GREEK:
a.
Fdtppos en sofoteros ton proterOn F.-NOM was more~wise the-Gt.N. PL earlier-GEN. PL
bast/eon king-GEN. PL
Testing the Set of Chaintng-based Unwersals
248
h.
Toulon
legomenOn
thosc-GEN PL. NEUT say-PCP. PRES. PASS.-GEN. PL. NEUT
anesthe stand up-AOR. IND. 3SG '\X:'hile those thmgs were bemg said, he stood up' Tou
••
stratfgou
the-GEN. MASC. SG general-GEN. ~G
keleusantos
apech6resamen
order-PCP. AOR. ACT.-GEN SG. MA.SC
withdraw-A OR. IND. lP!.
'After the general had given the order, we withdrew' A clear case of surface parailelbm is also offered by Finnish, where the secondary comparative IS charactenzed by a standard NP in the Partitive case. Anterior prediCates m Ftnntsh C-chains can be dcrankcd mto infinitival forms, whtch arc then marked by the nominal partitive case suffix. Absolute use of such 1nfimuves IS common. Cp.: {54)
FINNISH:
a.
Nykmen professort on edellts -a hezko~mpz current professor JS former-PART weak-er 'The current professor is less strict than the former one'
•
Vel7en palattu -a tyOs -tii menimme elokuvHn • brother return-lNF-PART work-from go-PAST. 1PL cmema -to 'Our brother carne back from his work and we went to the cmema'
The last four languages m the sample which combine a primary Particle Comparative wtth a secondary Separative Comparative do not show direct surface paralleli~m on their secondary option, but they can be shown to have the poss1bdrty to derank antenor consecutive predicates under absolute conditions. Russian (see Pulkina and ZakhavaNekrasova, 1974: 146) has a secondary comparative in whiCh the standard NP IS put mto the Genittve case; as in Classical Greek, the Russian Gemtive has taken over the functiOns of the defunct Ablative. Now, this ~econdary comparanve optwn for Ru~~tan ts matched by the extstence of verbal nouns, I.e., non-finJte verbal forms, whiCh can be employed to rcpre~ent the predicdte in adverbial clauses. In the case of consecutive clauses, the verbal noun IS preceded by the preposmon p6sle 'after', which governs Gemt1ve case; for stmultaneous chaming, verbal nouns are preceded by the preposmon s 'with', which governs Instrumental case. Absolute use of verbal nouns ts possible; subjects have the form of a Gemttve NP or a posse.'>.<,Jve pronoun. 4 Cp.:
•
An Exammation of Secondary Choices (55)
RU.>.>IAN:
a.
Wolga dhnflee Dnepr-a
249
W. longer D. ·GEN 'The Wolga is longer than the Dmepr'
b.
P6sle pnezd
-a
ego
after come·NOUN-GEN h1s 'After h1s commg: after he came'
c.
pnezd
S
-a
eg6
wnh come-NOUN ·GEN h:s 'W1th his commg: the moment that he came' The secondary Separative Comparative in Albaman, whiCh ts marl.ed by the preposition ka 'from' on the standard NP (>ee Lambertz, 19.i9:
76}, has its counterpart m chammg cono;tructtons by v1rnte of ~he ex1stence of the AbsoJute Form, a non-finite verbal formation wh tch replaces anterior predicates in consecutive chams. Formally this Absoi·JteForm (see CamaJ, 1969: 66-7) con&~sts of the particle string me nJe te followed by a part1c1ple.' Cp.: (56)
ALBANIAN:
a.
K1o shtiipt iishtii me
ka aJO thiS house ts more the btg-one (rom that 'This house is bigger than that one'
b.
Me nw te ardhe
t
nalte
ti letres,
I'RT
come-PCP the letter-GEN Agirnn 1 P''1'Jeg}t te ;iitlt A. answered the father-OAT 'After the letter had arrived, Ag1rmi answered his father' In Old French (see Vahn, 1952: 9), the preposition de '(rom, ol' wa' m use as the marker of the standard NP m comparariv~. Valin remarks: 'Th1s m.e is still alive m Modem French m the alternation plus que/plus de: The use of de mstead of the normal comparative particle qul ts obligatory in Modern French comparattves whtch contam mea~ne phrases, such as (58alb); the latter sentence IS quoted from Bcrgn1.1ns (1982: 94). Cp.: (57)
OLD FRENCH:
Plus grant de
lut
more tall fron1 hrm 'taller than him'
25•)
Testmg the Set of Chammg¥bascd Umuersals
(58)
MODERN FRENCH:
a.
Il y a plus d' un an it there has more from one year 'It 1~ more than a year ago'
'·
plus d'
' metre sozxante he measure-PRES. 3SG more from one metre sixty 'He IS taller than L60m'
II mesure
un
Tb~
<;econdary Separative Comparative in French is matched by the fact that the language has also a limited (and somewhat styhsttcally marked) po~stbiltty to derank antenor prediCates in C-chains, by means of the ab,-.olute use of past participles. As Bergmans (1982: 105) remarks: 'The cla,,s of these clauses IS not hmtted to fixed expresswns such as cecz dzt or tout compte fmt'; he quotes an example from Henri Troyat's novel Les Dri;ordres Secrets (p.78), whtch I reproduce here as sentence (59): (59)
I·RfNU/:
La pazx revenue , tu me reJomdras en France the peace return- PCP. PERF you me Join-FUT. 2.<:.G in F. 'When peace has returned, you wtll jom me m France' 1 o conclude this chapter, let us have a look at the secondary comparative optiOns for English. Joly (1967: 38) states: 'The pair to/from has been and rs stili bemg u:.ed with an ordmary comparative.' The examples giVen by Joly stem from Old English texts: (60)
OLD tNGLJSH:
a
Thou hast maad htm lzttl, a lttt! /esse fro aungelts you have-2SG made hrm small a httle less from angels 'You have made hun small, a little less than angels'
Nys
none
of wymman beter borne to semt johan
not-Is no-one of women better born to saint John 'Nobody IS born of women better than StJohn'
Within the hypothetical framework adopted m thrs investtganon, the secondary (romHcomparative can be accounted for by pomtmg out that English has a limned (and ~omewhat bookish) possibility of deranking anterior predtcates m consecutive chams by means of a participial form. Absolute use of this construction IS margmal, but can nevertheless be atte1.ted in a number of mstances: (61)
ENGLJSI/:
a. b.
Thts sazd, we must return to our mam pomt AIL thmgs constdered, you'd better leave the country at once
An Exammatwn of Secmrd.1ry Chotces
251
A plaustble way to look at the to-cornparattvc m Old Enghsh is to view the ttem to as the marker of the Old Germamc Dat1ve case, whtch was the case of the standard NP m practtcally all Old Gerrnamc languages (sec Small, 1929: 19). TillS Old Germamc Dauve caoe not only expressed allauve spatial relations, but had al~o taken over the functton of exprcs~mg locative relations. Followmg this hoc of rea~onmg, we may v1ew the to~comparattve m Old Enghsh as an mstance of the Locanve Comparative. If we adopt thts postnon, the to~comparattve ~~ a regular ca~e of Umversal 3C, smce absolute derankmg of stmultaneous chams IS a definite posstbiltcy even m Modern Engh;h. Cp.: (62)
FNGLJSH:
a.
Engltsh bemg an SVO-language, 1t zs not surpnsmg that 1t has R1ghtward SubJect Delet1on john bemg the drunkard that he IS, I p1ty h1s w1{e
<.
10.6 Conclusion
In
th1~ chapcer, we have exammed the validity of
the set of chammg-
based untversals with re!.pect to the cases of !.econdary comparative-type choiCe chat have been attested m the sample. Of the 34 cases at tssue, 30 c;;:an be ~hown to be unproblematiC confirmations of the relcvam umversals. The most recalcitrant case of secondary comparanve-rype choKe ~~ represented by the secondary Exceed Comparative 1n Tarnaz1ght (see secnon 10.3). For the secondary Locanve Comparattve Jn Nama no conclustve affirmatton of Un1versal 3C could be documented; thus, the problem with the secondary comparative m Nama IS the same as that Wlfh which the primary Separative Comparanve in that language confronts us (see secnon 6.5). Fmally, there are two cases m the sample m which a secondary Allat1ve Cornpar.1nve appears to have It<> d1rect match 1n a purpose-construction. To the extent that one wtshes to exclude thts po>>Ibihty of 'purpose·modellmg' from the set of confirmmg data for our umver~als~ these languages (viz. Tamil and Mangarayt) can be rated as counterexamples ro Universal )Bon theu ~econdary opnom.
'
'
1 ~'
'
I
•
Part Three Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
11 Theoretical Background Assumptions
11.1
Introduction
ln tne foregomg chapters of this essay, we have first set up a typology of comparative constructions m natural languages (chapter 2). Followmg that~ we have put forward the hypothesls that the options m this typology can be predicted on the basts of the types of temporal chaming construe~ tion~ wh1ch are possible m natural languages (chapter 3). The proposed con elations between comparative types and chammg types have been latd down 10 a set of chammg-based umversals of comparative-type choice (chapter 5). In the chapter; of part two of this study these umversals have been tested agamst the empirical facts of the languages m
the
~ample.
S . uveymg the results of our mvestigatton so far, I think we are Justified 111 drawmg the followmg conclus1on. The exammatwn of the various umvcrsals m the chapters of part two can be satd to have led to an empmcal confirmation of these umversals; m VlCW of the overwhdmmg majonty of 'regular' cases, the few problematic cases for each of these umversa!s may reasonably be rated as 'mc!de.nal'. Therefore, we can con.:lude that the da1med correlations between comparative~type chotec and chammg·type chOice are firmly established. Furthermore, we have been able to account for the attested correlation between word order typl's and some comparative types, by demonstratmg that these wordord~~r options are correlated with the particular chammg types which dct( rmme the comparauve types in question. 1 Th1s, then, constitutes the maJor descrtptwe result of our cross-hngmsuc mqu1ry. However, as we stated explicitly m chapter 5, the set of chammgbas1:d umversals IS not only mtended as a purely descnpuve statement of an observed correlatiOn between two kmds of typologiCal optwns m ncttmal languages. In addmon, th1s set of umversab, taken .a~ a whole, mw.t be conce1ved of as the expressiOn of the clatm that, m natural
Theoretical Background AssumptiOns
255
language systems, the encodmg of the concept of companson 1s denvanve of the encoding of the concept of temporal chainmg. In other words, we clatm that the cocrelanons latd down in the umversals are the way they are by virtue of the fact that comparatives are not an 'mdependent', 'autonomous' constructiOn type; their syntactiC expression has been modelled upon the way m whiCh the 'deeper-lying' concept of temporal chammg has been formahzed m language. In this way, the set of chammg-based umversals lays datm to an explanattan of the facts m the typology of comparative constructions. With respect to this explanatory clatm contamed m our analysis, the first thing we must remark IS that the VIew of temporal chaimng as a more 'fundamental' concept than companson IS not Implausible; it IS certamly more plausible than the v1ew that the modellmg relatton should be the other way around. The percepnon of temporal ordenng between events IS undoubtedly a very element'!fY psychologiCal process, and the conceptualization of temporal relations (wh1ch, If locahst grammanans are nght, may in its turn be denvative of the conceptuahzanon of spanal relauons) is one of the prereqmsttes for such fundamental human faculties as memorizing and deductive reasomng. Moreover, the mtuitive VIew that, of comparison and temporal chammg, the latter is the more basic concept has been affirmed by a number of psychological and psycholinguist!C expenments, which we w1ll touch upon m section 11.4. Thus, I think it can be argued Wtth some confidence that our mterpretation of the set of chammg-based uruversals m terms of a modelhng of companson on temporal chammg does not meet With senous difficulties, at least not in as far as the dtrccnon of modelhng whtch ts Implied m this mrerpretation ts concerned. While our Interpretation of the chammg-based umversals m terms of a modelling relation does not seem to be Implaustble from a conceptual pomt of view, there are nonetheless a number of empmcalltngUistic facts wh1ch have not yet been explamed withm this framework. Concernmg the explanation of the occurrence of the various types of comparatives, the reader will have noted that cases of Mtxed Compan~on, as well as the case of the T elugu comparauve (see section 2.5) have not yet found their proper place wtthin our set of universals. Moreover, the occurrence of the vanous sorts of Parnde Comparatives remams a recalcitrant phenomenon. Despite the analysis of these cases m terms of the nonon of syntactizatwn (see chapter 9), there ts one fascmanng problem connected wnh Particle Comparatives whJCh we have as yet hardly touched upon. Thts que~tion can be put m the followmg way: given that languages whteh model their comparatives on balanced temporal chams can come up with a (semanttcally completely transparent) ConJomed Comparative,
256
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Chotce
why should there be Particle Comparatives at all? Gtven the concept of syntacnzatton, th1s questiOn can be rephrased as follows: why do some languages syntacticize their balanced input-structures, while other languages prefer to keep them balanced? Apart from the occurrence of vanous as yet unexplained comparattvetypes, there IS also the cunous phenomenon of 'double opnons' tn comparative-type choice. In particular, it may be expected of our explanatory framework that It be able to account for the fact that some pairings of pnmary and secondary comparative types occur quite frequently, whereas other theoretically possible pairings seem to occur only mcidentally or not at all.
In order to 1mprove the explanatory value of our analysis on these points, I will develop in the following chapters a new model for the prediction of comparatiVe-type chotce. A fundamental charactenstic of this new model 16 that it contains a~&umpnons on both the cogmtivesemJntic .1nd the syntactic representation of comparative constructions. Furthermore, It makes some specifiC claims about the Interdependency between these two !c\ ds of representatiOn. As for the syntactic encodmg of comparatives, the new model mcorporates the set of chammgwbased universal& proposed w chapter 5; thar is, rhe new model, too, rests on the assumption rhat rhe encoding of comparatives in natural languages IS ' encoding options for temporal chaining. As will become modelled on the dear, however, the new model transcends the original set of universals m that it does nor take derankmg to be the only relevant syntactiC procedure in the formalization of temporal chain mg. The new model will assume that, m addition to deranking, there is a second grammatical procedure whtch~is relevant in the derivatton of temporal chains {and hence, given the modelling hypothests, in the derivation of comparatives). This addttiorldl procedure, tdentity de!ettOn, allows for a number of distinct option.'> 111 tts apphcatron, which can be shown to be paired off with the vanou~ typological options of derankmg in a non~random way. As a result, we can formulate a set of procedure-types with respect to cham formatwn, m whlCh a spectfic optton of tdentlty deletion ts combined wtth a specific optiOn 1n the deranking procedure. The new typology of chain formanon whtch results from thts wtll be examined for ItS value as a determinant of the typology of comparatives; it will turn out that thts new typology has an explanatory power which exceed~ that of our earher set of universals, whtch were based ~olely on the typologtcal opttons in the grammatical procedure of deranking. The new mode! of comparative-type choice will be presented m detatl in the following chaprers. However, we must first make a short dtgresswn, in order to state a number of ba!>JC assumptions about some general
Theoretical Background Assumptions
257
conceptual matters m the theory of language. Although the framework Within wh1ch our mve~ugation IS conducted IS dellberately mcdelneutral, it Is impossible to avOid at least a mimmum of theore:1cal background a&&umptlon~ about the general orgamzation of the theoq· of language; wtthout these, it would be Impossible to formulate 1r an intelligible fashion a clanficat10n of the umversal properties of the comparative construction. However, thoughout the expo~itlon w11ch follows I have made efforts to frame my a.sumptions in terms of concept. which are by and large uncontrovers1al. None of the thmgs I have to say on the theory of language in general will strike the reader as 'ery onginal; the linguistic concepts employed here belong to the common stock-in~trade of post~war grammatical theory, while my v1ewb on certain psycholinguistic ISsues have been borrowed mamly from Fodor, Bever and Garrett (1974) and Fodor (1976).
11.2 Three levels of linguistic structure My first assumpnon IS that natural language is a mechamsm wh1ch connects thoughts (1.e., mental representations) to forms (1.e., represent· ations which are ultimately expressed physically in sound), and that It IS the task of the theory of language to provide a sy!tematic descrtptlcn of the nature of this connection. Given this perspective, we can say that a complete description of the formal and conrentiVe propetlles of a sentence in a given language will mvolve the statement of at least two different levels of structure for that sentence. The first of these levels has, since Chom1ky (1964), been commonly referred to as (syntactic) surface structure. Surface structure 1s the (theoretical reconstruction of the) structural form of the sentence as It 1s uttered by the speaker and perce1ved by the hearer; w11hm the overall model of a hnguisttc theory, surface structure functions as the input for the rules of phonological mterpretation. Surface structure prov1des ooth lexical information on sentences (m that 1t spec1fies the lexical ttems of which the sentence IS composed) and structural information: tt spectfies the linear order of the lexical items in the sentence, and it furthermore describes the organization of constituent elements. into larger strucrural units. A common way to represent burface s.truc..-rureb graphtcaJly I'1 the use of tree diagrams, in which both the linear order of constituent elements and the relanve degree of structural cohesion wh1ch holds between them are depicted. The second type of structure wh1ch 1> needed m a complete theo ·y of language IS at the very opposite of surface structure: 1t 1s the structure
2. 5H
f oward:, t.m txfJlaua/l()n of Comparatli'C#typr Cho1<.e
whHh repre~ents the thought which the sentence ts meant tO convey, a~ cometved by the speaker and, tf all goes well, Interpreted by the ht:arer. ThiS level of structure wtll be referred to as the cognrt:vo strU(ft.tre of the ~entcnce_ I hd.ve gamed the •mpre~s10n that there ts no general agreement among p~ychologt">t" about the exd.ct nature of cognJttvc structures; 1 wtll follow the VI<'"' put forward by Fndor (1976: 177ff.) on th~> point. Concerrung the equally unresolved q11est1on of the graph1cal representanon of a cogmnve structure, I wtll adhere to the practtce recently adopted by a number of author~, and represent the one cognltlve structure whtch I need m thts mvesttgatlon m the form of a topologrcal nota nonIn short, we may say that a complete descnpt1on of a !:>entence m a natural language mvolve~ a ~pecdicatton of the levels of surface \tructure and cogmnve structure, and furthermore a statement of the relations bern.een cogmnvc and ~urfacc ')trucrure whtch obtam m the sentences of that langu•ge. Now, m h-epmg wnh anctent tradltlon 1n the philosophy of lai'lguage, I w1ll make one further assumption about the orgamzanon of tl-.e theory of language. I a-.~ume that, between cognmvc structure (whteh representS 'thought') and surface structure (wh1ch represents 'form'} an tntt>rmedtate level of structure must be poo;;tulated. llw; level reprc 'cntS the type of lmgm•nc mformauon trad1t
259
Theoret1cal Background Assumptwns
quanufiers and variables m a fam1har notanon'. Essennally the same pomt of view has been defended in Lakoff (1972) and McCawley (1972). GIVen the above assumptions, the organizatmn of a theory of language can be represented schematically by the followmg model:
cs
us
ss
Thus, the task of a lingwsric de&cnptton mimmally followmg:
(a)
11 must
con&lSts
of the
gtve an exphc1t statement of the three levels of structure for
each sentence in every language;
(b)
must state the pnnc1ples by which these three levels of structure are hnked to each other. That is, 11 must state rhc rules by whiCh cognitive structure (CS) is mapped onto underlymg structure (US) and vice versa, and 11 must state the rules by wh1ch underly1ng 11
structure is mapped onto surface structure (SS) and v1ce versa,
In what follows, I will call the first set of rules (which link CS to US) strateg~es, and I will refer to the rules which hnk US to SS as (gram· maucal) procedures. Th1s latter term is meant to be neutral between concepts like 'transforrnatton', 'proJecnon rule',
Thu&, the model does nor make any spec1fic ela1ms about the formal nature of strategies and procedures, nor is any chronology or directionality Implied to obtain in the operation of the various rule typect. Hence, a statement of the form 'Strategy A maps a CS onto a US of type X' should always be read as shorthand lor the statement 'Strategy A maps a CS onto a US of type X, and v1ce versa'.
11.3 Further remarks on cognitive strncture With respect to the above sketch of the orgamzatmn of a theory of language, one specific pomt deserves speaal comment. As wtll be noted, the model which I propose embod1es the assumption that there IS a d1stmcnon to be made between the levels of cogninve structure and underlying {"semantic', •Jogtcal') structure. The prtmary morivauon for thl& dt~tmction stems from the conMderanon that these two levels seem to
dt{fer as to thetr functtonal status. Underlymg structures are lingmsnc
260
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
structures, that ts, they are pan of the language system per se. In oppositiOn to thts, cognitive structures arc representations which are in themselves non-hngmstic; they are not part of the system of natural language, but belong to the 'language of thought' (Fodor, 1976), and their exi!,tence 1~ independent of whether or not they are mapped onto the language system. Thus, for instance. cognitiVe structures (that 1s, repre~cntattons of thoughts) are also available to organisms whtch have no language at their disposal (sec Fodor, 1976: 56-8 for an elaboratiOn of tlus point)) while, on the other hand, an orgamsm may construct tts
cognitive structures on the basis of other than linguistic data, such as vi&ual perception. Apart from these general considerations, there are also some indications which seem to pomt to a difference m formal nature between these two levels of representation. Since the actual form of cognitive structure .; (and, for that matter, of underlying structures) is still very unclear, one should beware of rnakmg statements that are too definite, but it seems that at least one of the formal differences between these two levels involves a dzfference m the order of the m(ormatzon which they contain. As we observed above, underlying structures are generally taken to have the formal properties of syntaCtiC phrase-markers. This 1mplies, among other things, that the mformatlon contamcd m underlying structures has a lmear ordermg. In other words, underlymg structures, like surface structures, are symbohc configurations winch are deployed in time. Now, it is not at aH clear that representations of thoughts have also an organization In which a linear~temporal ordenng plays a role. There are indications that (at least some types of) cognitive structures are (at least to some extent) p:ctortal m nature. In the same manner as maps or bluepnnts, cognitive structures may be 'tmages under description' (Fodor, !976: 190-1) of the things they represent; they do not have to be an exact repliCa of the things they stand for, but they are picture-like m at least some respects (for instance, in representing the relations which hold between the basJC units of the structure). Now, it can be maintained that !3Uch p1cture~like configurations are not deployed m time. That is, for rcpre~entations of the type to which maps, blue~prints and cogmttve structure~ belong, no lmear~temporal ordermg of mformation is tmplied. 'In principle, all the information IS available simultaneously and can be read off in whatever order the observer choose~· (Fodor, 1976: 186). If thu. hypothesis about the nature of cognitive structures is accepted, we have a genuine formal difference between underlying structures and cogmtive representatiOns: the mformat1on con tamed in the former can be scanned in one order only, 2 whereas the mformation recovered from the latter IS dependent on the scannmg strategies of the observer.
Theorettcal Background Assumptwns
261
11.4 Structural levels for comparative constructions The model of the theory of language which has been outlined 111 the precedmg sectwns may serve not only as a model for the structural descnptwn of sentences in a ~inglc narurall.mguage; It ts cqu.:tll} possthle to use it as a background for univer~ahsr typologi<..al research. In tlns latter functiOn, the model can be vtewed as a framework for the description of the process of universal lmgmsnc encodmg. That 1'>, the modd offers a scheme for an account of the ways tn wh1ch a certam t} pe of cognttive structure (which is taken to be the parameter of the typology) can be mapped onto the surface structure~ of vanou~ Jlffcn·nr languages. Thus, takmg the subject of the present mve"Jtigatton as an example, we can say that the model presents a framework in whtch 1 he mappmg of the cognitive concept of compMi~on onto the surf.tcc structures of natural languages can be accounted for. Smce the result of thts mapping IS not the same for all languages, our task 1~ now to descnbe how the surface diversification in the encodmg of the concept of comparison can be explamed on the basis of the spec1fic options whtch languages have in the selection of their strategies and grammatical procedures. In practtce, thts task bOils down to the reqtHrement that the following two spectficatiOns be made available: (a) a specificatiOn of the universal options for the CS, the US and the SS of comparatives across natural languages; (b) a specification of the optton~:~ for strategte!J and gr.arnmatJcal procedures in the derivation of comparative constructtons across natural languages. In this chapter, we wrll confine our~elvcs to the first specification mentioned above, vtz. the universal speclficatiOn of the three levels of structure on which comparatives must be represented. Now, for the representation of comparatives on two of these levels (viz. the SS and the US) the preceding chapters of this book presem some dear mdtcanons. Concernmg the surface representatzon of cumparattve:) acro:)s languag~, the typology m chapter 2 has shown that a natural language typiCJIIy selects one our of five basic opnrmb; furthermore, we have noted that some languages may select a "mixed' comparative or some mstance of a Particle Comparative. All in all, we may conclude that the range of univer~al options for the SS of comparativeb (in other words, the range of po~~tble output~ of the mappmg of underlymg btructures of comparat1ves onto surface structures) can be established 1n a fa1rl} straightforward md precise fashion.
26l
'/(,wards an r,xplanatton of Compawttve-type Chotce
W1rh regard to the range of umversal options for the representation of comparatives at the level of underlymg structure, we can state the fol!owmg. The foregomg chapters contam extensive argumentation for the d:nm that the US of a comparative construction m any natural language <;hould be conce1ved of as havmg the form of a sequence of two propO'>ItiOn~. To be exact, we have argued that comparatJvcs are umver1:.al!y modelled on temporal chams; m terms of our theoretical mcdel, we can rephrase thi~ da1m as unplying that the US of a compar~mve construction has been 'borrowed' from the way m whiCh t<'mporal cham<; are represented at that level. In other words, we may conclude that the range of po'is1blc underlymg structures for comparatives m natural languages {that IS, the range of possJble outputs of the str.ttegies which map a cognitive representation of companson onto the languJ.ge ~ybtem) IS constramed by the requ1rement that these tmdcrlymg structures must all have the form of a temporal cham of prrpnstttons. As we have seen, thts modellmg temporal cham has, in &orne cases, received a consecutive mterpretanon, whtle m other cases a Simultaneous interpretation seems to be preferred. \V1th respect to the form wh1ch the cogmtzvc structure of comparzsons must be assumed to have, matters arc considerably less clear. Smce the nature of cognitive repre&entatlons in general IS still very much of a my,tery, any proposal concernmg the form of a cognmve representatiOn for the mental act of companson will necessarily be hypothetical and speculative to a htgh degree. Nevertheless, tt can be observed that, m the lmf·,msnc hteramrc on comp
Theoretical Background Assumpttons B
263
A
+
:::::::::::::!_________________
j
As noted, thts way of represemmg the CS of com pan son assumes that such a representation IS basically spatzal m character; rclaave degrees of mtenslty With respect to a cenam quality are represented tn terms of relatwe dtstance on an axts. It should be pomred out that there ts mdepcndent mot1vanon for rakmg such a pomt of v1ew. Fust, it should be recalled that~ in many languages, comparanvc constructions show a clear modelhng on spatnl relanons; we have argued m secnon 3.2 that thl'i modelling should be accounred for by assummg that companson I&, conceptually speaking, based upon spatial not1ons. In this context, it IS also interestmg to note that elements which charactenze a certam degree of quality are often also employed as spat1alttems: an obv1ous example lS the Enghsh adverbial expresswn by far or the German expressiOn mJt Abstand 'lit. with diStance' (see Klooster, 1979: 198). Secondly, Bergmans (1982: 152) cites a number of psycholingmstlc research results which support the claim that the CS of companson should be repre~ented in the form of spatial imagery. One of the fields from wh1ch evidence for this position can be derived IS the study of aphasia. Accordmg to Erelt (1973: 139), 'It has been found out that damages m the occ1pttal lobe of the bram that cause disturbances in spaua1 orientation and thus mhib1t the under~tanding of sentences expre!:>sing spatial relations hkew1se cause dtsturbances in the understanding of comparative !>Cntences (Luna, 1962; Bein, 1957).' Furthermore, there are introspective psychohngUistic data whtch suggest the proximity of comparative representanons to spatial ones. Bergmans (1982) quotes H1ggms and Huttenlocher (1971: 495-6), who note: De Soto, London and Handel (196 'i) have pomted out that people tend w tlunk Jbout adJeCtival dJmenswns spatially, With the unmarked adjeCtive (1.e., the po:.1t1ve member of the antonymou~ pmr) frequently thought of .h bemg at the rop and the marked adJective at the boHom. Our Ss also report that they tend to thmk about 'more' ar1d 'less' m terms of dJrecnonal movement, wtth 'more' bcmg a movemenc m an upward dtrecuon and 'less' a movement m a downward
direCtiOn. Our Ss report that spat1al 1magery 1s mnmatcly ned up w1th derennmmg the order of Items from comparauvc expresswns.
GIVen this evidence, I thmk 1t IS JU~tifiable to adopt a spat1al configuration like the one depicted above as the cogmtJve representation of
264
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
comparison~,
at least for as long as no other, more explicit and better-
documented, alternative ts available. There ts one point connected wtth our assumptions about the cognitive representabon of comparison which deserves some further comment. In the above exposttion, we tacitly assumed that this cognitive representation (like cognitive structures in general) is language-independent. That
ts, we take It that the cognitive structure representing the mental operation of companson is essent1ally the same for all speakers of all natura/languages. A consequence of thts assumption IS that the ultimate variation among languages in the encodmg of the concept of comparison must be viewed as being caused by the chmce of different options m the selection of the rules which map this universal cognitive structure onto the language system and, ultimately, onto surface structures. However, one may also delend an alternative VIew on the explanation of surface vanation among languages. In particular, one may maintain that th1s vanation is not a result of the choice of different options in the mapping operations, but that It stems from the fact that d1fferent groups of languages select different rypes of coguitive representations for the concept of companson. In other words, the 1ssue can be phrased as follows: gn;en that two languages show a difference in surface form with respect to the codification of comparison, does this mean that they also differ in the cognitive structures of which these surface forms are a mapping? Or should we assume that there ts one, universally vahd, cognitive representation for the concept of comparison, and that surface variation IS caused by d1vergence m the choice of strategies and/or grammatical procedures? As far as I know, there IS at pre~entno empirical way to decide whether or not cogmnve structures that represent a certain type of mental operation are alike for all speakers of human languages throughout the world. Therefore, th1s issue wdl have to be decided on a priori grounds. In this study, I have adopted the pru.inon that the cognitive represent-
ation of comparison presented above rs indeed valtd for all languages. The motivatiOn for this decasion rests on two kinds of considerations. First, there IS a general methodological consideration which, at least from the pomt of v1ew of linguistics, leads to the assumption of universally vahd cognittve structures. As we saw in chapter 1, the very feasibdiry of typological linguistics rests on the assumption that the parameter of a lingu1stic typology can, at least at some level of representation, be defined m language-independent tenus. If we cannot be sure that such a language-independent definition for a gtven construcnon type is possible, we can never be ccnam that comparable items are brought together in a typology, and this would, in all probability, mean that
Theoretical Background Assumptions
265
Typo]ogical Umversal Grammar would cease to ex 1st as a viable scientific
enterpnse. Furthermore, It must be repeated here that rhe a1m of Typological Universal Grammar ts to provtde msights mto the nonrandomness of hnguisuc encoding. Now, 1f one were to mamtam that the variatiOn in linguistic codmg 1s a mere reflection of Vdtlatlons in cognitive representatiOn.!:~,
the questiOn of the non-randomneMt of linguisuc cochng can be reduced to the question of the non-randomness of cognmve representation. Such a reduction would have as its consequence that
surface variation among language~ would cease to be a matter of linguistic interest. Of course, tt is absolutely conceivable that future research will sho"' thJt a redurnon of thi• kind 11 the sensible v1ew to adopt. At present, however, I dunk that It cannot be expected of typological hnguists that they give up a >eemingly profitable problem area, at least not for a• long as they are not forced to do so by irrefutable empirical evidence. In other words, gaven that there are no dech1ve arguments in favour of one of the two po!:lsable po&itions, the a!:lsumpTton that cognitive btructures are universally vJIId IS the more fruitful of the two, at least from the pomt of view of theoretical hnguistics.
Apart from these merhodolo!lJcal conSiderations (which ultimately oo1l down to a chotce of tacttcs in the politics of saentific mquiry), we rnay adduce another argument for our positton, which has to do with considerations of a general epistemical nature. If we assume that speakers of languages m whtch a certain concept bas a different formal encodmg
also employ different cognitive representanons for that concept (that IS, 1f we assume that people who •peak cbfferently also think differently), we are mexorably committed to accept some version of lmgmsnc relatiVISm, in the sense of Whorf (1956). Now, as has been remarked repeatedlt m the hterature, hnguistic relativism ts a posttwn whtch ts very hard to falsrfy, 1f, mdeed, It can be fals16cd at alL Nevertheless, there are a number of empirical data wh1ch seem to be at odds with at least the rrore radical verswns of lmgu1stic relativism. The fact that translations
between languages are, to a large extent, successful, and the extstence of language umversals, are data whtch are dtfficult to explain wtthm a relativist framework. For further dtscu'iston on th1~ top1c I refer to Fodor, Bever and Garrett (1974). For our present purposes, I will rake 1t for granted that rhe consequence of ltngUisttc relativtsm ts a defimte dtsadvantage for the posinon that cognitive representations whtch und{·rhe a certain construction type are language-dependent.
I owtJhl~ ,ml-.xplmzalwll of Comparattv(!·fY/J'' Cllm( e
Lot,
11.5 Conclusion The
malll pomt~
of rhts chapter can be &ummarized as follows. As
IS
the
case wnh any other con!Jtrucnon type, the structural description of comparatives mvolves representations on three dJsnnet levels. The cogmttve strut.ture underlymg express10ns of comparison can be visualized as a language-mdependent spatial configuratiOn, m wh1ch the difference in
degree of mtenstty IS represented m terms of spatial distance between the two .:ompared Items. By the apphcanon of cognitive strategies thiS spatial configuration is to be mapped onto the language •ystem; the output of thtc; rnappmg IS constrained by the requirement that any &trategy must result m an under/yrng structure wh1ch has the form of a temporal cham of propositions. The underlymg structures must further be mapped onto the :.urface structures of vanou~ languages by means of grammatical proc-edureh. Agam, the output of thts mapping IS constrained, in that the appl·catlon of any grammatical procedure to an underlying structure of a comparative must result 11'1 the selection of one of the hmned set of surf~ce
vanants wh1ch have been ilttested m the typology of comparative
cons rru ctwns.
12 Cognitive Strategies in Comparative Formation
12.1
Introduction
In the previous chapter, we have established the mimmal propertJe!l wh1.ch must be attrtbuted to the various levels of repre!lentation for comparative expressiOns. Followmg thts, we must now tum to the que~tion of the various rule types which are Instrumental m the mappmg of the~e structural representations onto one another. In th1~ chapter, our concern w1ll be wtth the nature of the cognittve strategtes which are needed to achteve a mappmg of the cogmnve representation of comparison onto the underlying structures of comparatives. Agam, the reader should be warned beforehand that much of what I have to say on this toptc is htghly speculative. For one thing, cognmve psychology Itself does not seem to be very certam about the nature of cognitive mappmg operations, On top of this, as a linguist I find myself here m the uncomfortable position of a trespasser on a domam in whtch I am not qualified. I can only hope that the exposition wh1ch follows will contam a certain degree of plau~Jbility from a psychological poim of vtew (I have, in fact, derived the g1~t of my ideas from psycholmguistic pubhcatiom). and that it may encourage cogrnnve psychologists to haV'e theu say on these Issues, too.
12.2
Basic features of cognitive strategies
the ta~k whtch cognitive strategies must accomplish JS the transformation of a spattal cognitive structure mto a lmearly ordered lmgmsnc structure. Thus, the mappmg of the CS of comparison onto the US of a comparative mvolves a transitiOn of a spatially modelled configuration onto a configuration which is modelled on a temporal chain: strategies 'read off' vanous bns of information from the CS and c.odify them m the form of (a sequence of) propositions. As we noted above, spatially modelled configurations (such as pictures,
Af;, I see
It,
268
Towards an ExplanatJOn of Comparative-type Choice
maps, blue-pnnts and the like) have the property that the mformation which they contaut ts made available simultaneously. A consequence of this property IS that the observer enJOYS considerable freedom in deahng with such configurations: dependmg on the scannmg strategy which he selects, he may read off whatever mformat1on he chooses in whatever order he choose~. In other words, smce all information in the CS 1s presented to the observer ~in one ptece', the observer has the freedom to decide for hmrself which feature of the CS is to serve as the primary focus of his scanmng strategy. As an example, let us consider the case in which an observer i5 confronted with a picture of a red triangle (see Fodor, 1976: 187). In cod1f},ng the information which is contained in rhlS spatially modelled configuration, the observer may choose to focus hi> scanning procedure on the colour of the picture, and hence he may come up with the proposition 'x is red' as a first mapping of 1nformatton. However, there 1s nothing which prevents the observer from focusmg h1s scannmg strategy on another feature of the configuration, say, the form of the pictured obJect. If he chooses to do this, the first proposition which results from his mapping operanon may be something like 'x is triangular'. The Important point here ts that nothing in the cogmtive representation 1rself forces the observer to select a particular feature of that representatiOn dS h1s first focus of scanmng; the decision to select a particular SCJnning mategy is completely up to the observer. This being sa1J, however, 1t must be added that it is quite plauSible to assume that the decision for a particular scanning strategy in a given situation will be heavily influenced by considerations of 'salience'. That is, when confronted with a cognitive representanon, the observer will naturally rate some features of that representation as more •salient' (1.e., as more useful to his present purposes than other bits of informatton which are also objecttvely present in the configuration}, and hence he will focus his scannmg strategy on these salient features. In short, in mapping a CS onto a US a speaker/hearer may employ various different strategres, depending on h" c;omat!On of the Jmportance of the vanous p1ece< of information whrch are contained m the cognJttve representation. Now, il we look at the CS of compamon wh1ch we have proposed m the foregoing chapter, we can observe that there are mimmally three features ol this configurJtton which are possible candidates for 'salience', and which may therefore be selected as the starting point of a cogmtive mapping strategy. To be specific, we can see that the definmg elements of wh1ch the CS of compariSon consists are the following: (a) the axrs, wh~eh represents the spatial dimensiOn along wh1ch
gradience 1s demarcated;
269
Cognitzve Strateg~es
(b) the tzvo compared ztems A and B, which are Juxtaposed on the
IXIS
to the effect that there ts a distance between them; (c) the extents on the axis, which represent the reld.rive degree·; of mtcnliltt) whtch the two compar~d Items po~. In the next sectlon, I w1ll present three different mappmgs of the C) of c:ompanson onto underlymg structures. In other words, I wtl1 as!)un"ie
that the mappmg of this CS onto the language system ha; at lca;t three dtfferent outputs. The difference between the;e three rnappmgs wtli be taken to be cssenually a roa.equence of the ;olecnon of three dtffel ent scanmng strategie!), based upon the !>election of a different startmg pomt for these scanning strategies in the CS. Whether these three Mrate~1es exhaust the possibtlities of the ways in wh1ch the CS of comp.ut~on can
be mapped onto the language system IS a question wh1ch I onnot even begin to answer. For a discussion of thts matter, we would have to ha•re a much dearer v1ew of the constraints whteh are to be tmposed on the notton of 'po;;ible scanning strategy'. Evidently, thts cs a problem
"''II
270
fowards an cxplanatton of Comparatwe~type Chmce
make a second a pnor1 assumptiOn: I wtll take It that the temporal interpretation of a US of comparanvcs IS at least partt.llly determmcd by the quesnon of whether or not there I& any log~cal necesstty m rhe order in which the propoSitiOns are read off from the CS. To put the matter slightly differently: smce the scannmg operation is a physical pmcedure whkh is neccssanly deployed tn time, there will always be an actual order in wh1ch the vanous propo
(x JS red)
&
(x •• triangular)
&
(... )
If, towever, the observer selects a scannmg strategy whtch focuses pmranly on the form of the represented obJect, the re•ultmg US wdl have the form of a sequence hke the followmg: (xIS tnangular)
&
(xIS red)
&
(...)
The •mportant thmg to note about this example 1s that the two proro~ttions 'x tr, red' and 'x ts tnangular' are read off mdependently from the CS at 1ssue. That 1s, the CS Itself 1m poses no necessary order on the procedure by which these two propositiOn are read off. The two proros.ttlons arc, m other words, logtcally unordered, and the actual order m which they are encoded depend• entirely on considerations of ,.hence which the observer chooses to apply. Now, for underlymg r,trm tures m whtch the consntuent propositions are logicaiJy unordered, I take tt that the natural way to interpret them temporally is to asr,ign to them the status of a stmultaneous chatn. In other words, m such und( rlymg strucn1res the symbol '&' naturally rece1ves the mtcrpretatton 'and also', 'and at the same ume'. In contrast to such 'red tnangle' -cases, there are also case~ of cod1ficatton m which the CS does seem to 1mpose a log1cal ordermg on the vanous stcpo, by which the constituting propositions of the US are read off. In
Cogntttve Strategtes
271
~uch
cases, the CS defines an orientataon which the scannmg procedure must follow once the starting pomt of the scannmg IS dec1ded upon. Such case~ are similar to the reading of a map or a street plan: af one wants to trace out a route from Central Square to Mam Street, the mformauon wh1ch the map offers must be read off by means of a series of successive steps, which cannot be completely interchanged at random. I will assume that sequences of propositions which result from the applicatwn of such an 'orientated' or 'ordered' scannmg strategy will naturally lend them~ selves to a consecutive temporal mterpretation. Hence, the natural interpretation of the connective'&' between the vanouo; proposttwns m such a US is that of 'and then', 'and after that'. It wtll be observed that, in the form\llation of the above prmc1ple, I have used the qualification 'natural' for some of the mterpretive alternatives. Thi~ qualification IS meant to md1cate that the pnnctple of temporal Interpretation outhned above can only specify a preferred or unmarked mterpretanon for a given US, but that It does not 1m pose one temporal mterpretat:Ion on that US to the complete excl\lslOn of the other. The reason for this relative mdeterminacy lies in the fact that the mappmg of a CS onto a US is, on the one hand, a procedure which may be influenced by cons1deranons of logical consequence, but, on the other hand, also a physical event which is necessarily deployed in time. In other words, any mapping operation is a series of temporally successive sub~strategics, regardless of whether the actual order of these sub-strategies is governed by logical order or not, As a re&ult of thts 'double nature' of scanmng strategies it may happen that a US In whiCh the vanous propositions have no logical order is nevertheless Interpreted as a consecutive chain, due to the fact that the leftmost proposition m the US has been codified first m the course of the actual mappmg operanon. Conversely, there ts also a chance that underlymg structures which are governed by logtcal order (that IS, USs in which the logical ordenng of propo\JOons matches the actual order of codification) may nevertheless be mterpreted temporally as S~chains, due to the fact that, even m cases of logtcal ordenng of mformation, the mformatlon at Issue IS presented m the CS simultaneously, 'in one piece'. In short, we must conclude that the principle outlined above, which specifies the temporal mterpretatlon of underlying structure& for comparatives, constitutes a gmde-lme rather than a law.
12.3 Three cognitive strategies After this expositiOn of background assumptions, we are now m a po~1tion to discuss the three strateg1es whiCh I propose for the mapping of the CS of companson omo underlymg structures. These three strategies
272
Towards an Explanat•on of Comparatwe-type Choice
each take one of the salient features of rhe CS of comparison as their starting poJnt. Furthermore, it is possible to subcategorize these three
strategies, on the baSis of the fact that, in two of them, the parameter of the comparison ts explktrly associated with both compared dems. In contrast, the third strategy spectfies only one of the compared ttems as having the property which ts mdicated by the parameter of the comparison. The first cognlt!ve strategy m comparative formation may he called the Independent Strategy. In this mappmg operation, it is the axis itself which is taken as the sahent feature of the cogn•tive configuration. The two compared Items A and Bare not explicitly related to one another m this strategy, nor are the extents on the axts taken into consideration.
Qmte simply, m this strategy the two compared items A and B are associated wtth that side of the axts to which they are nearest; since the axts itself is a spatially defined entity, by way of such a polar association the existence of a distance between the two items on the axis (and, as a result, the extstence of a difference m grad1ence between these items) can be inferred. There ts, however, in this strategy no assertion of a d1rect matching of the items against each other; etther item is located on the ax1s 1n a manner wh1ch 1s independent of the positioning of the other 1tern. The US wluch " derived as a result of the application of the Independent Strategy comes in rwo vanants, due to the fact that the polarity of the axis can be encoded either in a pair of antonymous predicates, or in a negative-positive polJ.nty with respect to one smgle predtcate. In the hterature we can find ample evidence for the theSis that these two codificanons are functionally equivalent. To be spec1fic, both lingUistic and psycholmguistic observations lead to the conclusion that pairs of antonymous predtcates must be considered to consist of a positive and a negative member. In other words, in a pair of antonymous predtcates such as big-small one of the members (in this case, sma!n must be rated as 'logtcally negative' (see Higgins and Huttenlocher, 197!: 490). Support for this claim can be derived from the fact that different dictionaries consistently define the same member of the pair in terms of the negatton of the other (ibid.). Internal hngUJstic evidence for the mherent negatiVe-posmve polarity in antonymou!l patrs IS presented in Seuren (1978) and Klooster (1978). On the part of psycholinguistics, tt has been shown that sentences whtch con tam the positive member of an antonymous patr of predicates are easter to understand than sentences which contam the corresponding negative members (Sherman, 1969), and that deductive reasoning problems wh1ch are phrased ln terms of positive members of antonymous patrs are solved significantly more qmckly than problems in which the negative members of such pairs are employed (H. Clark, 1970).
Cognitive Strategies
273
Given these data, I thmk we can feel IU~ttficd m postulatmg the following two equiv >lent outputs of the Independent Strategy:
US 1.1 US 1.2
(a BIG) (a RIG)
& &
(b SMALL) (b not• BIG)
Thus, these two formulas must be v1ewed as my (very s1mphfied :md schematicai) approximation of the US of a comparative which has been formed from the CS of comparison by tbe application of tbe Independent Strategy. In these underlymg structures, tbe two compared Items A and B are represented as two variables a and b, which fonctton as the arguments of the two members of a negative-posittve (c.q. an antony· mous) pair of predicates; these predicates are the lmgui•tic mappings •>f the positive and negative ;ides of tbe axts m the CS. Thus, in thts strategy both compared items are explicitly associated wtth the parameter of the •
compar1son. As for tbe temporal interpretations of tbe rwo above formulas, It wtll be clear that the propoSitions of whtch tbese underlymg >tructures consist are read off independently from tbe CS by t!us particular mapping operation. In other words, the Independent Strategy IS not governed by considerations of logical ordermg; the result of this mapping operation might equally well have led to underlymg su uctures m wh1ch the order ·Jf the propositions has been reversed, as 1n
US 1.1
(b SMALL)
US 1.2
(b not-RIG)
& &
(a BIG)
(a RIG)
Hence, tt is plaus1ble to assume that the natural way to interpret the:ie underlying structures ts to asstgn to them the status of a Simultaneous temporal chain. In tbe second mapping strategy, which I wdl call the Ordered Strategy, the salient feature of the CS is provtded by the extents wh1ch are demarcated on the axis. As w.JS the case With the Independent Strategy, tbe Ordered Strategy explicitly assoctate• both compared items w11h the parameter of the compartson. However, the Ordered Strategy as~ociat1~s the compared •tems botb wttb tbe pmttlve ~tde of the ax1s, so that they are represented in underlymg structures as variable~ whtch are arguments of the same predicate. The mappmg of the CS of companson onto the underlymg structure consists here of the ordering of the two extents wh11.:h the two compared items delineate on the axis. It should be noted here that, tn thiS ordering, two orientations are possible. Thus) one may take the positive side of the axis as the starting point of the ordenng, so that the larger extent IS ordered before the smaller one. Alternatively, one may start from the negative side of the axis, thus ordenng the smaller extent before the
27.:
l'owards an I·,xplanatiOH of Comparattve-type Chotec
larf,er one. As a result, this strategy maps the CS of companson onto two eqUivaJent underlymg structures, which are both codificatiOn~ of the menta! representation 'A 1~ more X than B'. In US-2.1 the negative s1de of the axts has been taken as the "itartmg point of the scanmng, whereas in US-2.2 the positive s1de of the axis provtdes the orientation of the ord~nng:
l'S 2.1
(b BIG)
&
L'S 2,2
(a BIG)
&
(a BIG) (b BIG)
G1v~n
the fact that an operation of successive ordenng IS essential m this mappmg Mrategy, a consecutwc interpretation of the~e underlymg struc· tures readily presenrs Itself. Hence, the connective element '&' in the~e underlymg structure& will typ1cally receive the Interpretation 'and then', 'and followmg that'. A Simultaneous interpretation of these underlymg structures IS not completely excluded, but it is clearly a secondary opnon under this ~trategy. It will be observed that, m th1s strategy, the extents which are demarcated on the axis are themselves not qualified as to their size; the strategy consists of a scannmg of the axis m either of the two po~sible directions, and imposes an ordenng on the extents demarcated on that axis, in that the extent whiCh IS encountered first dunng the scanning is encoded m the first proposltlon in the resulnng US. There IS, however, also an alternative way m wh1ch the extents demarcated on the ax1~ can be t·mployed as the sahent feature m the codtficatton of the CS of companson. In tht~ latter strategy, the two extents are themselves qualified as to their exten~JOn on the axis. In the resuhmg US, we may represent rhese qualtficanonc; by means of dtfferent mdices (o;ay, x andy), letting It be understood that mdex x defines an extent on the axts wh1ch is larger than rhe extent defined by mdex y, 1 Hence, the difference m grad1encc between the two compared Items can be mferred from the fact that the extents whtch che~e Items delineate on the ax1s are marked by different !tldlces. The u~ which re<;ulrs from thiS mapptng operation will have roughly the form of the followmg formula: U.\ 2.3
(a BIG,)
&
(b BIG,)
In contrast to the mappmg operation wh1ch produces US-2.1 and US-2.2, the operation wh1ch produces US-2.3 IS not governed by constdcranons of logJCa! ordermg, due to the fact that borh extents mvoh·ed are qual•fied mdependenrly of each other. Hence, the mapping operatiOn at ISsue m1ght JU'it as well have resulted m :1 US 111 whiCh the order of the rwo -,ropo
US 2.4
(b BIC,,)
&
(a lliGx)
CogmtwR Strategtes
275
As a thtrd alternative output of the mappmg strategy under d1scusswn, we may postulate the followmg fom1ula: US 2.5
(a BIGx)
&
(b not BIGx)
In producmg this latter US, the mapping strategy has made use of the fact that the smaller extent on the ax1s, demarcated by the posiuon of the item B, IS enveloped by the larger extent, whtch is demarcated by the posinon of the ttem A on the axis. Given that the strategy which codtfics the CS of companson m terms of indexed extents is not governed by conMderations of log~cal ordermg, a srmulta11eous Interpretation IS the natural ch01cc for the underlymg structures wh1ch result from 1t. Again, however, we should stipulate that the assignment of a Simultaneous mtetpretarion to these USs should not be taken too absolutely, and that a consecutive interpretatiOn is a real, If rnmor, possibihty here. Fmally, we must discuss the th11d strategy by whtch the CS of compartson can be mapped onto a sequence of propoStnons. Under tlus mapping operation, which I w1ll refer to as the Relative Strategy, it is not the a.x1s, nor the extents on that axis., which are the salient features of the cognrtive representation; It is rather the two compared items A and B themselves, and the way in which they are spatially related, winch function as the fnctts of the mapping operation. Thus, the Relative Strategy relates the two compared Items to each other in a scraight· forward way, in that the spatial distance on the axis wh1ch ex1srs between them IS explicitly expressed in a separate proposition m the US. Hence, in the US which results from the apphcatlon of the Relative Strategy, the aXIs (wh•ch represents the parameter of comparison) IS referred to only once, whereas in the other strategtes the axis IS mentioned tWICe in the US. Furthermore, in this mappmg strategy the comparee 1tem A is usually the starring point or the 'topic'; It is only this item wh1ch is explicitly assoc1ated with the parameter of compartson (see US-3.1 ). Occasionally, It may be the standard Item B wh•ch is selected as the topiC, and which is therefore assactated wtth the parameter (see US-3.2). As a result, the US wh1ch IS produced by this mappmg operation bas the following schemancal forms: US3.1 US 3.2
(aBIG) (b BIG)
& &
(aBHONDb) (a BEYOND b)
In tbts u-s, the rwo-place predtcd!e BEYOND is meant to express the spatially defined relation between the compared items A and B on the axJs of rhe comparison.
G1ven the fact that the two propositions m US-3.1 and US-3.2 can be read off independently from the C~ of compan~On, a SlntU/taneous
276
Towards an Explanatton of Comparative-type Choice
mterpretation of this sequence of propositions is a natural decision.
Hence, a posstble vanant of these USs are the following, reversed, sequences:
US 3.3 (a BEYOND b) & US3.4 (aBEYONDb) &
(a BIG) (bBIG)
As was the case with other USs for which a simultaneous interpretation seems the most natural, a consecutive mterpretation of the USs derived by the Relative Strategy is not totally impossible; but, given our princ1ple of temporal interpretation outlined in section 12.2, we can predJct that a consecutive interpretation of such structures w11l be fairly rare. 12.4 Conclusion In thiS chapter we have presented three cognitive strategies for the codification of the CS of comparison into underlying structures, viz. the Independent Strategy, in which the compared Items A and B are as.ociatcd with the opposite sides of the axis of comparison; (b) the Ordered Strategy, in which the compared items A and B are both associated with the positive side of the axis of comparison; and (c) the Relative Strategy, in which only one of the compared items (typtcally, the comparee item A) is associated with (typtcally, the posttive stde of) the axis of comparison.
(a)
The three mapping operations are Similar in that they all result m underly1ng structures wh1ch have the form of a sequence of propoSitions. Since such sequences of propositions which underlie comparanves must be seen as being modelled upon the underlying structnres of temporal chains, underlymg structures of comparatives must recetve either a
simultaneous or a consecutive interpretation. In one of the cases, namely, the US-2.1-2.2 produced by the Ordered Strategy, a consecutive interpretation seems to be the most natural, since the mappmg operation appears to involve a number of logically ordered substeps. In the other cases, the proposinons m the US-sequence are read off independently, so that a simultaneous tnterpretatton seems to be the most natural chmce
for them.
13 Grammatical Procedures in Comparative Formation
'
13.1 Introduction In the preceding chapter, I have postulated a number ot cogn1t1ve strateg~es
by wh1ch the CS of comp.rbon IS assumed to be mapped onto the language >y>tem. The output of these cognitive strategies is in all cases a sequence of proposinons, wh1ch must be viewed as bemg
modelled on the codification of temporal chammg. G1ven that th1s analysi& IS acceptable, we can now ttJrn to the second type of rules needed for the formal denvation of comparative~, viz.. the grammattcal pro· cedures. The task of the>e rules IS to map the underlying linguistiC structures produced by the cognitive ~trateg.es onto the ~urface structures
of comparative constructiOns in natural languages. Hence, tbe range of po~:~sible outputs of these grammataca1 procedures IS emptrically ltnuted to the var~ous type> of comparatives estabhshed in chapter 2. 13.2 Functional aspects of grammatical procedures
Spedkmg from a functiOnal pomt of vtew, one mtght say that grammatical procedure; have to strike a ba!dnce between two dtfferent Interests, whi~.:h m some cases may be in confhct. On the one hand, gra.mmati,al procedures have to pr~rvc underlymg structure, so that the hearer will be able to dec1pher correctly the message contamed m it. From this tt follows that> whatever changes grammaticdl procedure& may
mfhct upon the underlymg structure, they
mu~t
take care not to d1~t01 t
thiS underlying structure beyond recogmnon: they >hould always n:>ult 1n a surface structure wh1ch contains suf6aent clues for the hearer to construct the mtended interpretation. For thh. reason, it may happen the t grammatical procedure~ generate surface srructure:. wh1ch, from a stnctly structural point of view, are to some extent redundant. Furthcrmon-,
2 7S
I owards an bplanatton of Comparatrve-type Chorce
gr<<mmancal procedures ~hould not only guarantee that the mterpretanon of the message by the hearer can be made at all; they should al~o be helpful m ensunng that this mterpretation can be performed by the he.trer wJth a muumum of effort. Hence, we may expect that grammancal procedures will perform a number of operations whose primary functiOn IS that of some kmd of service to the hearer: the mam reason of existence of such operations IS that they present the informatiOn m a hn~·~UIStic surface form which is optimally easy to process. However, oppo~ed to operatiOns which are pnmarily monvated as a kir·d of serv1ce to the hearer, grammatical procedures also perform tasks wh1ch pnmarily serve the mterests of the speaker. Agam, a mm.unahzatlon of effort IS the de~1rcd goa! here. In the mterest of fast and unproblematic commumcanon, grammancal procedures must ensure that the hearer JS prt ~ented with all the nece'i'iary mformat!on in an opttmally acces~tble form, but they must aho ensure th,H the speaker does not have to go to extraordmary lengths to achteve this commumcanve effect. Hence, grzmmancal procedures can also be ao;sumed to functwn as a means by which the speaker can m1mmahze h1s own efforts, and hence we may expect to find some gramm~ltlcal operanons (such as the <;uppresston of matenal wh1ch ts predictable from the preceding linguistic context or the general realMworld context) whiCh are atmed at preventing the comM mu nicat1on from bemg unnccessanly complicated and cumbersome to the speaker. 1n a manner of speakmg, then, we mtght say that the grammatical procedures (1.e., the rules of ">yntax) walk a thin line between the two ev1ls of longwmdedness and unmrelhgJbihty. These procedures can be COJlCeJved of as seckmg a balan..::e between rhe demands that are made on them from the part of the decoder ;:~.nd the encoder, sometimes giVtng m ro one s1de, while mother cases the opposite mterest prevatls. As a matter of fact, It may be suggested that a fundamental respect m wh1ch languages d1ffer from one another hes m the dectstons whtch they make when faced with such confhcnng mterests; some languages are generally mchnc-d to s1de WJth the hearer, whereas other languages generally prefer to ',acnfice the mterests of the hearer to the speaker's convemence. 1
13.3
Deranking and identity deletion
Gtven the assumpnon that underlymg structures of comparattves must be VIewed as formal extensiOns of temporal chaming, tt seems plaustble to look for the relevant operanons among those grammattcal procedures whtch are pre·emmently apphed m the hngmsttc formahzat1on of conM
Grammattcal Procedures
279
secuuve and simultaneous chams. In what follows, I will propose two
types of rules which I take to be operative m that area of syntax. Both of thc'Se operations may be subsumed under the general heading of structurereducmg procedures, smce their rnam effect is to reduce, and hence to compress, underlying structures in the course of their transformation into ~urface structures.
The first of the structure-reducmg operations which I propose for the grammatical treatment of chaining consuuctlons has been dealt With extenSively m the foregoing chapters, so that a few short remarks may suffice here. Throughout this book, we have employed a notion of structural deranktng, i.e., a grammancal procedure by which predicates m a cham are downgraded m rank with respect to the remaming mam
predicate. In a certam sense, the procedure of deranlong can be looked upon as an instance of a more general type of syntactic operauon, v1z. the procedure of subordination. However, as we have argued in chapter 4, derankmg IS a specific and !united case of subordination; while general
subordmatlon has the effect of downgrading a whole clause, deranking has the additional effect of robbtng an en;twhde full clause of its sentenoal status by downgrading Its predicate. FunctiOnally speakmg, one m1ght po•tulate that deranking is a type of grammatical procedure which is pnmarily aimed at makmg things eas1er for the hearer, at the expense of some additiOnal effort for the speaker. By the application of deranking, the number of S-node• in a chaming construction is reduced, and all the mformanon contamed m the chain gets structurally arranged onder one S-node. Thus, looking at the
derankmg procedure from a spec1fic angle, one m1ght say that thiS procedure reduces the structural complexity of the structure at tssue, in that It results m a <prumng' of the anginal tree dtagram by means of a trummahzanon of the number of rule cycles. 2 As we have seen in chapter 4, languages may vary considerably in the
extent to which they permit the procedure of derankmg to apply in the encodmg of their temporal chains. To be exact, we have found that, with respect ro the applicability of derankmg, languages can be d1v1ded into three categories, viz. languages which are balancmg, languages which permit only conditional deranking, and languages which allow absolute derankmg. Now, in the precedmg chapters we have tacnly assumed that the options which a language has m the derankmg procedure constitute the only relevant detenninmg factor in the prediction of the surface variation of comparauves across languages. At this point, however, we must
mtroduce a second grammatical procedure m the encodmg of temporal chams. As we will see below, the options which languages have tn the
280
Towards an F.xplanation of Comparative-type Chozce
apphcabihty of this second procedure also have their effects upon the ways tn which the choice for a particular comparative construction m a given language is made. Th1s second grammatical procedure may be referred to as rdenttty deletion. The concept of Identity deletion JS meant co cover all those mstances of chaming formatwn m which lextcal material has been omitted or suppressed on the basi~ of the identity of that matenal wtth lexical matenal which IS present elsewhere m the string. Using a somewhat drfferent, but essentially equivJ!ent terminology, we may say that tdentity deletion ts meant to cover all those cases in which lexiCal material has been reduced to a null-anaphor under conditions of 1denttty. Thus, the well-known phenomena of Coordmation Reductwn and Gapping, whtch have been dt!:.CU!:.Sed extensively m recent grammatical literature, are taken to be instance.:, of a case in which {some spectfic vanant of) tdenttty deletiOn has applied to a string. Concermng the concept of tdent1ty deletion, two remarks should be made i.mmedtately. F1rst, we must stress that the concept of tdenttty deletion which we employ here will be taken to apply only to those cases of stnng-reducnon in whtch the omltred matenal bears a formal relatton to some other element In the same strmg. In other words, a condltlon on the applicatiOn of Identity deletion IS that the deleted material should be fully and unequtvocdlly recoverable from the lingutsttc context. Hence, cases where lextcal material IS left out on the basi!, of recoverability from the general non-hngmsttc context w1\l not be taken to constitute Instances of identity deletion. For example, elhptical sentences hke those in (1), which have been discussed at length in Shopen (1973), do not fall under our definition of idennty deletion. It will be clear that the suppressed lexiCal matenal m such sentences, whatever it may be, does not have to bear a relauon of 1dennty to previously mentioned material, but can only be supplied by mvokmg the extra-linguistic context: (1)
ENGUSHc
a. b.
Fire! One more beer, and I leave
c.
Into the dungeon wrth hLm!
Also, cases of Pro-Drop are assumed to lie outs1de the scope of our notion of 1dent1ty deletion. Thus, the fact that, in languages like Larin and Rumaman, there is no need for the overt expression of a subject by means of a non-stressed personal pronoun, as is illustrated in the following sentences:
Grammatical Procedures '2)
281
LA71N:
In Astam transterunt ln A.·ACC cross-PERF. JPL 'They crossed into Asia, '])
RUMANIAN:
lntelege pzesa under;tand-PRES. 3SG p\ay-DET 'He understands the play' is not covered by our definition of Identity deletiOn. Agam tt IS dear tl-·at, m ca!>e~ of l)ro·Drop, unstressed lexical material may be omitted In .my construction where the reference IS recoverable from the general c~>n text, 1 and that thts left-out matenal does not have to be subJect to conditions of 1dent1ty with previOusly mentioned matenal.. Secondly, we :.hould make a short comment on the nature of the identity-relation which 1:. fundament.ll to the ddenun procedure at ts~ue here. A!> the literature on various type& of identrty-ddenon proce~:.es 11as :.hown conclu1>ively, It is not just mere JeJ!._ic,:tiJdentity- which IS required here. ln addition, we need at least ::.orne further functional or C•)nfigurational 1dennty, to the effect that repeated matenal may be supplessed only 1f It occupies the same configurational posmon (c.q . ha~ the same structural functiOn) as the precedmg element which 'tnggers' the delenon- At pre!>ent, it must be satd that, despite considerable progre~s made in thts area, the exact content of the notion of tdentlty needed m this type of delenon procedure is not yet fully known . For our purpo1.es, however, thh doc~ not have to be much of a problem, smce we wdl apply the procedure of identity deletion only to very simple configurauon!>. m whtch the combined requirements of lexical and configurational identity are met m a straightforward way. If we compare the procedure of identity deletion to the procedure of deranking, we nute considerable differences between the two. Identity deletion effectuates the eliminatiOn of lextcal matenal, and hence It reduce:. the input stnng in length, but it doc!> not alter the configUL~lt•on of the underlying ~tructure. That IS, identity deletion has the effect of filling structural po~ltion& lil the underlying configuration with Iex~eally empty matenal, but- at least m general- It leave~ the ongmal structural configurJtion intact_4 In opposition to thi~, Jeranking IS a procedure wh1ch fundamentally affects the btructural configuration of the mput string, in that 1t changes the structural rank of some elements m that stnng. Unlike identity deletion, however, dcrankmg normally doe~ not result in the loss of lexical material from the string . That 1s, derankmg
28 2
I owards an l:xplanalmn of ComfJarattvc-type Chotce
alters the structural dependencies between elements of a string, but it generally keeps the ongmallexical content of the stnng mtact. Th1s formal d1ffercnce between the two structure-reducmg procedures proposed here may be thought to have its reflection lll a difference m functional status. of these two procedures. As we suggested above, deranking may be thought of as a procedure wh1ch pnmarily serves the communicative interests of the hearer, m that 1t reduce:. the number of mam clauses m a structure, and hence may lead to a reduction of the number of rule cycles wh1ch have to be applied to that structure. On the otPer hand, 1t IS natural to assume that the apphcatton of identity delenon IS mamly beneficial to the .<,peaker; this procedure mimmaltzes the efforts made by the '>peaker, in that redundant macerial does not have to be repeated. Obviously, thts wtlllead to some extra efforts on the part of 1he hearer, who IS mvited to fill m the gaps which the speaker has left opt·n; however, smce the type of redundancy reduction at tssue here IS gmerned by conditions of structural and lexical idemity, the language sy~1em ensures that (at least to a significant degree) the implicit in· fonnatwn can be recovered successfully from the precedmg linguisnc
context.
13.4
Options in identity deletion
In the precedmg secnon, we have delineated the grammatical procedure of 1demity deletion and commented upon 1ts commun1canve funcnon. Now we must take a closer look at the options whJCh languages have in the apphcanon of th1s procedure in the derivation of the surface structures of temporal chams (and hence of comparatives). For our pre~em purposes, we can confine ourselves to a rather hmned range of mput ~tructures for thts parncular procedure. As will have become clear m "ectton 2.3, the underlymg structures which are the models of comparative constructions m natural languages typically consiSt of pro:-,osittons whtch contam only a one-place predtcate (such as BIG or SMALL) and it~ argument (a or b). Assuming that, tn the lingu1sttc encoding of such chams, these one-place predicates will be expressed by intr msuive verbs or adJectives and that the arguments of these predicate:-. wtll be expressed by a subJect-NP, the typical underlymg stnng to which tdcrnty deletion may apply m the derivatiOn of comparative construenon~ w1ll be a structure wb1ch ha:. the general form of etther (4) or (5): (')
(')
(S V) (V S)
(S V)
(V S)
Gram1natt!al Procedures
lHJ
Given this situatwn, the only cases of Identity deletion which are of relevance to us are cases m whtch subJects may or may nor be deleted under Identity, and cases m which pred:cates may or may nm be deleted under tdentlty. Now, assuming that languages may vary m their possibilities of applying the procedure of 1dennry deletiOn, we can first ask ourselves what the various opttons are with respect to the condtttonaltty of this procedure. As it turns out, the typology of Identity~deletwn opt10ns parallels the typology of derankmg option~ man interesting way, m that both typologies can be shown to permit a three~way vartance. A first typologtcal split in the opt1om of identity deletion mvolves a simple yes-no decision. In the same way as there are languages which do not allow any deranking, we can find languages In our sample m wh1ch no form of identtty deletwn at all (I.e., neither subject-deletion nor verbdeletiOn) is permitted. In the ideal case of a language of this type, it is Impossible to have null-anaphors which are bound by identity; these languages require that every configuratiOnal posltlon be filled lexically, either by a full lexical constituent or by a pronominal element. Opposed to languages with no identity deletion, we also find languages m whtch at least some form of this procedure can be documented. For language~ which belong to this group, It Will be clear that there are three logrcal subtypes, namely, (a) languages which may delete subJects under tdennty, but wh1ch do not have the possibility to omit tdentical verbs; (b) languages which may delete Idenncal verbs, but whiCh do not possess such an option for the suppressiOn of tdenttcal subjects; (c) languages In which both Identical subjects and Identical verbs may be reduced to null-anaphors. However, if we look at the facts provtded by the languages in the sample, we find that one of these categones, namely, the second one, docs not occur in reality. That ts, It appears that there are no natural languages m which verb~deletion is possible whtle at the same time delenon of identical subjects is forbidden. It seems that the optwn of verb-deletwn always automattcally includes the option of sub,ect-deletum; in this respect, Identity deletiOn pre~ents an mteresttng parallel wtth the pro~ ccdure of derankmg, where- as we saw m sectwn 4.4.3 ~the opnon of absolute derankmg alway~ mcludes the option of deranking under Identity of subjects. Given the state of affairs outlmed above, we can conclude that the typological opoons in the applicat1on of identity deletion allow for a threeway vanance among languages, VIZ.:
2~4
r owards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
(a) languages which have no identttyddetton; (b) languages which have limrted identity deletion (i.e., subject· delenon only); (c) languages which have total tdentity deletion (i.e., both subject· deletion and verb-deletion). In addmon to these remarks on the typologtcal variation m the
application of rdentiry deletion across languages, we can also make a few commen!S on the dtrectionaltty of th1s procedure.lt can be observed that, within rhe class of languages that do have some form of identity deletion, there are some languages in which deletion of the first subject in the cham is required (backward S-Deletion), while other languages prefer the deletion of the second subject (forward S-Deletion). In a similar way, languages which permit the deletton of Identical verbs in temporal chams may prefer either backward V-Deletion or forward V-Deletton. Now, the recent literature on deletion phenomena in chaining constructions (and, in parurular, the bterarure on various processes of Coordination Deletion) has demonstrated that the choice for a particular direction of the deletion process is correlated to the baSte word-order type of the language in quonon. Thus, we find once more a parallelism between the operation of deranking and the operation of identity deletion; with derankmg, too, the directionality of the procedure is tied up woth the word·order type to which a language belongs (see section 4.4.2). The cross-linguistic investigation of the formal properties of identity deletion IS at present st!ll very much in progress, and has given nse to a steady flow of typological literature (Ross, 1970; Tai, 1969, 1971; Koutsoudas, 1971; Sanders and Tai, 1972; Sanders, 1976; Harr1es, 1978; Mallinson and Blake, 1981). Although it is too early to speak of any definitive resul!S in this area, It appears that, at least as far as the directionality of odentity deletion is concerned, a couple of general principles can be advanced woth some confidence; for both of these princoples, a motivation in functional terms readoly presen!S i!Self. The first of these prmciples, formulated in Sanders (1976) and Malhnson and Blake (1981), may be called the Forward Principle, and can be phrased as follows:
The Forward Principle of identity deletion: The unmarked d1reCt1on in which identity deletion operates is forward. Thus, this prmciple states that, for both $-Deletion and V-Delenon, ellipsis of the second occurrence of the constituent at rssue is the natural
thmg to do. The princople IS confirmed emptrically by the facr that, wh1le there are languages with backward 5-Deletion and languages with
Grammattcal Procedures
28.5
backward V-Ddetion, there are no languages m whtch both subJects and verbs undergo backward deletion. In contrast to thts, there are numerou!. languages in which both S-Delenon and V-Delction go forward. The functional basis of the Forward Pnnctple 1::. neatly summed up 111 S.1ndcrs (1976: 18-19), who wntes: The only way to recover an dhpucal const1tuent 1s by detcrmmmg wh.: t Its antecedent 111! the constituent wh1ch gO\.crns or wntrol11 Jb cllip~1~. When elhp<;IS occur<; m a followmg consmuent, all of the po~~tb!e antecedent~ of the eHtp!l.al con~tltuent have already been recetved and pre!>umably understood, and thev are aU available m pnor memory when the me of the elhpi!l!>l~ fir11t encountered or rece1ved. When an elhps1s Mte IS encountered m a precedmg conJun ... t, on the other hand, none of 1ts po~!tlble antecedents are av.ulablc m memory at that ume, and the decodmg process for the precedmg conJunct must be i!Uspended- w1th all previously obtamed result bemg held 111 storage- untd an appropnate Jnrecedcnt ts encountered m the followmg con}unct. Then It ts nece~~ary to go b.1ck and complete the decodmg of the prccedmg ~OnJunct. Therefore, other thmg'> bcmg equal! the task of decodmg wdl be much stmpler and more effictent 1f elhps1~ occurs m followmg conJuncts rather than precedmg ones.
Despite Its functwnal naturalness, however, the Forward Pnnc1ple tS not a blindly applicable law. The linguistic data clearly show that f"lerc are languages in which this principle has been thwarted, in that blCk¥ ward deletion for ~ubJCCts or prediCate:. ts permtttcd or even obligatory. Accordingly, what we need IS some princtple by which the opera two of the Forward Principle can be constrained for spectfic cases. The relevant research on this pomt IS agam due to Sanders (1976). Hu. re!,ults can be summarized m the followmg statement:
The Boundary Constratnt on identity deletion: Languages tend to avoid elltpsis of elements on sentence boundanc1 .. In effect, th1~ constraint :,tate~ th.u clement!, which arc the first or rhe )a<,t m a chaming construction are not likely to be ommeJ under identtty. The functional explananon for this constraint 1~, I thmk, a rather obvlous one. Since the sentence IS the structural umt whtch serves a!, the frame for the process of decodtng and encoJmg, langu.1gc:, vvdl attempt to make sure that the boundartes of these umu. arc clearly Identifiable. One of the mechanisms to achieve this is the tmposition of demarc.ltlng mtona11on contours on sentences, whtle another, related, mechamsm provides for a lexical filling of the positions which demarcate the boundanes of sentences. Empincally, the Boundary Constramt lead:, to the prediction that items whtch are initt.1l in a sentence will be the items wh1ch are the least hkely to be deleted; omiSSIOn of elements in thts position would violate both the Forward Principle and the Boundary Con~tramt. As
Towards an Explanation of Comparatrve-type Chotce
286
Sand,rs' results (1976: 17) show, thJ< pred1ctton 1< fully confirmed by the avail.\ble hngu.snc fact'>. Now, if we apply these two dtrectlonahty pnncaples to the operation of tdennty deletiOn m languages of dtfferent baste word-order types. we arnvl! at the follow&ng . First, for SOV-Iat\guagcs wh1ch have some form of 1dent1ty ddctJOn. we can prediCt the following state of
affaus: {6) a, If an SOV-/anguage has S-Delet10n, it wtl/ have forwardSDdeuon. b. If an SOV-/anguage has V-Delet!on, tt wdl have backward V-
Deletton. State'llents {6afb) are ba""d upon the operation of the Forward Principle and the Boundary Constramt on an underlymg chaming structure of the
form
17! s,
v, s,
V2
As w11l be seen, there IS nothmg wh1ch prevents tdenmy deletton of 52 m thts structure, smce thts dement occupies a medial pos1twn in the cham. On the other hand, the del en on of V 2, wh1ch mtght be predtcted on the bas1s of the Forward PnnCJple, 1~ forbidden by the Boundary Conmaim. Hence) the direct1on ofV-Deletton has to be rever~ed, so that it can affect V11 an e1ement which IS 1n a sentence-medJal pos1tion and therefore more ehg1ble as a possible ellipsis stte. The correctnes; of the statements m (6) can be rllustrated by the facts from Japane;e, an SOY-language with the option of rota! identity delet•on, As sentence (8) show,, S-Deletton mjapanese goo; forward. On the other hand, the sentences m (9) tllustrate that at least some forms of V-Dtlet10n tn Japanese (viz. the elhptiCal procedure known as Gappmg) apphe. m a backward duection. Cp.: (8)
}APA>:FSL:
Sumte wa mu o
nadete neko o tataita 5. TOP dog ACC pat-GFR cat ACC hit-PAST 'Sum1e patted the dog and hit the cat' {9)
]APA:-JI:SE:
a.
Sumte wa mu o mzta , Norm wa k1 o mtta 5. fOP dog ACC see-PAST N. TOP tree ACC see-PAST ·sum1e saw the dog and Nono saw the tree'
'.
Sumte wa mu o , Norzo wa kz o m'lta 5. TO!' dog ACC N. TOP tree ACC see-P A~T 'Sumte saw the dog, and Nono the tree'
Grammatzcai Procedures
287
Next, tf we take a look at the directiOn of identity deletiOn m languages wh1ch have baMc verb-imnal word order, we find that a situatwn obtams wh1ch 1s dtametrically opposed to the directionality m SOV-languages. For verb-mmal languages, the followmg two statements turn out to be correct:
(10) a. If a verb-imttallanguage has S-Deletion, it wtll have backward S-Deletwn. b. If a verb-inittallanguage has V-Deletton, rt wrll have forward V-Deletron. Given that verb-imtiallanguages have underlymg chammg structures of the followmg general form: (11}
v, s,
Vz
S2
it w11l be evident that forward deletion of Identical verbs ts not hampered by the Boundary Constramt, whereas forward deletton of Identical subJects is. The statements in (1 0) can be illustrated by the following examples from Malagasy' andJacaltec: 6 (1 2)
MALAGASY:
a.
Mrsotro Rabe ary mthmam-bary Rabe dnnk R. and eat-nee R. 'Rabe is drmkmg and Rabe IS eanng rice' Misotro sy mthmam-bary Rabe drink and eat-nee R. 'Rabe ts dnnking and eatmg nee'
(13)
]ACALTEC:
a.
Slota/ rx hune' mancu wal naJ hune' lahaniex slotOJ naJ eats she one mango but he one orange eats he 'She eats a mango, but he eats an orange'
b.
SlotoJ tx mancu wal naJ hune' IahanXei eats she mango but he one orange ~she eats a mango, but he an orange'
Fmally, let us constder the direcuon of tdentity deletwn m languages whtch have baSic SVO order. Given that such languages have underlymg chammg structures of the general form (14)
s, v, s, v,
we can predict chat, m such languages, S-Deletwn, tf It ts permitted at all, will be able to apply forward. ThiS predicuon IS borne out by rhe followmg examples from Engltbh:
288
Towards an Explanatzon of Comparative-type Choice
(15)
ENGLISH:
a. b.
john came in, and John/he asked for a cup of tea John came zn and asked for a cup of tea
With respect to Y-Delerion m $YO-languages, however, matters are a bit more complicated. From a structure hke (14) we can predict that forward Y-Delerion in these languages will be forbidden, due to the operation o£ the Boundary Constraint. As it turns out, this prediction is confirmed by the margmal acceprab1hty of the Enghsh sentence (16b), which has been derived from (16a) by means of Forward Y-Deletion: (16)
ENGLISH:
a. ..~\fy fa/her drmks, and my mother drmks b. ? My father drinks, and my mother A sentence like (16b) can be made pa..able only by imposing a h1ghly marked intonation contour on the sentence, or
by adding an
adverb hke
too to the second conJunct (see sentence (17a)). 7 Both of these procedures have the effect of demarcating the sentence boundary wh1ch lS left suspended by the null-anaphor in the second conJunct. Alternatlvely, SYO-Ianguages may adopt the same solution as SOY-languages; they may reverse the direction of V-Deletton, so that the ellipsis site is removed from sentence-final position (see sentence (17b)). Cp.: (17) ENGLISH: a, My father drinks, and my mother, too b. My (
ENG I.ISH:
a. b.
My father drznks vodka alld my mother dnnks gin My father dnnks vodka and my mother gin
Within the framework adopted here the acceptability of Forward YDeletion m (18b) as opposed to the marginal applicability of that same procedure in (16b) can be explained by the fact that, in SVO-Ianguages, the verb of the second conjunct does not always appear m sentence-final position. As a result, SVO-Ianguages are not as determined in d1eir directionality of V-Deletlon as SOY-languages are. In fact, we will see later on that the mdeterminancy of the direction of Y-Deletion m SYOIanguage• is often solved by not permitting Y-Deletion at all; all the cases of limited identity deletion in our sample will turn out to be languages which have baszc SYO word order.
Grammatical Procedures 13.5
289
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have d1scussed the two grammatical procedures wh~eh we claim to be crucial to the lmgtustlc encodmg of comparatives, v1z. deranking and 1dentiry deletion. From a functiOnal pOint of v1ew, these rw-o procedures may be looked upon as each other'.!t oppo.!tltes. Formally, however, the two procedures show a great deal of correspondence. Both procedures allow for a three·Wdf variatiOn; moreover, the thr~e var1ants of both procedures exhibit srrikmg parallels as to then condwonahty. Lastly, we have seen that the directionality of apphcat1on 1s m both cac;e!:> connected With baste word-order type.
14 Optimal and Non-optimal Language Types
14.1
Introduction
With the di~C\.lS!-i!On of the two grammancal procedures m chapter 13 we hove concluded the sume to be needed m the de~cnptton of the lmguiStlc encodmg of compar1wn m natural languago. BneHy !>Ummannng our posmon, we can ~ay that we have poc;tulated a general model of hngulstlc dcs~.:nptton, m wh1ch a consuuctton type lS taken to bed< fined by three levels of >tructure, vtz. the CS, the US and the SS. We have assumed that there ts a umversally vahd CS of companson of the type defined m sectton 11.4. In order to achteve the mappmg of thts CS of companwn onto the language system, we have postulated a set of three different cogmnve ~uareg1cs (~sectiOn 12.3 ), wh1ch result 1n three basic types of posMble undcrlymg structures for comparatives m natural languages. The mappmg of these underlymg structures onto the surface forms of comparauves ts clatmed to be effectuated by the operanon of two cruc1ally relevant grammatical procedures, v1z. derankmg and identtty delctton (see secroon 13.3 and 13.4). Both of rhe>e grammatical proc(•dures aJJow for a three-way vanat100 m theu apphcation acrOS!:I natut allanguag~. Thu::., m our J.naly5.Js, the vanat10n tn surface mamfestat1on of comparatives aero::.::. langudge~ IS thought to result from the possibility that, stamng from a umversally ••ltd CS, languages may vary m thetr apphcanon of cogmnve strategte!:l and grammatical procedures during the cour•e of the mappmg of thts CS onto the vanous surface forms of comparanves. However, even If one accepts the general plau!.Ibility of thts .approach, tt wtll be noted tmmedtately that rhe analysts presented so far prcdlct~ a number of poss1ble ::.urface structure~ whtch lS much larger than the number of compJranve types whtch are actually arrested 111 the cross-hngUIStlC data. Our analysl& assumes that there are at least three
Opt1ma/ and Non-opt•mal Language Types
291
baMC types of underlymg structures wh1ch are possJble candidates for the
starting point of the operation of deranking and identity deletion. Furthermore, both derankmg and 1dentity deletiOn allow for a crosslmgmstic variation into three categones, so that, logically, there are nine possible lingmstic types m the application of grammancal procedures to the underlymg structures of comparatives. Coupled With the three basic types of underlying structures, tlus will amount to the prediction of twenty-seven possible surface types of comparative constructions across languages. In reahry, of course, the empmcal data show that the actual number of attested comparanve types is far more hm1ted; there are only five maJOr surface types of comparatives in the sample, plus a few minor ones, such as Parnde Comparatives and cases of Maxed Companson. In other words, our model of linguistic descrtptiOn 1s, as 1t stands, much too unconstrained to account for the empincal data; clearly, tf our model is
gomg to work at all, some principle (or set of principles) should be found by wh1ch the number of combmatory posSJblhties can be drastically bmtted. In order to adueve this lim1tanon, I will propose two general princtples
which I take to be apphcable in the linguistic encod1ng of comparison, and in the operation of linguistic systems in general. The first of these rrmciples 1S meant to delim!t the ways in which the various opnons m grammatical procedures may be combined. The second principle, wh1ch will be d1scussed in section 14.3, has to do wnh the limitation on the possible combinations of procedure-types and strategy-types.
14.2
The Principle of Procedural DepwJency
I take It to be self-evident that every natural language will have to make a chOice for both one of the optwns m Identity deletion and one of the options m deranking. That ts, every natural language system will contam some pa1rmg of a particular deletion vanant and a particular derankmg variant; if languages select a different pairing of these two types of variants, they will be said to belong to different procedure types. Now, up to the present point in the discussion we have more or less tacidy assumed that identity deletion and derankmg are two grammatical procedures which operate mdependently of one another; hence, given the three-way variation which both procedures permit, one mtght conclude
that languages can be divided into mne different procedure types. In reahty, however, the combmatory po~stbthttes of procedural vanants turn out to be limited by the fact that there IS a cerram degree of mterdepcndency between the two procedures at hand. To be specific,
292
Towards an ExplanatiOn of Comparative-type Cho1ce
po::.::.tble patrings of procedural vanams turn out to be empmcaHy restncted by the following universal pnnciple:
The Prinaple of Procedural Dependency: If a language has a derankmg procedure, it must also have a procedure of identity deletion. An alternative and equivalent formulation of this principle might be: 'If d language has no procedure of identity deletion, 1t cannot have a procedure of derankmg'. In other words, the principle is meant to state that, out of the four logtcally posstble combmations presented tn the table below. the second combmatton (viz. deranking and no 1dcnuty delenon) is empmcally excluded:
Deranking
Identity deletion
+ + ---"'-----·-------', + + It should be stressed here that the Pnnc1ple of Procedural Dependency (PPD) must be vtcwed as the statement of an emptrrca/ly attested crosslmgutsttc fact; m other words, the PPD has the status of an unphc.ltlonal universal of language. In my sample, I have found no counterexample to this prmciple; that is, my sample does not contain any language which has deranking, but not some form of identity deletion. Conversely, there arc no languages m my sample which lack identity deletion but have nonetheless the possibtlity to derank predicates m temporal chains. I hope I can be abwlved from the obligation to present the full cross-hngutsttc evidence by wh1ch this principle is confirmed in my sample; a complete presentation of the relevant facts would fill at least 50 pages of text. Therefore, I must ask the reader to accept without further argumentation that the PPD embodte& a v.tlid restrictiOn on the structural po:,sibilmes of natural languages. It 1&, of course, natural to ask why a restnction hke the PPD should be Imposed on natural language systems. I can only offer some htghly tentative speculations here. For one dung, the concept of explanatwn tn general is ~till very unclear m Umversal Grammar, and, moreover, in thts particular case there are several plausible perspectives from which such an explanation might be developed. One of the approaches one might pursue on this pomt Is an explanation on the basts of functiOnal considerattons. As we suggested in section 13.2, the procedures of Identity deletiOn and derankmg have a dttfcrent functional status, in that deranking 15 mainly a service to the hearer~ whereas 1denttty deletion 1s
Optimal and Non-optimal Language Types
293
pnmanly aimed at mimmalizing the efforts of the speaker. Now, 1! we accept thts suggestion, we can see that the pa1ring which 1s exduded by the PPD (vi?. rhe pamng of derankmg and no idcnt1ty deletton) !S the combmanon which puts all the efforts requ1rcd for unprob(emJtlc commumcat10n on the :,houlders of the ~peaker; m this pamng, the speaker has to make the effort of derankmg prcdu...ates m temporal chams, but he IS not cornpcm.ated for tht~ by a permt~::,.~on co omH redundant lexical material. In other word~, the p.uring which ts excll1ded by the PPD demands maxtmal effort from the speaker while givmg h1m nothmg in return; and this ·unfairness' to the speaker may be the reason why natural languages try to avmd thl~ part!Lular p.unng. It can be noted that m other possible patring~, wh1ch arc permitted by the PPD, the efforts of communicanon are distnbuted more evenly over speaker and hearer. Thu.;;, for instance, in the first pa~r~ng hsted m the table the spcdker must make the effort of derankmg, but he IS "rewarded' for Lh1s by the perrmsswn to leave out redundant matenal. In the fourth pa1nng listed, speaker and hearer also stnke an equal bargam: the speaker does not have to go through the trouble of derankmg, but the hearer doe~ not have to make the effort of recovering omitted rnatenaL It goes Without saymg that such an explanation of the PPD 111 funcnonal terms IS at present nothmg more than a ~pcculat1ve ~k(·tch. First of all, It w1ll be nece::,sary to support It by mdependcnt p~ycho hnguistic data. Furthermore, it 1,hould be observed that, even as It stand~. the analysis outlined above leaves a number of quc::.t10ns un.ln~\\l red. Thus, one may well ask why the tlurd alternative m the table (viz the pairing of no dcrankmg and Identity deletion} 1~ not excluded as well, since in this pairing all the effort of commumcatlon IS unloaded on the hearer. Now, we wdl see in the followmg sectwns that this partH u!ar pairing may mdeed be viewed as less 'optimal' (in a sense to be de!ined below) than the other t'.\0 pamngs vvh!Ch are pt:rmttted by the J>PD. However, even tf we gram tht~, our analy~i~ doe~ not provide a pnnc1pled account of the apparent fact that placmg the whole burden of
294
Towards an Explanatzon of Comparatt,e-type Chozce
cxnrople of a case m wh1ch the lo;s of a subject gradually leads ro the non· fimte status of a prc,hcate IS the seriahzatJOn constructJon, wh1ch we dt~cnso:,ed m secnon 8.2. We may also p01nt to cases ofEqui-NP-Deletion m Dutch and other languages; as can be seen from the example~ m (1), the (·omplement of verb~ hke wtllen 'to want' m Dutch can be transfonrcd mto a non-fimtc form only 1f the subject m the complement clause is de etcd under 1denflty With the subject of the mam verb: (J_'
DUTCH:
a.
lk wtl dat 111 danst I want that you dance-PRES. IND. 2SG '/u. I want that you dance: I want you to d~nce'
b.
*
Ik wzl
dat tk dans
I want that I dance-PRE>. IND. ISG 'Itt. I want that I dance'
c.
lk wtl dansen I want dance-INF 'I want to dance'
ln short, It may be true that, 1f a language is to have the po~sibtltty to derank predicates, it should at least have the mtntmal opnon in identity deletton, VIZ. S-Deletton. Thi; IS, of course, exactly what is stated by the PPD. Agam, however, it should be admitted that there are several potnts m th.ts analys1s which are m need of mdependent confirmation, o;o that at present th1~ analysis can be nothtng more than a suggestiOn for future research. Whatever the explanatJOn for the ext>tence of the PPD may be, we may conclude nonetheless that 1t formulates a vahd lmguistJc umversal, and that tt can be employed to reduce the number of log1cally posSible pamngs of procedural option,. Of the mne poss1ble pamngs hsted below, the two pa1rmgs wh1ch have been boxed are excluded by the PPD, smce they .;ombme the option of no identity deletion (ID) with one of the two posstble derankmg opnons: fOr\!.-
TOHL ·CONDIT/0:<.\L TOTAL
BALANCING
l 1Mf7r.D- ·\B\OWTE
I
NOID-
iB~OIUTE
I
UMITED-CO:
'"CI~G
NOlO-BALANCING
Opttmal and Non-opttmal Language Types
295
14.3 The Principle of Optimal Harmony
In additiOn to the Pnnciple of Procedural Dependency, wh1ch constitutes a restractaon on the passable patrings of procedural variants, I propose a
second general principle, which has the effect of l1m1ttng the possible painngs of strategy types and procedure types. This principle can, m Its most general form, be formulated as follows:
The Prmciple of Optimal Harmony: When confronted With a number of options m the chOice of cognitive !itrategies, a natural language will select that strategy whtch leads to a
US to wh1ch the grammatical procedures available to that language can be apphed in an optimal fashion. In other words, the Prmc1ple of Optimal Hannony (POH) claims that, in thetr combmarion of options for cogmnve strategies and grammatical procedures, natural languages will tend to make such choices that their options with respect to these two rule types are maJumally attuned to one another. Behind this prmc1ple hes the 1dea that systems m general will strive for the most economical and effective me of the means which they happen to have at their diSposal; to state the matter somewhat informally, one might say that the POH is based upon the commonsense experience that there is no sense in acqumng a particular tool if you cannot find a way to use tt. In linguistics, thts generaltdea botls down to the choice of a particular cognitive strategy (and hence, the cho1ce for a particular US) m the encoding of a gtven construction type. Since cognmve ~ttrategtes and grammatical procedures are types of rules whtch, in prmctple, operate mdependendy of each other, the level of undcrlymg structure, where cogmtton and grammar meet, JS constantly under pressure from two different Sides. As 1take •t, the POH IS the way m wh•ch natural language systeDIS try to reconcile the demands made upon the system by both cogmtion and grammar; It is a pnnc1ple by wh1ch po.sible conflicts m these demands are 'Ironed out', m that It marks some logiCally posSible paumgs of strategtes and procedural variants as more optimal, and hence more hkely to be chosen, than others. Thus, the mam functton of the POH hes rn the fact that It allows language system; to make optimal use of available means, and that It therefore reduces the efforts which the sy~tem has to make in order to generate its output. A; an Illustration of the way in which the POH IS supposed to operate m the lmguistic encodmg of comparatives, let us consider the way m wh1ch th1s pnnciple may be used to hmJt the combinatory possib1httes of
296
Towards an Explanatton of Comparative-type Choice
cognitive strategtes with the opttons for tdentity deletton. Smce we have
postulated three different cognotive strategies and three different optwns for Identity deletion, the number of log~cally poss1ble combinations of strategy types and deletion types amounts to nme. However, it can be
shown that, by involving the POH, we can reduce this number of combinations to three, tn that an optimal patring of each cogmnve
strategy with one option 1n 1denmy deletion can be established. First, let us assume that a certain language L has the grammatical possibility of totaL 'dentJty deletton; that is, language L can delete not
only identical subjects, but also 1dcntical predicates from underlymg strings. Now, according to the POH, It is oprimdl for such a language to
select a US for Its comparative in which such An identity of pred1cates 1s indeed available; If language L were to choose a US in which the two predicates are non-Identical, the langUAge would be prevented from mak1ng optimal use of the grarnmatical po~sibtlities which
It
possesses.
Thus, assummg that the POH defines a v1able line of oonduct, we can state that a language wtth total Identity deletion wtll tend to select the Ordered Strategy, rather than the Independent Strategy or the Relative Strategy, as its cognitive strategy for the m•pping of the CS of oompanson onto its linguistic srstem. As IS shown by the formula in section 12.3, only the chotce for the Ordered Strategy results m a US which contams Identical predicates, 1 and which can therefore be subjects to total identity deletion. In the same von, there is also an opttmal chotec for those languages whtch can only delete identical subjects, but not identical predicates. For these languages, the optimal choice is a US in wh1ch the two propos mons have the same subject; hence, languages which have only the syntacttc option of S-Deletion wd~ according to the PO H, prefer to select the Relative Strategy, smce It ts only this ;trategy whtch results in a US m whicb the requtrement of 1dentical subjects is met. Finally, we can ask our;elves what the optimal choice of strategy may be for a language in which no tdenttty deletion at all IS possible. One might argue here that, since these languages do not have any deletion procedure at all, they do not Impose any requirement of optimalization on the form of thetr underlymg suucrures, and that they should therefore be free to select any cognitive strategy they like. However, tt seems also
plausible to aSSIUOe that, in tins case, the Independent Strategy
IS
the
option which, from the point of v1ew of the POH, must be rated as the
most optimal. Smcc languages with no Identity deletion do not ilnpo>c any identity requ1rements on thetr underlying structures, it is perfectly
feasible for them to select a US in which both the subjects and the predicates in the two proposition5 are non-idenncal; tf they were to
Optimal and Non-optzmal Language Types
297
choose another US, they could be expected to have some type of stnng· reducing procedure, whiCh m fact they do not have. For this reason, I wlil assume that the most opttmal or 'normal' choice of US for a language wtrh no identity deletiOn rs the US which IS the result of the applicatiOn of the Independent Strategy, smce it ts only this US whiCh contams propostttons Wtth both non-Identical subject~ and non-tdenncal prcdtcates. As wlll be shown below, ho~ever, the cho1ce of a different lJ~, for languages With no tdentlty deletion IS not completely excluded. The Pnnctplc of Opnmal Harmony can also be mvoked m the establishment of optimal and non-optimal combmations between the various options of strategy choice and the options whtch languages have in deranking. F1rsr, let us con~1der the case of those ldnguages m wluch predicates m chammg ~tructures may undergo absolute derankms:. In 'iuch languages, derankmg of predtcates m chains may take place regardless of the 1dent1ty or non-identity of the subjects m the cham; J!> such, these languages are opposed to languages in which derankmg may take place only under tdentity of subJects, and to languages in which der.mking cannot take place at all. In other words, the umque feature of languages wtth absolute derankmg ts that they may employ the gtammatical procedure of deranking in Ca!>et. m whtch the subJects of the propos1tions m the US arc non-identical. Given the POH, we may therefore expect that such languages will select a US in whtch thts condltlon of non-identity of subjects IS mer. As a resuh, the po%tbthty of havmg absolute deranking IS opt1mally pa1red with the selection of either the Independent Strategy or the Ordered Strategy, since m these cases a US will be selected which has non~identiCal subjects. A chOice for the Relative Strategy would be non-optimal for these languages, since this particular strategy leads to underlying structures in which the subJects of the proposltlons in the cham are identical. Quite the opposite requirement on underlymg structures can be predicted for languages in which predicates can be deranked only under Identity of subJects. For languages with th1~ condttwnal derankmg, the US produced by the Relative Strate1:.,ry is the obviout. choKe, since thts I!!. the only US which meers the demands made by the type of dewikmg available to these languages. FinalJy, for balancing language~ (I.e., languages in whtch no deranking can tJ.ke plJ.ce at all), one might argue that they impose no condition~ whatsoever on the selccuon of a US. Since these languages do not derank anyway, there appears to be no optimal selection of strategy to be derived for them by invoking the Principle of Optimal Harmony. To sum up thi!t sectwn, we can state that the applicatiOn of the POH to the problem of the pamng of strategy types and procedure types leads to
298
Towards an Explanatwn of Comparatwe-type Chmce
two sets of tendenc1es. Concermng the procedure of 1dennty delenon, we can state that (a) languages w~rh total ulenuty deletton will tend to choose the Ordered Strategy m ns mappmg of the CS of comparison; (b) languages wtth ltmtted zdenttty deletion will tend to choose the Relatwe Strategy; and (c) languages wtth no zdentzty deletion wtll tend to choose the
Independent Strategy. Apphcanon of the POH to the problem of strategy chmce m relanon to the options in derankmg leads to the formulation of the following set of tendencies: w~rh
absolute derankzng wtll tend to select Clther the lndcpmdent Strategy or the Ordered Strategy, and will tend to avotd rhe Relative Strategy m thc1r mapptng of the CS of comparison; (b) languages with condztzonal deranking will tend to select the RelatiVe Strategy; and (c) balancmg languages are, at least m prmctple, free to select any of (a) languages
the avaolable coguitive strategres m their mapping of the CS of companson onto their lmgm...-ric systems. 14.4
Optimal and non-optimal procedure types
In the precedmg section, we have seen how the application of the Prmc1ple of Optimal Harmony enahles us to cut down on the number of log1<..ally po%1ble combtnatlons of strategy types and the options for a particular vanant of enher of the two grammatical procedures whtch we assume robe relevant m the grammattcal treatment of comparatives. We have o;ummanzed our rewlts on th1s pomt by formulatmg two sets of tendenCies, whtch state the preferred patrings of a particular strategy wnh the vanous options in tdentny deletion and deranking. Now we will proceed to combme these two sets of tendenCies, and, as a result, we wdl estahhc,h a prcdJCnon a'! to what the opnmal and non·opumallanguage types are for the !Jngulst'lc encod1ng ofcomparanve constructtons. Earher on we stated that, •mce both identity deletton and deranking allow a three-way vananon, the number of logtcally posstble pamng~ of these procedural options amounts to mne. In other words, there are nme logiCally posSible language types wtth regard to the syntactiC denvauon of comparanve constructions across natural languages. However, a~ we saw m section 14.2, two of rhe~e nwe possible language: types (namely, those m whJCh the opnon of no 1denuty deletiOn It, pa1red wah the optmn
Opt11r1al and Non-opttmal Language Types
299
of 'orne vanant of deranking) are excluded by the Pnnciple of Procedural Dependency. Now, in what follows I will show that, by rombining the reqmrements on strategy chmce whtch the POH predicts for the vanous opnons in identity delenon and deranking, we can arrive at a further reducnon of the seven remainmg possible language types. In particular, it can be demonstrated that some of these pairings must be ruled out, on the grounds that the requtremeots wh1ch the POH imposes on them for the selecnon of a US are contradictory. On the other hand, we will also find that some of the log1cally poss1ble painngs of procedural variants are
opnmal, in that these vanants reinforce one another in the cho1ce of one speafic type of underlying strncnrre. One rather obv1ous example of a case in which the paaring of a deletion option with a deranking option leads to contradictory demands on the selection of a US •s the following. Suppose that there were languages wh1ch have /muted (i.e., subject-only) tdentity deletiOn, but which have also chosen the absolute optton m deranking. For such languages the POH would predict, on the one hand, the selection of a US with identical subjects (thus optimalizing the possibilities of Identity deletion in those languages), while on the other hand, the POH would require a US with dtfferenr subjerls (thus optlmalizing the possibility of absolute derankmg). Evidently, for such languages the POH would lead to contradictory results, since the two procedural variants selected here impose opposite
and ~rreconcilable demands on the seleruon of an optimal US: one prc>cedural option requ~res that the Relative Strategy be chosen, whep:as the other procedural option demands that this Relative Strategy be avo1ded. For thiS reason, we may conclude that the combmation of
ltmited tdenttty deletton and absolute derankmg is not an optimal parrzng, and hence we may predict that the languages in which this pamcular pairing has been chosen should be rared as a lughly improbable, 1f not downright impossible, hngu•suc type. A somewhat d1fferent kind of contradictoriness can be demonstrated for the logically possible language type m which a choice for total identity deletion would be combmed With a choice for condittonal derankmg. The POH predicts that languages with total identity deletion Will tend to choose a US with 1dent1eal pred•cates; given our set of cognmve strategies, th1s w•ll normally lead to the selecnon of the Ordered Strategy. On the other hand, the POH also predicts that a language With COnditional deranking wul opt for a US Ill Which the subjects are 1dentical, and hence the Relative Strategy should be the optimal choice for such a language. Now, if we combme these two requirements in a gtven language, we would arnve at an optimal choiCe for a US m which both the subjects and the predicates are tdentJcal. It will
300
T awards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
be dear thar an underlying srructute of this form will be ruled out immediately on semantic (or, if one prefers that, on pragmatic) grounds: it would amount to a US in wh1ch the same proposition appears twice in a sequence, and this would constitute a crass violation of the conversational maxims developed in Grice (1975). For this reason, it seems plausible to conclude that the pairing of total identity deletion and conditional deranking will not result in an optimal selection of a US, and hence we may again predict that this pairing will define an impossible language type. Opposed to pairings which define improbable or even impossible language types, there are also combinations which lead to optimal results, in that both procedural variants lead to the same requirement on the choice of the US of the comparative construction. A clear case of such an optimal language type is constituted by those languages in which the options of limited identity deletion and conditional deranking have been combined. The POH requires for both of these procedural options that the US upon which they operate should have identical subjects. As a result, the Relative Strategy will be the optimal cognitive strategy for the mapping of the CS of comparison onto the syntactic systems of these languages. Thus, we may conclude that, given the correctness of the POH, the pairing of limited identity deletion and conditional deranking defines a highly optimal linguistic type, and hence we may expect that languages which possess this pairing will constitute a favoured category in the typology of comparatives. Secondly, the combination of total identity deletion and absolute deranking can be predicted to be a favoured pairing, albeit for a more indirect reason. As we have seen, languages with total identity deletion are required by the POH to select a US with identical predicates. Given that, in underlying structures, subjects and predicates cannot both be identical, this requirement entails that the optimal US for a language with total identity deletion wi11 have to have non~identical subjects. Now, the deranking option which also requires that the optimal US have nonidentical subjects is the absolute variant; hence, total identity deletion and absolute deranking are mutually reinforcing options from the point of view of the POH. It will be dear that, for languages in which this pairing is present, the Ordered Strategy will be the most natural choice, since it is this cognitive strategy which produces underlying structures with identical predicates and non-identtcal subjects. Thirdly, we must also rate the combination of no identity deletion and balancing as an optima) pairing of procedural variants. The reason for this is, quite simply, that for languages with no identity deletion no other pairing is available; the other two possible pairings are excluded by the
Optimal and Non-optimal Language Types
301
PPD (see secnon 14.2). As for the preferred cognitive straregy for balancing languages with no identity deletion, it will be recalled that the POH does not define an optimal strategy choioe for the procedural
option of balancing. However, we have also stated in section 14.3 that languages with no identity deletion must be assumed to have at least a slight preference for the Independent Strategy. As a result, we can a~snme that balancing languages which have no tdentity deletion will generally opt for a US produced by the Independent Strategy, although occasional
mstances for other strategies cannot be completely excluded for thts language type. Finally, we must discuss the two remaining possible pairing~ of
procedural variants. In both of these cases, the option of balancing has been chosen, which is then combmed with either the option of total identity deletion or the option of limited identity deletion. Now, as we have seen, the selection of a balancing option does not comm1t a language to the choice of a specific cognitive strategy. Since, however, the two deletion options with which the balancing option is paired in the language types at issue do define a favourite choice of cognitive strategy, we may expect that (a) balancing languages with total identity deletion will tend to select the Ordered Strategy; and (b) balancing languages with limited identity deletion will tend to select the Relative Strategy for their linguistic mapping of the CS of • compartson. Furthermore, we may state that these two pairings cannot be con· sidered to be 'optimal'; the two options in these pairings do not reinforce one another, due to the fact that one of them is essentially neutral with respect to strategy choice. On the other hand, we must also remark that there is nothing in these pairings which leads to contradictoriness. Therefore, we will predtct that these two pairings define language types for comparative-type choice which are defimtely possible, though not
optimal. In summary, the application of our two restrtctive principles (the PPD and the POH) to the nine logically posSible pairings of procedural variants enables us to reduce this number to a set of five (optimal or non· optimal) language types. To each of these language types, a preferred cognitive mapping strategy (and hence a preferred US for its comparative) can be attributed, on the basis of the requirements made of that language type by the Principle of Optimal Harmony. Charting our predictions for the nine logically possible language types, we thus arrive at the following table:
302
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
Identity deletion
Deranking
Rating
Preferred strategy
Total Total Total Limited Limited ljmited No No No
Absolute Cond1tional Balancing Absolute Conditional Balancing Absolute Conditional Balancing
Optimal OutbyPOH Possible OutbyPOH Optimal Possible Out by PPD Out by PPD Optimal
Ordaed
Ordered Relative Relative
-
Independent (but maybe also others)
Surveying thJS list of penmssible and excluded language types from a somewhat d1fferent perspective, we may desenbe the situation as follows. It appears that the optimal language types are those in which both pro~.."edural variants in the pairmg are at the same levd of ~extremism'. Thus, 1f a language does not have any derankmg, it will tend to have no identity deletion, and vice versa. Opposed to this, we find that languages which have the most 'far-reaching' form of deranking (viZ. absolute deranking) will tend to have the most extreme form of identity deletion as well. (It will be recalled that absolute deranking and total identity deletion properly include conditional deranking and limited identity deletion, respectively.) lastly, it appears that languages which have the more 'moderate' form of deranking (viz. conditional deranlung) will tend to pair this option with the more limited form of identity deletion. The two possible but non-optimal language types are a result of the fact that, apparently, balancing languages are free to choose any opnon of Jdentity deletion. We have accounted for this by stipulating that the option of balancing, unlike all other procedural options, JS not subject to requirements which derive from the Principle of Optimal Harmony, Apart from this tendency of parallelism in the conditionality of identity deletion and deranking, we can also detect a parallelism in the d~rectionallty of these two procedures in a given language. As we saw in section 4.4.3, a language with anterior absolute consecunve deranking nonnally has SOV word order. If that language has also total identity deletion, it will (according to section 13.4) normally have backward V-Deletion. In other words, for languages of this optimal procedure type the procedures of identtty deletion and derankmg tend to affect the same clause (m this case, the anterior clause) in the underlying chaining structure. A similar
situntion can be observed for languages with absolute posrenor consecutive derankmg; these languages have typ1cally verb-initial word order, which
Optimal and Non-optimal language Types
303
(g1ven that the language has total identity deletion) wdllead to f01ward V-Deletion. As for languages with conditional deranking, we have seeu that they typically have posterior deranking and SVO word order (see section 4.4.3). If such languages pair their deranking option with the equally 'moderate' option of limited identity deletion, the subject which JS deleted will be the subject of the posterior clause (see section 13.4). Thus, one might say that, in the optimal cases, the two grammatical procedures involved form a 'syntactic conspiracy'; they tend to adapt themselves to one another, both in the measure of 'extremism' of their conditionality, and in the direction in which they operate.
15 An Explanatory Model of Comparative-type Choice
15.1 lnnoduction In the foregoing chapters of part three we have progressively developed a model by which we should be able to predict the attested occurrence and non-occurrence of comparative types in natural languages. The basic features of this model can now be summarized as follows. We have assumed that there is a language-independent cognitive representation of the concept of comparison. Furthermore, we take it that this CS of comparison is mapped onto the formal systems of natural languages by means of a number of different strategies; these strategies have in common that their mapping result is in all cases an underlying linguistic structure which has the form of a temporal chain of propositions. The selection of a particular mapping strategy (and hence, the possible US for a comparative} is taken to be deteunined by the formal-syntactic language type to which the language in question belongs; we have developed a general Principle of Optimal Harmony, which is meant to define the optimal (and the impossible} pairings of stratcgr types and formal-syntactic types in languages. The notion of 'language type' (or 'procedure type') which we have used in this context is defined by the specific pairing of the options which a language selects for the two grammatical procedures which we take to be essential to the formalsynC~ctic treatment of chaining constructions (and, therefore, of compara· tives), viz. identity deletion and deranking. As it turns out, the pairing of options in these two procedures is in itself not entirely free; it is restricted by the general Principle of Procedural Dependency. The application of the two general principles mentioned above leads to a limited set of three optimal language types and two possible but non-optimal language types; each of these language types is associated with a preferred mapping strategy, and hence with a preferred underlying structure for comparative constructions. By applying the relevant grammatical pro-
An Explanatory Model
305
cedures of the various language types to their preferred underlying structure, a range of different surface types of comparatives will be derived. The model outlined above constitutes at present nothing more than a hypothetical framework. We should assess its empincal adequacy by checking whether the predietions which it makes conform to the facts found in the cross~linguistic data. As we have remarked before, these predictions concern two questions, viz. the question of whether the model correctly predicts all and only those types of comparatives which have been attested in the sample, and, secondly, the question of whether the new model can assign the correct set of languages to each of these types. To the extent that the new model can be shown to be successful in answering these two questions, it can be said that it constitutes at least a first approximation towards an explanation of comparative-type choice, in that it offers an account of the non~randomness involved in that choice.
15.2
The prediction of comparative-type occurrence
Since, in the end, the model outlined above leads to the denvarion of a limited set of surface types for comparatives, the obvious way to assess the adequacy of this model is to check whether the set of comparative types which it generates is isomorphic to the set of comparative types which have been empirically attested. In other words, in order for our model to be adequate, it should be the case that tt generates (i.e., predicts) all the types of comparatives established in chapter 2, and only those. In what follows, I will test the various predictions made by the model, by checking each of the language types permitted in the model for its corresponding comparative type (or types), and by establishing whether or not these predicted comparative types correspond to the 'real wol'ld' categories of comparatives found in the cross-linguistic data. To start our investigation, let us consider the first of the three optimal language types established in section 14.4, viz. the set of languages which combine the options of total identity deletton and absolute deranking. Of the languages of this type, the first thing that can be noted is that their word order will be either SOV or VSO; SVO word order is excluded for these languages, since SVO-Ianguages generally do not permit absolute deranking (see chapter 4). Furthennore, our model predicts that languages of this type will prefer the Ordered Strategy for their mapping of the CS of comparison. Accordingly, the preferred US for comparatives in languages of this type will be a sequence of propositions which has the
30~
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
form of one of the variants of US-2 (see section 12.3). For the moment, we will cons1der only the first two van ants of this US, viz.
liS 2.1 US2.2
(b BIG) (a BIG)
& &
(a BIG) (b BIG)
As wlil be recalled, the unmarked, or 'natural', temporal interpretation of a US of this kind is a consecutive interpretation, Now, in the syntactic derivation of comparative construcnons in the languages of this type, the following situation obtains. It can be observed that, dependmg on the word order of the relevant languages, it is either US-2.1 or US-2.2 which 1s preferred as the US of the comparative construction. To be spectfic, if a language of this type has SOV order, that language will select US-2.1, i.e., the variant in which the standard object is mentioned first in the underlying sequence. If a language of this type has YSO order, it will select US-2.2, the variant in which the comparee object is contained in the first proposition. In other words, YSO-languages which select the Ordered Strategy apparently take the comparee object as the starting point in the scanning strategy, and 'move' from there to the standard object; in contrast to this, SOY-languages wh1ch select the Ordered Strategy start their scanning with the standard object, moving from there to the comparee object. The situation can be illustrated by the following diagram:
SOY-languages B
A
+ YSO-Ianguages
A putative explanation of this apparent opposition in scanning directionM ality might run as follows. It can be assumed that languages of this type (and, as a matter of fact, languages in general) will prefer to encode their comparatives in such a form that the comparee NP can be the subject of the main verb (c.q. one of the main verbs) in the construction. Since the comparee NP refers to the topic of the comparison, and since topics and subJects have the tendency to coincide in the syntax of natural languages, 1
construction of the comparee NP as a main subject seems to be the desirable thing to do. For languages with some kind of deranking procedure, this requirement on the surface structure of comparative entails that the underlying predicate which has the comparee NP as its subJeCt cannot be the predicate which undergoes deranking; if it were, the comparee NP would never be able to turn up as a main subject in the SS. From this it follows that, for languages with some kind of deranking,
An Explanatory Model
307
it must be the other predicate m the underlying cham which has to undergo deranking; and, for languages which select the Ordered Strategy, th1s means that the predicate which is going to be deranked has to be the predtcate which has the standard NP as its sub;ect.
Given this, It will be clear that the languages under discussion here (viz. the languages with absolute consecutive deranking) are under the obligation to place the proposition which contains the standard NP in such a position in the US that the deranking procedure can actually operate on the predicate of that proposition. It is at this point that the difference between SOY-languages and YSO-languages becomes crucial. As we saw in chapter 4, absolute consecutive deranking in SOY-languages is anterior, that is, it affects the first predicates in a chain. As a result, for SOYlanguages with absolute deranking the comparative construction needs a US in which the predicate that is going to he deranked (i.e., the predicate which has the standard NP as its subject) is placed in anterior position. The US in which this requirement is met is US-2.1. Opposed to this, YSO-languages with absolute consecutive deranking apply their deranking procedure to posterior predicates in temporal chains. Hence, for such languages the comparative construction requires a US in which the predicate to be deranked (i.e., the predicate which has the standard NP as its subject) occupies the second position in the chain. A US which meets this requirement is US-2.2. It will be recalled, incidentally, that we have described both US-2.1 and US-2.2 as the product of one scanning strategy, which apparently allows for two opposite directionalities. Thus, if we ac_cept the above explanation, we are automatically committed to the view that the directionality of scanning in a language with absolute deranking must be made dependent on the particular way in which the deranking procedure operates in that language. For example, since deranking SOY-languages require that the deranked predicate be the first predicate in the US, such languages must select a scanning strategy which ensures that the proposition which contains the standard NP is 'read off' first. The general idea that, in natural languages, strategy choice and procedural options must be attuned to each other was formulated in the previous chapter a.s the Principle of Optimal Harmony. Hence, it would be possible to conceive of the opposite directionality in the US-formation of comparatives in deranking SOY-languages and deranking YSO-languages as one more mal].ifestation of this general principle. Whatever the merits of the above explanation may be, the empirical fact remains that deranking SOY-languages and deranking YSO-languages select a US in which the two propositions are ordered in opposite successions. Given this situation, the derivation of a surface comparative
308
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
for the languages of the type at issue proceeds as follows. If the language has SOV word order, it will have US-2.1 as the underlying structure of its comparative. On this structure, the procedures of identity deletion and deranking will operate. I take it to be self-evident that, to underlying structures such as US-2.1, absolute deranking must apply before identity deletion is applied; if we were to order these procedures the other way round, identity deletion would delete the predicate on which deranking should have operated, so that the application of deranking would be made impossible. Thus, to US-2.1 we will first apply absolute deranking; since the language at issue has SOV order, it will be the anterior predicate which will be affected. Following absolute deranking, total identity deletion will delete the identical predicate in the deranked clause. The result is a Separative Comparative. The various steps in this derivation can be represented in the following (quite informal) way:
US 2.1
(b BIG)
&
(a BIG)
absolute anterior deranking b BIG-deranked a BIG-main v e r b - - - - - - total identity deletion b-from a BIG-main verb
If the language in question happens to have VSO word order, the opposite directionality of deranking and identity deletion will be chosen. Such a language will select US-2.2 as the US for its comparative. On this structure, absolute consecutive deranking will operate, which in this case will affect the posterior predicate. Following this, total identity deletion will again delete the identical predicate in the deranked clause. The final result will be an Allative Comparative. In addition to the Separative and the Allative Comparative, our model predicts that the languages of the type at issue (i.e., the languages with absolute deranking and total identity deletion) will have the option of forming a third type of surface comparative, viz. the Locative Comparative. This possibility stems from the fact thar, while the USs produced by the Ordered Strategy normally receive a consecutive interpretation, It is nonetheless possible to interpret these USs as simultaneous chains. Now, as we saw in chapter 4, directionality does not play a role in the procedure of simultaneous deranking; this may be viewed as the 'neutral' case between anterior and posterior consecutive deranking, in that no 'temporal distance between the two events in the chain is implied and hence no 4 movement' from one event to the other. Thus, when interpreted as an S-chain, US-2.1 and US-2.2 are syntactically interchangeable. For both of these USs, absolute simultaneous deranking will derank the predicate which has the standard NP (b) as its subject, thus ensuring
An Explanatory Model
309
that the predicate which has the comparee NP (a) as its subject can become the main verb of the surface comparative. After deranking, total identity deletion will delete the deranked predtcate under identity wtth the main predicate, thus deriving a Locative Comparative. As for word order, the model predicts that both SOV-languages and VSO·languageo. may be members of this class, since the factor which differentiate• between these two word orders (viz. the directionality of the procedure of absolute consecutive derauking) is taken to be neutralized in absolutt· simultaneous detanking. As a last remark on the languages of the type under dtscussion we
should call atrention to the following point. Our model predicts that languages which combine absolute deranking with total identity deletion will normaUy select the Ordered Strategy, since it is this strategy whtch produces USs with identical predicates and non-identical subjects. Now, the large majority of the languages at issue here do tndeed conform to this prediction: they choose one of the variants of US-2 as the underlying snucture of their comparative, and hence they come up with an adverbial comparative. However, if we look at the list of possible underlying snuctures in section 12.3, we can notice that, in addition to the USs produced by the Ordered Strategy, there is at least one other US-variant which may (at least marginally) be considered as a suitable US-choice for the languages in question. To be specific, one of the variants which is produced by the Independent Strategy, viz.
US 1.2 (a BIG) &
(b not·BIG)
is a US in which the subjects are non-identical, while at the same time the predicates might, from a certain point of view, be called at least partiaUy identical. Given this, we can predict that it is at least possible that some languages which pair absolute deranking with total identity deletion will select US-1.2 instead of one of the variants of US-2. We can also predict, however, that such languages are likely to be a definite minority within their language type, because of the fact that, in US-1.2, there is no fuU, and hence no optimal, identity between the predicates in the US. In my opinion, the case of Telugn, which we commenred upon in section 2.5, represents an examples of such a 'minority'-snategy. Since Telugu is a language with both absolute deranking and total identity deletion, it is definttely a member of the language type which is relevant here. Now, as will be recalled, the Telugu comparative has a form which is superficially sirrular to that of an adverbial comparative, the difference being that its standard NP is not marked by a spatial marker, but by a participial form of the negative copula ka-du 'not to be':
Towards an Explanatwn of Comparative-type Choice
310 (1)
TELUGU:
I
-pandu a
-pandu-kanna
ttpi -ga
this-fruit that-fruit -not be-PCP. PRFS sweet-one 'This fruit is sweeter than that fruit'
undt •
IS
Withm our proposed model, the deviant comparative in Telugu can receive a straightforward explanation. We can say that T elugu represents the rare, but definitely permissible case where a language with absolute deranking and total identity deletion has opted for US-1.2, instead of the regular choice of a variant of US-2. The syntactic derivation of the 1 elugu comparative exactly parallels that of the 'normal' languages of this type. Since US-1.2 is normally interpreted as a Simultaneous temporal cl-tain, dtrectionahty of the deranking procedure does not come into play here. Absolute deranking will downgrade the predicate which has the standard NP as its subJect, that is, the predicate which contains the negation. Following deranking, total identity deletion will delete that part of the deranked predicate which is identical to the predicate of the mam verb, thus leaving behind a deranked form of the negative copula as a marker on the standard NP. In conclusion, then, our model predicts that there will be a positive correlanon between the option of an adverbial comparative and the possibility of combining the procedures of absolute deranking and total tdentlty deletion, while allowing for a few Isolated deviant cases such as the Telugu comparat1ve. Having established this, we can now turn to the second language type with total identity deletion which is permitted by our model. In thiS type, total identtty deletion has been paired with the option of balancing. Regarding this second, non~optimal, language type, the first thing to note is that our model predicts that there will be no preferred word order here. The reason for this ts that the choice of a balancing option is e>Sentially independent of the word order of the language in question. Secondly, we have decided in section 14.4 that the languages of this type, like those of its optimal counterpart, will normally select the Ordered Strategy. Thus, the predicted range of underlying structures for the comparatives of the languages in this class consists of the variants of US· 2 presented in section 12.3. To all of these possible USs, the procedure of total identity deletion will apply, after the option of deranking one of the predicates in the chain has been foregone. In keeping with the general tendency noted above, total identity deletion will affect the predicate which has the standard NP as its subject; in this way, the comparee NP can turn up in surface structure as the subject of the main verb in the construction. Given th1s tendency, there is no need for us to consider
An Explanatory Model
311
those variants of US-2 which differ from other variants only in the order in wh~ch the two predicates succeed one another. Hence, the relevant
vanants of US-2 to which balancmg and total identity deletion must be applied are the following three: US 2.2 (a BIG) & (b BIG) US 2.3 (a BIG-x) & (b BIG-)') US 2.5 (a BIG-X) & (b not BIG-X)
Application of balancing and total1dentity deletion yields the following surface suuctures for the comparatives of the languages in this class: SS2.2 abigandB SS 2.4 A big-x and By SS 2.5 A big-x and B not x
G1ven these surface structures, 1t will come as no surpr1se that I claim that the languages of the type which oombine balancmg and total identity ddeuon are those languages which have some kind of Particle Comparative. In chapter 9, and especially 1n section 9.4.3, I have argued that Parocle Comparatives must be seen as cases of syntactization, a process
which has as its necessary condition that the language in question possesses some form of Coordmate Ellipsis. Application of this stringreducing procedure may in itself be sufficient for the derivation of a structure to which syntactization can apply. However, it is often the case that, in addition to Coordmation Ellipsis, the process of syntactization of a comparative construction will involve the incorporation of a negative element, or some form of relativization, or both. Now, I think that the
various surface structures which have been derived from the variants of US-2 by total identity deletion are just those rypes of structures which can, by means of the process mentioned above, be syntacticized into a Particle Comparative of some kind. First, it is obvious that the SS wh1ch has been derived from US-2.2, viz. SS-2.2, is the kind of surface structure which is exhibited by those Particle Comparatives in which the comparative particle is identical to the elements and, but or then/after that. Thns, we claim that Javanese, Goajiro, Toba Batak, Ilocano, Basque and Bari form their (primary or secondary) comparatives by applying balancing and total identity deletion to US-2.2. The second SS which results from the application of balancing and total identity deletion to a variant of US-2, viz. US-2.4, is a likely candidate for syntactJzation by means of relativization. For this to happen, we take it that the mdex on the deleted predicate (y) will be pronominalized, relativized and adverbialized mto some locative or
312
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
instrumental case; in other words, this index will be syntacticized into a pronominal adverbial item with the original meaning 'to/atlby which'. Languages in wh1ch this process seems to have taken place are Finnish, Russian and Albanian, and probably also French, Latin and Hungarian. For those languages in which the comparative particle has the meaning 'like', we will assume that the syntacuzation of the pronominal adverbial at issue has proceeded up to a point where the pronominal origin of the particle is no longer recognizable. Indications that there is some aansition between a 'to-which'-particle and a 'like'-particle can be found in the data from Latin and Hungarian (see section 9.3)! Thirdly, there ate languages in which the comparative particle originates from a pronominal adverbial into which a negative element has been incorporated. Examples of languages in wqich such a 'to which not'particle appears are Hungarian, and possibly also Dutch and English. For this type of Particle Comparative, we will assume that the grammaucal procedures which are typical for all Particle languages (viz. balancing and total identity deletion) have applied to US-2.5. The SS which results from this application, viz. SS-2.5, then undergoes syntactization, in that the remaining index in the reduced clause IS relativized into a pronominal adverbial item, wh1le the residual negation in the reduced clause comes to be incorporated into that item. By an analysis hke the one given above, the occurrence of most of the attested types of Parude Comparatives can be accounted for. However, the reader wlil have noted that the analysis leaves out one attested category of Particle Comparatives, viz. those comparatives in which the comparative parucle is a disjunctive element ('or') or a negative conjunction ('nor'). For this type of Particle Comparative (to be found in Gaelic, Latvian, Classical Greek and Gothic), we will claim a status which is similar to the position of the Telugu comparative within the class of adverbial comparatives. As was the case with languages which combine total identity ddetion and absolute deranking, languages which combine balancing and total identity deletion will normally select the Ordered Strategy. There is, however, also a marginal possibility to select one of the variants of the Independent Strategy which meets the demands made by the language type at issue. The relevant US is US-1.2, which, by the application of total identity deletion and balancing, will have the following derivation: US 1.2 (a BIG) & (b not BIG) SS 1.2 A big and B not
In our analysis, we will assume that SS-1.2 will be syntacticized into a Particle Comparative, in that the conjunction and and the residual
An Explanatory Model
313
negative element melt together into a 'nor·~partide or an 'or'·panide. In summary, our model predicts that there will be a positive cot·
relation between the option of a Particle Comparative and the option of combining balancing and total identity deletion. In this way, our model describes the category of Particle Comparatives as a kind of 'intermediate' category between the 'optimal' categories of adverbial comparatives (which are correlated with the pairing of absolute deranking and total identiry deletion) and conjoined comparatives (which, as we shall see shortly, correlate with the options of no identity deletion and no deranking). The (admittedly rather scanty) historical evidence which we have seems to suggest that most Particle languages are languages wh1ch used to belong to the first optimal type, but which gradually came to prefer the option of balan!;ing to the option of deranking. Equivalently, one might say that, in the typical case, a language with a Particle Comparative is a Jangnage with total identity deletion, which, somewhere along the road, has lost the will to derank. As we noted in chapter 10, a considerable number of Particle languages have an adverbial comparative as their secondary option, and, in all the cases for whkh historical evidence is available, this adverbial comparative appears to be the elder of the <wo. The two types of languages discussed so far are the most complex cases among the five language types listed in section 14.4; the predictions of comparative-type choice for the three remaining langnage types whi.:h our model allows can be dealt with relatively briefly. First, let us consider the second optlmallangnage type specified in the model, viz. the set of languages which combine the options of limited identity deletion and conditional deranking. For these languages, SVO word order is predicted, since the option of conditional deranking is restricted to languages of this word-order type. Furthermore, the model predicts that the languages of this type will preferably select the Relatwe Strategy, since the US produced by this strategy (viz. US-3 in its several variants) IS the only US available in which subjects are 1dentical. Accordingly, we predict that the languages in the rype under discussion will form their comparatives by deriving them from a US of one of the following lorms: US 3.1 (a BIG) & (a BEYOND b) US 3.2 (a BEYOND b) & (a BIG) As we stated in section 12.3, it is natural for USs of th1s type to receive a simultaneous interpretation. Therefore, we will expect that the procedure
of conditional deranking applied to these USs will be the procedure which the langnage employs to derank its S-chains. A consecutive
314
Towards a11 Explanattolf of Comparative-type Choice
interpretation of these USs IS not entirely excluded, but must definitely be rated as a secondary possibility here. To these two variants of US-3, limited identity deletion (1.e., the deletton of a subject under identity) and cond1tional deranking will apply. Since there is no intrinsic ordering between the deletion of a subject and the deranking of a predicate,' we are, m principle, free to choose either ordering of apphcation of these procedures; for the sake of illustrat10n, I will adopt here the ordering in which limited identity deletion precedes the application of the deranking procedure. Furthermore, we must note that, in principle, the deletion of the subject might affect the first subject as well as the second subject in the chain, since the comparee NP will turn up in the SS as a main subject in any case, no matter what the directionality of the deletion procedure is. However, as wt· have established m section 13.4, general principles dictate that deletion of subjects in SVO-languages applies forward, i.e., always affects the second occurrence of the identical subject. Since, as we have seen in chapter 4, the deranking procedure in SVO-languages always affects the second predicate in the chain, we can conclude that the combined efforts of hmited identity deletion and conditional deranking will be directed at the rightmost clause in the various versions of US-3. Once we have made these decisions, It is fa1rly easy to sketch the syntactic derivanon which leads to surface comparatives for the languages of this type. For rbose languages which select US-3.1 as their starting pomt, the syntactic derivation outlined below leads to an Exceed-1 Comparative: (aBIG)
&
(aBEYONDb)
limited identity deletion (a BIG)
&
(BEYOND b)
conditional derankrng A b1g exceed-deranked B
If US-3.2 1s selected, the derivation will run along the following lines, eventnally resulting man Exceed-2 Comparative: (a BEYOND b)
&
(a BIG)
/imit£d identity deletion (a BEYOND b)
&
(BIG)
conditional derankrng A exceeds B b1g-deranked
In short, our model predicts that there will be a strong positive correlatiOn between the opoon of (some variant of) the Exceed Compara-
An Explanatory Model
315
tive and the possibility of combinmg h011ted identity deletion and conditional deranking in natural languages. In addition to the second opnmallanguage type discussed above, our model also allows for a non-optimal type of languages with limited identity deletion. In this latter type, the option of lrmited identity deletion is coupled with the option of balancing. For languages of this type our model will not specify a prefcneJ word order, since the option of balancing is not restricted to languages of a particular word-order type. What our model does specify, however, is that languages of this type will select the Relative Strategy, and, as a consequence, some variant of US-3 as the input of the syntactic derivation of their comparative constructions. Gwen that langoages of this type will delete the second subjeCt in US-3, bur will leave the second predicate balanced, the resulting surface structures will be the followmg: A big-main verb (and) exceed-main verb B A exceed-main verb B (and) big-main verb It will be dear rbat the surface suuctures derived in this way are those which are exhibited by the so-called Mixed Comparatwes which we discussed in section 2.5; we have seen there that languages like Acholi and Temne possess a (primaty or secondary) comparative in which features of Conjoined Comparatives and Exceed Comparatives have been brought together. Cp.: (2)
ACHOLI:
Gwok mera d1t ki kato mert dog my big and exceed your 'My dog is b1gger than yours' In short, our model predicts a positive correlation between the option of a M•xed Comparative (of the type exhilnted by Achol• and Temne} and the possibility of combining !Jmited identity deletion and balancing. Thus, our model characterizes this type of Mixed Comparatives as being an intermediate category between the two optimal categories of Exceed Comparatives and Conjoined Comparatives. In the same way as Particle languages, languages with a Mixed Comparative can be rated as languages which have some form of identity deletion, but which have lost (or never have had) the ability to derank predicates in chaimng constructions. Finally, we arrive at the fifth language type which our model allnws. The languages which belong to this set bave a minimum of snucturereducing procedures, JR that they have neither derankmg nor identity deletiOn. For these languages, the model snpulates that there will be no preferred word order, due to the choice of the balancmg option. Funher-
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
316
more, we have argued m section 14A that the optimal strategy choice for languages of this type will be the Independent Strategy, and that therefore the favoured US for the comparative in these languages will be one of the variants of US-1, viz. US 1.1 US 1.2
(a BIG) (a BIG)
&
&
(b SMALl.) (b not BIG)
Since neither of the two relevant grammatical procedures will operate on these underlying chains, the sudace result for the comparative in this language type will typically be a Con;omed Comparative, either in its antonymous variant (from US-1.1) or in its polar variant (from US-1.2). In short, our model predicts a positive correlation between the option of a Conjoined Comparative and the option of combining balancing with no identity deletion. In this context it should be recalled that, although the Independent Strategy is preferred in this language type, other strategy choices are not completely excluded here. We can 6nd occasional instances of comparatives where, apparently, a language with minimal structure-reducing procedures has opted for a different strategy. Clear examples of such a case are Fulani and Motu; in one of the comparatives of these languages, balancing and no identity deletion have been applied to a US which is the product of the Relative Strategy. The comparatives at issue have the following forrns: (3)
FULANI:
Samba mawi , o buro Amad11 S. is-big , he exceeds A. 'Samba is bigger than Amadu' (4)
MOTU:
Una na namo , ina herea-ia this is good that exceeds 'That is better than this'
It must be added, however, that examples like these from Motu and Fulani are very exceptional, and that the unmarked choice for minimally structure-reducing languages is a Conjoined Comparative of the polar or •
antonymous variety. Summarizing the exposition in this chapter, we can say that we have
argued for the following new set of procedure-based universals of comparative-type choice:
An Explanatory Model
317
1: Languages with an adverbial comparative are languages with absolute deranking and total identity deletton. UNIVERSAL 2: Languages with a Separative · e are languages
UNIVERSAL
with absolute anterior consecutwe deranking and total UNIVERSAL 3:
UNIVERSAL 4:
UNIVERSAl.
5:
UNIVERSAL
6:
UNIVERSAL
7:
UNIVERSAL
8:
identity deletion. Languages with an Allative Comparative are languages with absolute posterior consecutive deranking and total tdentity deletion. Languages with a Locative Comparattve are languages with absolute simultaneous deranking and total identity deletion. Languages with an Exceed Comparative are languages with conditional deranking and limited identity deletion. Languages with a Conjoined Comparative, and the languages with a Mixed Comparative of the type encountered in Motu and Fulani, are languages with no identity deletion and no deranking. Languages with a Partu:le Comparative are languages with no deranking and total identity deletion. Languages with a Mixed Comparative of the type found in Acholi and Temne are languages with no deranking and limited identity deletion.
If we look at our new model from the point of view of the prediction of the attested range of comparative types, we can conclude that it turns out to be adequate to a considerable degree. In our model, the range of possible comparative types in natural languages is conceived of as being a derivate of the possible combinations of identity deletion and deranking options. As the discussion in this section has shown, the range of comparative types predicted by our model matches exactly the range of comparative types established in the empirical investigation in chapter 2. In short, our model can be shown to fulfil the 'all-and-only' -requirement for the types of comparative choice: it pred1cts correctly that the types which are empirically attested are all possible options of comparativetype choice, and it does not predict any comparative type whach is not attested in the data. Furthermore, our model accounts for the word·order preferences shown by some types of comparativ~ m that it traces these prefrrences to the procedure types upon which these comparatives are assumed to be modelled. It should be remarked here that, in its prediction of the range of comparative types, the modd devdoped m this section is super1or to a
31~
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Chotce
model which is based on a correlation of comparative types with deranking options alone. Unlike a modd which takes deranking options to be the sole basis of predicting comparative types, the new model, which bases itself on the possible pairings of two procedural options) has a satisfying explanation for the existence of Particle Comparatives. Moreover, the new model IS able to explain the occurrence of Mixed Comparatives and the Telugu comparative, cases which must appear as mere oddities in a model m wh1ch deranking is the only predictive factor.
15.3
The prediction o! language distributions
In this section, we will consider the second general explanatory question, which regards the distribution of the various attested comparative types over the languages in the sample. Since the basic !earnre of our model is the claim that choice of comparative type is predictable from the procedure type to which a language belongs, we will have to check whether all the languages With a comparative o! type X have the pairmg of derankmg and delenon options which the model predicts for them. Now, for the various options which languages select in the procedure of deranking, the chapters m part two have shown that, with only a small number of exceptions, the followmg correlations hold: (a) languages with an adverbial comparanve are languages with
absolute deranking; (b) languages With an Exceed Comparative are languages with condttional deranking; (c) languages With a derived-case comparative (i.e., a Conjoined Comparative or a Particle Comparative) are languages which have chosen tbe opnon of balancing. Since these correlations are exactly those whtch are predicted by the new model, we can conclude that this model is adequate as far as one of the factors which we claim to be predictive is concerned. Wtth respect to the other grammatical procedure which we drum to be a predictive factor in comparative-type choice, matters are considerably less dear. The new model predicts that, in the correlation of comparative types and types of Identity deletion, the following three statements can be empirically confirmed: (a) languages With either an adverbial comparative or a Particle Comparative are languages with total1dennty deletion;
An Explanatory Model
319
(b) languages with an Exceed Comparative (mcluding Mixed Comparatives of the Acholi type) are languages w1th limited identity deletion; (c) languages with a Conjoined Comparanve (includmg Mixed cases of the Fulani type) are languages with no identity deletion. If we start out to check these predictions against the linguistic data, we w!ll soon be confronted With the unfommate fact that the sources on the languages in our sample usually fail to provide a clear statement of the cond1tions under which string-reduction is permitted or excluded. Identity deletion is a phenomenon which is very margmal to the average grammarian, even more so than the phenomenon of deranking; while de ranking, if it takes place, gives rise to a distinct, new construction type, identity deletion will often escape the attention of grammarians, since irs application does not, as a rule, create a specific construction rype of its own. A further hand1cap is that It is often left unclear whether an example of a sentence in wluch a subject has been omitted is a case of genuine identity deletion or a case of Pro-Drop. That is, it is often impossible to decide from the presenred data whether a given language can omit just any non-stressed subject, or only subjects wh1ch are bound by an 1dentiry condition. Thus, at the present state of our knowledge, we have no other choice than to admit that our predicted correlations between the options of 1dentiry delenon and the choice of comparative types are seriously underderermined by the available lingutstic data. However, while we must concede that these predicted correlations are at present far from being confirmed, it must also be remarked that they do not seem to be senously refuted by the ava!lable facts. In the limited set of languages for which I have been able to find explicit statements on the options of identiry deletion, the facts appear to be in line with the tendencies contained in the above correlational statements. These fact!, (which are drawn from 42 languages, that is, almost 40 per cent of the sample) will be concisely enumerared below. For a large part, the relevant data stem from recent studies which deal explicitly with the phenomenon of ellipsis in coordinated structures; they are supplemented by data which I have gathered myself from grammatical descriptlons which I have consulted. Starring with those languages for wh1ch the possibility of total identity deletion is predicted, we can say that the crucial criterion for the positive identification of such a language lies in its ab1hty to omit predicates or verbs from chains, under identity with another predicate or verb in the
structure. Thus, the possib1hty of total identity deletion in a language can be demonstrated, among other thmgs, by showmg that this language has
320
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
the possibility of VP-Deletion in coordinate structures (as illustrated by the French sentence (5)), or the possibility to reduce the predicate m answers under 1denmy with the predicate in corresponding questions (as illustrated by the Dutch example (6)), or the ability to apply Gapping (as illustrated by the Japanese example (7)): (5)
FRENCH:
Mon (rere joue le piano~ et ma soeur aussi my brother plays the piano and my sister too 'My brother plays the piano, and my sister does, too' (6)
DUTCH:
Heeft ]an opgebeld? Nee, Henk. Has J. phoned No H. 'Did Jan call? No, Henk did' (7)
JAPANESE:
Sumie wa inu o , Norio wa ki o mita S. TOP dog ACC N. TOP tree ACC see-PAST 'Sumie saw the dog and Nerio the tree' Now, if we look at the languages for which the new model predicts a possibihty of total identity deletion, we can attest the following facts. For the languages with a Separative Comparative, the possibility to apply Gapping has been documented for Finnish and Korean (Koutsoudas, 1971), for Japanese (Ross, 1967), for Turkish (Hankamer, 1979), for Quechua (Pulte, 1971) and for Amharic (Cohen, 1936: 348).ln the set of languages with an Allative Comparative, we find positive evidence for Gapping and other verb-reducing procedures in Jacaltec (Craig, 1977: 38), Breton (Wojcik, 1976) and Maasai (Tucker and Mpaayi, 1955: 1 06). In the class of languages with a Locative Comparative, there is positive evidence for Gapping in Tamil (Asher, 1982: 75) and Latvian (Koutsoudas, 1971), while VP-Deletion can be attested for Mapuche (de Augusta, 1903: 230) and predicate-ellipsis in answers can be shown to exist in Cebuano (Wolff, 1967: 23). The category for which some form of total identity deletion can be identified most extensively is that of the
languages with a Particle Comparative; various forms of verb-ellipsis, including Gapping, can be shown to operate in Dutch (own data), French (own data), Engltsh (Ross, 1967), Latin (Kuhner-Gerth, 1955), Classical Greek (KUhner-Stegmann, 1963), Nahuatl (Andrews, 1975), Albanian (Hetzer, 1978), Malagasy (Keenan, 1976b), Hungarian and Russian (Harries, 1978), Gaelic (Mallinson and Blake, 1981) and Javanese (Kiliaan, 1919: 349ff.). Finally, Koutsoudas (1971) states that in Telugu the deletion of verbs under Identity is a definite possibility. To sum up)
An Explanatory Model
321
the predicted correlation between, on the one hand, the option of total identity deletion and, on the other hand, the choice for an adverbial comparative or a Particle Comparative can be shown to hold for at lt'ast 27 out of the 71 relevant languages in the sample. Moreover, there is hardly any available evidence which contradicts thts correlatiOn. The only possible counterexample I know of is Toba Barak, a VOS-language with a Particle Comparative, for which Koutsoudas (1971) claims that verb·reduction is impossible. Opposed to this, however, are statements by Van der Tuuk (1867: 329ff.) to the effect that, in Toba Barak, all kinds of elhptical processes are a common occurrence. In the second statement presented above, a correlation is predtcted between the selection of an Exceed Comparative and the optton of limited identity deletion. Thus, in order to confirm the correlation, we should be able to demonstrate that languages with an Exceed Comp.lrative lack the ability to delete verbs under identity (that is, for mstance, they should not be able to apply Gapping), while at the same time permitting the deletion of one of a pair of identical subjects. In this case, again, the set of data which we have at our disposalts far from opttmal; of the 20 languages at issue, there are only eight for which an explicit statement as to their deletion opt1ons can be found. It is remarkable, however, that all of these eight languages provide straightforward corroboration of the correlation at issue. Thus, for instance, Mallinson and Blake (1981: 218) state explicitly that Mandarin and Thai are languages which 'totally resist deletion of verbs'. As a result, the following example from Thai is ungrammatical: (8)
THAI:
' Somchaj top Mali lae! Damrong Atcha S. slap M. and D. A. 'Somchaj slapped Mali and Damrong Atcha' On the other hand, it is quite dear that deletion of Identical subjects is common in both Thai and Mandann. The following examples bear witness to this fact· (9)
THAI:
Somchaj top Mali lae? kha: Damrong S. slap M. and kill D. 'Somchaj slapped Mali and killed Damrong' (10)
MANDARIN:
W o na hwo-penn wai-peul kJU 1 carry stove outside go 'I earned the stove outside'
322
Towards an ExplanatiOn of Comparatrve-type Choice
Apa1t from Mandarin and Thai, a resistance to verb-reducing processes such as Gappmg has been noted for Yoruba, lgbo and other Kwa languages (George, 1975). Koutsoudas (1971) claims that Wolof and Hau-.a do nor have any procedure for the elimination of idcnncal verbs; mor"over, he states that Swahili, at least in some of its dialects, lacks the optton of verb-ellipsis. Finally, my own data on Fulani (taken from Taylor, 1921, and Labourer, 1952) show that this language is also restst.ant tO the deletion of verbs. However, there is in this language, at least m some of the dtalecrs, also a ban on the deletion of identical ~ubwcts, a fact whtch in our model1s brought into connection with the Mtxed Comparative that can be attested as one of the options for Fulana. In summary, the correlation under discussion here is confirmed by eight out of 20 relevant languages m the sample, while no data are as yet available which refute the vahdtty of this correlation. Lastly, we must constder the third correlational statement, which da1ms that the cho1ce of a Conjoined Comparative is tied up with the inab1lity to reduce both subjects and verbs under tdenttty. Concerning thts parncular correlation, I am sorry to say that 1t has even less support m the available data than the foregoing two correlations. Part of the difficulty here is that, in general, the grammatical descriptions of the languages at issue are of a poor quahty anyhow, and that they occupy themselves mostly with morphology, to the exclusion of syntax. Another pomt, which we touched upon above, is that it is often hard to decide whether a case of apparent ellipsi!> m these languages is governed by condnions of structural identny, or whether it is rather a case of 'contextually recoverable' ellipsis, such as Pro-Drop. Up to now, 1 have been able to find pertment data in only SIX of the 20 languages involved here. Of these stx languages, Kobon (Davies, 1981: 75) and Yavapai (Kendall, 1976: 148) are clear confirmations of the correlation under discussion. The same may be claimed for Hixkaryana (Derbyshire, 1979), considering such non-reduced verbal sequences as the following: (1 1}
HIXKARYANA:
Mawu
wono
howler-monkey he-shot-It
wono
Waraka
w.
horoto
xarha
, spider-monkey also
Waraka
he-shot-it W. 'Waraka shot a howler-monkey and a spider-monkey' As for Mangarayi, Merlan (1982: 36) notes that verb-ellipsts may take place m only a limited number of contexts, especially those in which specific sentential adverbs like wadi! 'also' or galayJmingan 'in turn' are
An Explanatory Model
323
mvolved. In this context, it should be recalled that Mangarayi has an Allative Comparative as its secondary option (see section 10.3.2). Much the same observations can be made with regard to the two Polynesian languages m the sample: Maori and Samoan both have at least a limited possibility of total identity deletion, and they are both languages in which an adverbial comparative (in this case, a Locative Comparative) is possible in addition to the primary Conjoined Comparative. Surveying our examination of the predictions which our model makes on the correlations between comparanve types and deletion types, we have to accept the fact that, for the present, these predictions are underdetermined, and hence not confirmed, by the ava1lable data. On the pos1t1ve side, however, it must also be recogniZed that there is as yet no
reason to reject these predictions off-hand. On the contrary, what evidence is available seems to indicate that these correlations stand a good chance of bemg shown to be empirically valid, once the range of peronent data has been extended to a satisfactory s1ze.
15.4 The prediction of double options
In the preceding two sections, we have examined the empirical validity of the central claim which is incorporated in our model of comparative-type choice; that is, we have checked to what extent the correlations which our model claims exist between comparative type and procedure type are borne out by the cross-linguistic data. There is, however, also a more 'indirect' or 'circumstantial' respect in
which our model can be con-
fronted with linguistic reality. Thus, it may be the case that some linguistic support for the over-all validity of the model can be derived from an examination of the attested and non-attested combinations of primary and secondary comparative-type choices in the languages of the sample. In the remainder of this chapter, we will comment briefly on this phenomenon of 'double options' in comparative-type choice. Given that we can attest six different types of comparatives in the sample, simple arithmetics tells us that there are 15 logically possible pairings mto double options of comparative-type choice. However, the data on the attested combinations show that these 15 possible pairings are not distributed evenly over the languages with a double option for comparatives: there are certain pa1rings which are highly favoured, whereas others do not seem to occur at all. A classification of the cases of double options presents the following p1cture:
324
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
8 languages (Albanian, Basque, French, Latm, Classical Greek, French, (Old) English, Russian) Conjoined-Locative: 7 languages (Banda, Mapuche, Dakota, Maori, Gumbainggir, Samoan, Swahili) ConfrJined- Exceed: 4/anguages (Banda, Sika, Swahili, Kirundi) Separativ~Locative: 3 languages (Basque, Nama, Tamil) Allativ~Locauve: 2/anguages (Tamil, Mandinka) 2 languages (Nuer, Mangarayi) Co"Joined-Allative: Exceed-AIIative: 21anguages (Maasai, Tamazight) Exceed-Separative: 2/anguages (Quechua, Aymara) Exceed-Particle: 2 languages (Bari, Sranan) ~Pmticle: 2/anguages (Hungarian, Latvian) Conjoined-Particle: 2 languages (llocano, Nahuatl) 0/anguages Allative-Particle: Conjoined-Separative: 0/anguages Separativ~AIIative: Olanguages Exceed-Locative: 0/anguages Separative-Particle:
Given this distribution, it seems appropriate to assume that the phenom· enon of double comparative-type choice is not a case of random pairing; it can be seen, for instance, that the 6rst three pairs in the list, when taken together, cover more than half of the attested cases of double options. Therefore, we should be able to find a principled way to predict the apparent frequency of occurrence of certain combinations and the apparent exclusion of others. In my opinion, the model presented iu this
chapter can offer a framework for such predictions, provided that we are willing to accept some specific assumptions about the process of historical shift in the selection of comparative types. First of all, we can note that, for at least three of the pairs listed, the model will immediately predict the fact that they are possible or excluded. For one thing, within onr model it is perfectly natural to predict that the pairing Separativ~Allative will be an improbable, if not Impossible, option. As we have seen, these two comparative types
presuppose mapping strategies which are diametrically opposed in directionality of scanning. Moreover, since this opposition in scanning directionality IS apparently tied up with the opposition between SOV and VSO word order, a combination of these two comparative types would assume that a language can have these two diametrically opposed word orders at the same time. However, as is shown in the literature on wordorder change and word-order variatton (see, among others, Steele, 1978), a combination of SOV order and VSO order in one single language is highly untypical.
An Explanatory Model
325
The fact that the pairing Separative-Locative and Allative-Locative are empirically attestable has also a straightforward explanation in our model. These combinatiOns have as the1r only presupposition that languages can be undecided as to whether the US which they have selected for their comparative should be temporally Interpreted as a consecutive or as a simultaneous chain; the relative indeterminacy of this temporal interpretation of underlymg structures has been commented upon in section 12.2 and section 12.3. In any case, Within these pairings no changes in the choice of strategy type or procedure type are implied. As regards the remaining 12 possible pairings of comparative type., matters are cons1derably less straightforward. In order for our modd to be able to account for at least some of these pairings, it will be necessary to adopt some specific vtews on the phenomenon of double comparanve choice, which have their basis in some specific assumptions about dtachronic developments in various classes of languages. To be specific, we will start from the idea that languages may undergo gradual shifts in the types of syntactic procedures which they possess, and that (at least some cases of) double optwns in comparative~type choice are a reflection of the fact that, in various groups of languages, this process of proceduretype shift has not yet been completed. Given this baste conceptiOn of the phenomenon of double options, l propose the following analysis. As we saw in section 14.4, the five procedure types specified by our model can be rated according to thetr ~extremism' in the application or non-application of potentially ava1lable procedural options. On one end of the scale, we can place the optimal language type in which both relevant procedures are applied to a maximum; these languages combine total identity deletion and absolute deranking, thus giving rise to an adverbial comparative. On the oppos1te end of the 'extremism'-scale, we can place the opttmallanguage type m which no use whatsoever is made of deranking and 1dentlty deletion; such languages will typically select a Conjoined Comparative. Now, given these two diametrically opposed language types, l claim that at least some of the frequencies in the list of double comparative options can be accounted for if we assume that these two opposed language types form the two starting pomts from whtch a gradual change in procedure type (and hence, a change in comparative type) can be ~et in motion. To be specific, I will assume that there are two dtachronic changes wh1ch may lead to the adoption of a secondary comparative, viz. (a) languages with a deranking procedure may start to lose tl>at
procedure; and (b) languages which have no deranking procedure may start to acquire such a procedure.
326
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
In short, we cla1m that (at least some) double options denve from a historical shift in either the 'mimmal' or the 'maximal' language type, and that this shift crucially involves a change of option in the deranking procedure. As an Illustration of the way 1n which these assumed historical developments may be instrumental in the acquisition of a 'new' comparative type, let us constder the case of the 'maximal' language type. As stated, these languages pair total identity deletion with absolute deranking, and typically select the Ordered Strategy, thus providing the US for an adverbial comparative. Now, suppose that some of the languages in this set undergo the first of the d1achronic processes mentioned above, by which they gradually come to replace their option of absolute deranking by the option of balancing. It will be noted that our model predicts that such a change in the deranking procedure will not force these languages to select a new type of identity deletion; the Principle of Procedural Dependency, as stated in section 14.2) permits these languages to keep their opt1on of total identity deletion mtact. Hence, these languages do not have to change thetr strategy in the selecnon of a US: they can stick with the Ordered Strategy, and apply their only remaining procedure, viz. total identity deletwn, to the US which is produced by this strategy. The new comparative construction which, according to our model, will result from this is some variant of the Particle Comparative. Thus, we can conclude that our model, if supplemented by some specific assumptions about diachronic change, is able to account for the fact that Separattve-Particle~ Locative-Particle and Allative-Particle are emp1rically attested cases of double comparative choice. (The fact that, in our /.ample, Separative Comparatives occur almost three times as often as Loc(ltlve Comparatives and almost five times as often as Allative Comparatives is reflected in the relarive frequencies of these three double option types in the sample.) To summarize, the claim is that the languages in which these three types of double options can be attested are those languages in wh1ch the option of absolute deranking has gradually fallen out of favour; as a result of this, these languages have started to develop a Part1cle Comparative in addition to their adverbial comparative. In this context, Jt can be added that there are some (although, unfortunately, not very systematic) pieces of independent support for the analys1s just given. These data, which are of a diachronic and of a geographical nature, will be briefly commented upon below. First, it can be established that, for at least some of the languages w1th an Adverbial-Particle pamng, the adverbial comparative is the older of the two, and that it has come to be superseded by the newly developed PartJcle Comparative, which, as a rule, acquires a wider range of employ
An Explanatory Model
327
than the adverbial construction. The rise of such a 'rivalling' Particle Comparative has been documented for Latin, Classical Greek, Russian and several Germanic languages, including English. In English, and in Germanic languages in general, the process has led to the complete abolition of the older adverbial comparative, but traces of this comparative can be found as late as the fourteenth century. Completely in line with this change in comparative rype is the fact that several of the languages at issue here can be shown to have undergone a gradual shift in their preference for deranked structUres to balanced structures. For instance, the use of absolute constructions in modem English and French, as well as in modern Hungarian and Russian, has become very limited and stylistically marked, even to the point of bookishness. As a further point, we must call attention to the fact that the Adverbial-Particle pau is clearly an areal phenomenon. All of the 10 languages in the sample which exhibit this pairing are (or were) spoken on the European continent. This fact may in itself lend a certain amount of credibility to the claim that the pairing of adverbial and particle comparatives is the result of a unified process. More to the point, the particular areal distribution of this double option type explains why some of the languages involved have SVO word order. Given the fact that languages with absolute deranking (and hence, with adverbial comparatives) prefer either SOV or VOS word order, the presence of SVO-Ianguages in the group at issue is to some extent problematic for the analysis outlined above. However, if we take the European origin of this type of pairing into account, this occurrence of SVO-languages can be attnbuted to the well-known process of 'word·order drift' (see, among others, Vennemann, 1975), which has led to a change from SOV to SVO m European languages. (Whether this word·order drift is an independent phenomenon, or a process which is causally related to the loss of deranking in this group of languages, is a question that will remain unanswered here.) Finally, the scarcity of Allative-Particle combinations (and hence, the scarcrty of VSO-languages) in the group at issue is another fact that can be brought into connection with the areal limitation on the phenomenon involved. In the European Sprachbund, the only VSO-languages are the Celnc languages, and these are languages which, as a rule, have a Particle Comparanve as their only option. Thus, one might venture the hypothesis that the Celtic languages have been very radical in their transition from deranking to balancing, and that they (just like modern English and other Western European languages) have chosen to discard their adverbial comparatives completely. That adverbial comparatives must have been an option for at least some members of the Celtic family is
328
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
shown·by the occurrence of an Allative Comparative in Breton. In sectton 7.2.3 we noticed that Breton is a deviant case, in that it has an Allative Comparative, but no (or very marginal) possibilities for deranking.lf the analysis presented above is accepted, Breton can be accounted for as a language which has g1ven up deranking but which, untypically, has retained its older adverbial construction as its only option in compara~ tive-type choice. Having dealt with the languages of the 'maxima1 1 procedure type, we turn to the opposite case, viz. those languages which have neither identity deletion nor deranking. As we stated in section 14.4, languages of this type may, in prinaple, select any mapping strategy, and may therefore
base their comparatives on any US. However, we have also seen that the selection of the Independent Strategy is the most natural for languages of this type, and that, as a result, they will normally opt for some variant of the Conjoined Comparative. Now, we have claimed above that double options for languages with a Conjoined Comparative derive from a diachronic process by which these languages have gradually acquired some form of deranking. It will be recalled that our model implies that languages which acquire deranking must also acquire some form of identity deletion; the Principle of Procedural Dependency, which is incorporated in our model, states that a language cannot derank if it does not delete. In other words, if minimally structure-reducing languages start to acquire deranking, this change will necessarily involve a transition to a new optimal language type. This, in turn, presupposes the selection of a new mapping strategy and, consequently, a new US for the comparative in this languages. This, however, does not have to be a serious problem for the languages at issue, since, as we noted above, they have a certain amount of freedom anyway in the selection of their mapping strategies. Reviewing the various cases of pairings in which a Conjoined Comparative is one of the options, we can note that, for one of these cases, the diachronic process outlined above can be supported by synchronic crosslinguistic observations. The Conjoined-Exceed pairing is attested synchronically in our data base in all the successive stages which we assume to figure in the diachronic development of this pairing; of special relevance in this context are the Mixed Comparatives in Fulapi, Motu, Acholi and Temne. Thus, the process by which a Conjoined-Exceed pairing may come about can be reconstructed as follows. For a minimally structure-reducing language, the first step in changing its comparative involves the selection of a new mapping strategy and US instead of the normallndependent Strategy and US-1; for the languages which interest us here, this new strategy will be the Relative Strategy, and the new US
An Explanatory Model
329
will be US-3. Once this change has been made, it is quite possible that nothing further will happen; the comparative construction in Fulani (see sentence (3)} is an example of a case in which minimal structurereduction is applied to US-3. However, languages which have opted for US-3 mstead of (or m addition to) US-1 may proceed to develop the possibility of subject-reduction; the comparatives in Temne and Achuli are cases in point here. Having acquired some form of identity deletion, a language of this type may go as far as to derank the predicate m the clause which has been affected by $-Deletion; the result of this operation is a genuine Exceed Comparative. Thus, languages with a ConJOinedExceed pairing are viewed here as languages which are synchronically undecided as to whether or not they should acquire the possibility of conditional deranking. Again, it can be added that there is some independent evidence for 1he reality of the diachronic process assumed here. In particular, there is historical evidence that serializations (i.e., ca~es of conditional derankmg of predicates) are the result of a gradual syntactization of balanced structures; references to literature dealing with this pomt have been giVen in section 8.2. Since one of the typical forms in which an Exceed Comparative may manifest itself is that of a serialization, it is obvious that this historical evidence on the development of serializations m general supports our specific claim that, in languages with a ConjoinedExceed pairing, the Conjoined Comparative is the older of the two. Turning now to the other possible pairings in which a Conjoined Comparative is present, we can state that our analysis predicts that languages with a Conjoined-Adverbial pairing are, in origin, mimm.llly structure-reducmg languages, which have chosen the Ordered Strategy, and consequently US-2, in addition to the more typical Independent Strategy. For these languages the claim is made that they have gradually acquired the possibility of absolute deranking; as we have seen, rhis process implies that such languages should also acquire the possibility of total identity deletion. In this connection, it must be noted that our model definitely allows for the possibility that a minimally structure-reducing language may acquire total identity deletion without the addittonal acquisition of absolute deranking. For languages which have chosen US-2 as an additional option, the acquisition of total identity deletion without the selection of absolute deranking will lead to the development of a secondary Particle Comparative, and hence to a Conjoined-Particle pairing. This process seems to have taken place in Ilocano and Classical Nahuacl (see section 10.2 for examples). If we take a look at the cases of ConJoined-Adverbial pairing in the
330
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
sample, we notice that the ConJomed-Locative pairing is by far the most popular of the rhree possible combinations. Despite the facr rhat Locative Comparatives are, as primary choices, far less frequent than Separative Comparatives, there are seven Conjoined-Locative cases against two Conjoined-AIIat1ve cases m the sample, while Conjoined-Separative is not attested at all. For this diScrepancy m frequency, the following explanatiOn presents itself. Mimmally structure-reducing languages typically select a US which IS temporally interpreted as a simultaneous chain, viz. US-1.lf these languages select an additional US, rheywill tend to keep this temporal interpretation intact, and hence, when they select US-2 as an additional option, they will typically derive that comparative winch IS based on a simultaneous interpretation of US-2, i.e., the Locative Comparative. In this context, it should be noted that tbe two attested cases of pairmgs in which a Conjoined Comparative is combined w1th a non-Locative Comparative (that is, the two cases of ConjoinedAllatlve) are of a dubious nature in any case. As we saw in section 4.7, Nuer lS a deviant language, in that it 1s one of the very few cases where there IS no procedural parallelism in the syntaCtic treatment of chaining constructiOns; Nuer has balanced S-chains, but absolute posterior deranking for C-chains. As for Mangarayi, we have noted in section 10.4 that this language is one of the very few cases in our sample where a comparative is not modelled on a temporal chain, but on a final construction. Given these considerations, we can safely say that the normal manifestation of a Conjoined-Adverbial pairing will be ConjoinedLocative, and that Conjomed-Allative and Conjomed-Separative are definitely secondary, if they are possible at all. As a last remark on Conjoined-Adverbial pairings, let me pomt out that, here too, there is some fragmentary independent support for the historical process which we assume to have caused this type of double option. Authors on languages which have a Conjoined Comparative as one of their options often implicitly express the view that this option is very old and, in some way, Characteristic' for the language in question. ThiS feebng is made quite explicit in Merlan (1982: 68), who states that tht· ConJotned Comparative in Mangarayi is the most common construction, while the Allative Comparative in this language is a 'less common (but nevertheless spontaneously produced) construction type', Further· more, with regard to Maori and Samoan we may pomt out that various authors on Polynesian languages (e.g., Chung, 1978: Marsack, 1975) imply thar the Locative Comparative in these languages is a relatively re<ent mnovation and that the original 'Polynesian Comparative' is a Conjoined Comparative. It must be admitted, though, that historical ev1dence of thiS kmd is very sporadic, due to the fact that the diachronic 4
An Explanatory Model
331
developments in the languages involved are very poorly documented in general. As a last class of double opnons we must discuss the pairings in which an Exceed Comparative is combined with either an Adverbial Campara~ tive or a Particle Comparative. From the listing of frequencies it can be seen that all these pairings define rather small classes in the sample: none
of them contains more than two members. Moreover, from the word orders of the relevant languages tt can be deduced that the Exceed Comparative in these pairings must be rated as secondary. None of the languages with an Exceed-Adverbial pairing has the SVO word order which might be expected if the Exceed Comparative were the primary optiOn in the pair. Instead, the two languages with an Exceed-AUative pairing (Maasat and Tamazight) have the VSO order which is normal for languages with an Allative Comparative. In the same way, the two languages with an Exceed-Separative pairing (Quechua and Aymara) have the SOY order preferred by languages with a Separative Comparative. Thus, there are reasons for assuming that the Exceed Comparative in these pairs is an extra option, acquired by these languages as an additton to their baste comparative type. It should be added that, for at least one language at issue here (viz. Quechua), it can be established diachronically that the Exceed Comparative is a later addition, which is, moreover, restricted to cenain dialects. 4 Whatever the stams of the Exceed Comparative in these pairs may be, however, it must be conceded that there is no elegant explanation for these patrings within the assumptions on which our analysis of double comparative choice is based. The problem which these pairings present can be elucidated by considering the following. It can be noted that, for ali pairmgs discussed so far, our analysis has accounted for their occurrence or non-occurrence on the basis of the following general principle: The Principle of Strategy Retention' A secondary comparative in a language will be ba~ed upon the strategy which is required (or permitted) for the primary comparative in that language.
One might view this principle as another manifestation of a general principle of economy in the strategy choice and procedure choice of natural languages, on a par wtth the Pnnciple of Optimal Harmony discussed in section 14.3. The Principle of Strategy Retention (PSR) is meant to stipulate that transitions and additions in comparative-type choice should involve changes which are as minimal as possible. When a language wants to add a secondary comparative, it will tend to be
332
Towards an Explanation of Comparative-type Choice
'faithful' to its original strategy choice; changes and additions in compara-
tive type do not mvolve a change or addition in mapping strategies, but are restricted to either
(a) a change in the temporal interpretation of the original US, while keeping the procedure type of the language intact; or (b) a change in the procedural option of deranking, while keeping the temporal interpretation of the original US intact. In this way, the PSR enables us to account for the occurrence of the Allative-Locative and Separative-Locative pairings; these are pairings in which the only change lies in the temporal interpretation of the US involved. Furthermore, the PSR accounts for the fact that AdverbialParticle pairs are possible. These pairings occur in languages in which the Ordered Strategy, and hence US-2, is chosen as the basis for both the
primary and the secondary comparative, but which have undergone a gradual change in their deranking option. On the opposite end, the PSR accounts for the fact that Conjoined-Exceed and Conjoined-Locative
are possible pairings. Since for languages with a primary Conjoined Comparative all strategies are, at least in principle, available in any case, the double comparative choice in these languages does not involve a change in strategy; it can be attributed to a gradual change in the deranking option, while the original (simultaneous) interpretation of the US is kept intact. Finally, the PSR correctly predicts that Conjoined-Ailative and Conjoined-Separative are minor, if not impossible, pairings, since they would involve both a change in deranking option and a change in temporal interpretation of the US. Given that the plausibility of a principle like the PSR is accepted, it will be evident that the pairings Adverbial-Exceed and Particle-Exceed will always involve a violation of the PSR. No matter which direction one assumes for the diachronic transition in these pairs, the languages in which one of these pairs is present will always need the brute force to effectuate a change in mapping strategy. Hence, these pairings represent a serious difficulty for our analysis of double options in comparative~ type choice, and, indirectly, for the validity of our model of comparative-type choice in general. As 1 see it, there are several ways to evaluate this difficulty. First, one might rate the attested occurrence of Adverbial-Exceed and ExceedParticle pairs as a genuine counterexample to the claims contained in our general model of comparative-type choice. Secondly, one might accept this model in its generality, but accept the occurrence of these pairings as a refutation of the PSR. As a consequence, one should allow languages to develop secondary comparatives which involve a change in mapping
An Explanatory Model
333
strategy. It must be remarked, however, that such a decision would diminish the value of our model for the prediction of possible comparative pairings almost to the pomt of vanishing; without a principle like the PSR (or some other restrictive principle), one essentially commits oneself to the view that, m the pairing of comparative types, practically anything: goes. A third way to deal with these recalcitrant cases is to assign to them a status which differs from that of other pairings. Specifically, one might suggest that Exceed-Adverbial and Exceed-Particle pairings are not a case of a gradual structural shift in the languages themselves, but that they are the result of the extra-linguistic process of lmguisttc borrowing. Since the concept of borrowing is a notorious escape route for all kinds of problems in Universal Grammar, one should be very cautious in bringing up this possibility. However, if we look at the geographical and sociolinguistic position of the relevant languages, the notion of linguistic borrowing appears to be not completely implaustblc. Of the six languages at issue, the three African languages (viz. TamaZlgbt, a Berber language, and Maasai and Bari, two Nilotic languages) are spoken by people who live either in or at the close periphery of the extensive linguistic area in Africa where the Exceed Comparative is the common and regular option. As for Sranan, this is an English-based creolization, which retained its Exceed Comparative from its African substratum, but which has, in modem rimes, largely discarded th1s comparative in favour of the Ieki-comparative, a direct borrowing from the English like-construction. Lastly, the Exceed Comparative in the two possibly related South-American languages Quechua and Aymara mtght also be a case of borrowing; thert: is some evidence that this Exceed Comparative is a later innovation in some dialects of Quechua, and th.lt its rise may be connected with the fact that parts of the extensive area m which Quechua is spoken are heavily creolized. In short, we can say th.lt the view of the Exceed-Adverbial and Exceed-Particle patrings as a nonstructural, areal phenomenon is not completely refuted by the geoR graphical and sociolinguistic data. It goes without saying, however, th.1t the evidence for the borrowing-analysis of these pairings is extremely weak, as is generally the case with arguments in which the notion of linguistic borrowing is invoked. Evaluating the discussion in thi!t section, we may conclude the followR ing. Our analysis of double comparative choice, which assumes processes of diachronic change which are constrained by the PSR, certainly has a number of strong points. In particular, this analysis is able to account for the fact that Adverbial-Particle, Separative-Locative and ConjoinedLocative are all combinations ,.;th a relatively high frequency, and that Conjoined-Separative, Conjoined-AIIative and Separative-Allativc are
334
Towards an Explanation of ComparatiVe-type Choice
Improbable, if not impossible~ paumgs. On the other hand, however, it must also be conceded that our analysis cannot be satd to have been completely successful. In particular, the analysis fails to provide a prmcipled account of a number of attested combmatwns in the sample, namely, the Exceed-Adverbial and Exceed-Particle pairings. In addttion to this empirical inadequacy of the analysis, it must be admitted that the mdependent evidence for the reality of the diachronic processes postulated, as well as the evidence for the existence of the Principle of Strategy Retention, is far from conclusive, to put it mildly. Thus, while It can be maintamed that our analysis may represent a first step in the explanation of double comparative choice, it must also be concluded that this curious phenomenon has aspects wh1ch, at least for the present, defy explanation.
15.5
An evaluation of the new model
In the foregoing sections of this chapter, we have examined the predicnve value of the model of comparative-type choice which was progressively developed in the previous chapters of part three. Stnpped to its essentials, th1s model claims that the range of attested comparative types in natural languages, and the d1stnburion of these various types over natural languages, can be explamed if we accept the correctnes!> of the following statements:
The linguzstic expression of the concept of comparison ts modelled on the lingurstic expression of temporal sequencing. Therefore, the underlymg structures of comparatzve constructions in natura/languages have the form of temporal chains. STATEMENT 2: The relevant syntactic procedures in the derivation of surface structures of temporal chains (and hence, of comparative constructiOns) are derankmg and identity deletion. These two procedures interact both With one another and with cognttive mapping strategtes, to the effect that they define a restricted set of possible language types.
STA1 EMENT 1:
The emp1rical content of this model of comparative-type choice has been la1d down in section 15.1 in a set of procedure-based uniVersals. If we compare thts new model of comparative~type choke with the earlier set of chaining-based universals (see chapter 5), we can conclude that rhe new model ts superior in one important respect, namely, in its predtction of the attested range of comparative types. Smce the new set of procedure-based universals fully incorporates the earlier set of chainingbased umversals, the new model takes over all the correct predictions
An Explanatory Model
335
made by the earlier one.. In add1tion, however, the new model also presents a principled account of cases like Particle Comparatives and Mixed Comparatives, which were to some extent problematic for the
earher model. Finally, we can observe that the word-order preferences of some of the comparative types find a systematic explanation in the new model, in that these preferences can be connected with the relevant procedure types on the bas1s of independently motivated directionality principles. Thus, we can conclude that the new model, in its prediction of the attested variation of comparative types among languages, achteves a remarkable degree of accuracy, and as such it can be sa1d to provide an
explanatory framework for the non-randomness in that variation. Given th1s undeniably attractive feature of the new model, it is only fair to point out its potential weaknesses. For one thmg, we must concede that the distribution of comparative types over the languages in the sample, as predicted by the new model, cannot be completely corroborated by the facts (see section 15.3); it remains to be seen whether this lack of confirmation will turn out to be a real weakness of the model, or rather just a matter of momentary absence of the relevant linguistic data. Secondly, we saw in section 15.4 that the prediction of double comparative choice, as specified by the new model, is not entirely conclusive, and that it is partially based on assumptions about diachronic developments for which there is only slight independent support. Lastly, a general criticism may be that the new model presupposes a number of cognitive and perceptual principles which have not, to my knowledge, been affirmed by research from outside the field of linguistics. At the present stage of our knowledge, I think it is hardly feasible to assess the extent to which these deficiencies are senously damaging to the overall plausibility of the new model. Those who judge that the new set of procedure-based universals rests upon too many un<e~tainties should fall back upon our earlier, less comprehenSive model of comparative-type choice; I trust that the data presented in part two of this essay show convincingly that the set of chaining-based universals formulated in chapter 5 is by and large in accordance with linguistic reality.
Notes
Chnpter 1: Introduction 1 The concept of 'research programme' which is alluded to here should be taken in the te
if they are 1demical to some constituent (normally, the subject-NP) of the dominatmg main clause. A language wh1ch possesses this operauon is Dutch. In this language, the complement of verbs hke willen 'to wish, to want' IS reduced to an mfimnve if the sub)ect of that complement ts l(lenncal to the subject of wtllen: (1)
DUTCH:
Ik wtl dat 1iJ weggaat I want that you leave-lsG •J want you to leave• (ii) • Ik wit dat ik wegga I want that I leave-lsc
'I want that 1leave 1 (iit)
Ik wrl weggaan I want leave-INF 'I want to leave'
ln contrast, a language hkc Kabyl (Hanoteau, 1906) does not have Equ•-NP-
Deletlon. The sub1ect of the complement of verbs hke br't- ~to want' ts always overtly expressed m surface structure, even tf it IS identical to the subject of
br't-: (tv)
KABYL:
Br'n-
ad' tarou want-lSG FUT Wttte-3SG 'I want h1m to write'
Notes to pages 1-31 (v)
337
ad' arour want-lSG FUT wnte-1SG 'I wam to wnte' Br'tr
3 Pt~bhcations in whtch thts localist position
IS
defended more or les::, explicitly
are Lyon; (1968, 1977, 1979), Anderson (1971, 1977) and Halliday (1967, 1968). 4 Perkms (1980) contams a proposal for language sample stratification on the bas1s of an intersection of the two parameters of geneuc mdependency and cultural mdependency between languages. Whether hts propo~ed sample of 50 languages will tum out to be a satisfactory standardization of cross-lmgmstJc samples IS a questiOn that w1ll have to be dectded by the results of the research which IS ba&ed upon thts sample. (I am grateful to Joan Bybee for callmg Perkms' work to my attention.) 5 For collections of papers which elaborate on this pomt of vtew see Lt (1975,
1977). 6 In Its onginal context, this passage from Malhnson and Blake (1981) deals with the relation between active and passive sentences. Given Its genera! methodological tmport, I have thought it fit to adapt this quote to my exposition of the way m which the term •deletion' should be understood.
Chapter l: The Typology of Comparative Constructions 1 It should be noted that, in some languages, the two available comparative constructions appear to be m a complementary rather than m an mdustve distributional relation. Thus, m Italian \Pieter Seuren, personal commumcanon ·, cases of NP·comparison are charactenzed by the preposition dr •of, from' on the standard NP, whereas cases of clausal companson reqmre the particle che in front of the comparative clause: (1)
(u)
ITALIAN'
Gzannt e ptU grande dt Ptero G. IS more tall from P. 'G1anni is tailer than Piero' Gtanm e pzU grande che non pensasst G. IS rnore tall than not thmk-PAST 'G1anm JS taller than I thought'
lSG
In a sentence hke (11), the comparative clause contatn.!> a negatton. Th1s phenomenon Js not restricted to Italian; It can also be attested m French and Hungarian. A dtscussion of the Jelanon between negat10n and compartson c,m be found in sections 9.4.3 and 15 .2. 2 For a suggesnon as to the etymologtcal origin of thts morphologJCal comparative markmg see chapter 15, n.2. 3 It should be pomted out that the formulanon employed here has been chosen
33S
Notes to pages 32-78
for reasons of expos1t1on only. I do not want to 1mply that the deCISIOn to
mcode this standard NP as a direct obJect ISy m some funcnonal or psycho-logical sense, prmr to the selection of an exceed-verb. 4 Among the wealth of pubhcat1ons devoted to rhe descnpuon of spanal 1elauons m natural languages, I have been mspired panicnlady by B1erw•scb
(1967), Bennett (1970), Anderson (1971), E. Clark (1971), H. Clark (!973), Jessen (1974) and Traugott (1975).
5 For the relatton between possessave structures and locanve structures in natural languages see, among others, Lyons (1967? 1968}, Asher (1968}, Welmers (1973) and E. Clark (1978). 6 For an argumentation that at least some of these Parncle Comparanves are diachromcally derived from adversative oonJuncnons see secuons 9.4.3 and 15.2. 7 My concept of the propornons of word-order type occurrence in a random -,ample has been borrowed from Greenberg (1963, 1966)) who states that, m a random sample, there w1ll be SO per cent SOV-Ianguages, about 40 per cent SVO-languages, and about 10 per (ent VSO-Ianguages. Obv10usly, thiS ·itatement can Itself be subjected to fa.lsdication, by checking 1t agamst wordorder type occurrences m other random samples. For dte present, however, I have assumed that Greenberg's statements provide a useful gu1de-hne m assessmg the degree m wh1ch word-order type occurrence m a gtven category devtares from the random norm. 8 Engh |
Chapter 3: In Search of a Determinant Factor
1 For further daboranon of thiS pomt see section 8.2, where the notion of senahzanon ts dl!:oCussed m !:>orne detatl, 2 The variation between the forms barno and batnan as prObably due to
d•alecncal differences (see N'D•aye, 1970; Rollo, 1925). However, Lafitte (1944: 176) rates these two forms as distinct lexical Item~. Further d1scussion of the Basque comparative parnde wdl be given in chapter 9, n.l. Chapter 4: T JPCS of Syntactic Chaining 1 In some languages, the Jsomorphy between 6mte mam verbs and finite verbs m subordmatc clauses has been g1ven up; those languages employ a speer/it
Notes to pages 79-137
339
subordmatzve conJugatton for verbs m subordinate clauses. Of course, tt ts rather difficult co dec1de whether such subordmatJve conjuganonal forms are mstances of predicate deranking, or rather a concomitant phenomenon in the process of clause embedding. I have not adopted a generally applicable solunon for these cases; the status of flex1onal forms whiCh are marked for subordmanon wLll be decided upon for each mdlVldual case. 2 For further discussmn of the nonon of backgroundmg see GIV6n (1979) and Hopper (1979). 3 For further discussion of the encodmg of temporal chatmng m Kanun see section 7.2.3. 4 For the posstbilities of derankmg m Fmmsh see sectron 10.5. The (margmal) dcrankmg opnons m Enghsh and French wtll also be d1scussed in that section.
Chapter 6: Testing the Set of Chaining-based Universals 1 In Lamunc, the elements -du~k and ~k alternate as separative markers. See
2 3
4 5 6 7
Benzrng (1955). The element -aha is the short form of ~taha 'smce then, from then on'. Both Items 'serve as markers of success1on' (Landaburu, 1979: 253; my translation). In additiOn to this, Sw1ft remarks: 'Occasmnally, in subordinate clausal constructions, there is no topic expressed in the subordmate clause, yet lt would result m patent absurdity to mterpret as "performer" of the action of the subordinate clause, the "performer" of the action of the ensuing one. Tius results from the meanmg of the utterance and nor from anything m the grammar, and m such cases the "performer" of the action of the subordinate clause is dearly someone to be clanfied from the general context: tekrar tzah endmcellanladtm!l "Upon (someone's) explammg agam, I understood" (where It IS obvtous that I d1d not myself do the explammg)' (Sw1ft, 1963: 162). The gerundial forms m Amhanc present a case of neutralizatiOn berween consecutive and Simultaneous actiOn; see secnon 4.1. For a dtscuss1on of the bas1cword order m Cceur d'Alene .<.ee Keenan (1978). I am grateful to Cees Versteegh and W1m Delsman, who prov1ded me with the followmg examples from Arab1c and Hebrew, respectively. It may be the case that this suffix ~tsi is ecymologically related to the conjunction' tsf'and'. See Meinhof (1903: 35).
Chapter 7: The Allative and the Locative Comparative 1 Some languages in th1s class have VOS rather than VSO order. Accordmg to
Keenan (1978), VOS order IS a frequent alternative for languages m which the pr1mary word order pattern IS VSO. 2 As to the word order in Siuslawan, Frachtenberg (1922: 607) remarks: 'The successiVe order in wh1ch the parts of speech are arranged IS arbitrary and
Notes to pages140-SS
340
exempt from any well-defined rules. The subject may be placed at the beginning or at the end of the sentence, usage favoring its occurrence at rhe very end, especially in cases when the sentence contains a nominal subJect and object'. Keenan (l97S) counts S1uslawan among the \anguages wtth VOS
word order. 3 Day (1973: 32) postulates that the aspect word cat as related to the supplettve imperative of the verb tita •ro come', which is cata. 4 For a discussion of clus hypothesi~ on Mtddle Breton in a broader context see section 15.4. 5 Dumezil (1933: 89) mentions yet another suffix as a marke~ofsrandard NPs rn Ubykh comparatives: cp. (t)
UBYKH'
Yt -gune wo -gune-ke
ca
-qasaqa-1
that-tree -PRT more-tall 'Thls tree ts taller than that tree' th1s-tree
-3SG
The dement -kt must be seen as representmg an opposition 'but', or 'only X and nor Y'. Dumeztl (1933: 90) remarks, 'Thus, I dunk that a phrase loke [(J)] actually means 'Thas tree? That tree too, but it is taller' or 'that tree, yes (1t ts tall but} this tree is taller' (my translation). If we follow this analysiS, the kecomparabve m Ubykh would be a spea6c variant of the Parttde Comparative, v1z. a Particle Comparative m which the comparative particle is an item w1th the meaning 'but'. A similar situation can be encountered in Bari, Basque and llocano (see seaton 3.3). 6 It may be added that the goal-marker ug as also employed as the conjunction 'and' between NPs and clauses. Cp.: (i)
CEBUAND'
Bir ug tubtg beer and water 'Beer and water' (Wolff, 1967: l, 164) (1i)
Ningguway dayun ku dmzaq..Jtmaq ug went out tmmedtate)y I there-and-then and nagpaqulan ku nga way went to
I
to
rain 'I walked out there and then and went out II, 261)
tn
the rain' (Wolff, 1967:
Furthermore, the element ug functions tn the construction which represents our manner adverb1als. In th&s case, the Abstract Form may also be used. Cp.: (iti)
CEBVANO'
Milakaw srya ug hmay walked-away he PRT dtd-slowly 'He slowly walked away'
Notes to pages 160--90 (w)
341
M1/akaw 51ya pag -hinay walked-away he AIISTit -®-slowly 'He slowly walked away' Chapter 8: The Exceed Comparative
1 The literal German text is: 'Reihens
MAPUCHf:
Ayuun
meu kupa
~tu
·J
ha.ppy-INF on return~PAST·3SG 'He returned happily'
Chapter 9: Derived-case Comparatives 1 The comparabve parttde in Basque is attested as banon, bano (N'D1aye, 1970: 236), as bono, bane (Rollo, 1925: 6V) and as baino (Lafitte, 1944: 176); It IS poss1ble that dialecocal dtfferences are at play here. N'D1aye and Rollo state that the comparatne particle ts identtcal to the conJunction 'but'. Agamst this opm1on, Lafitte holds that there IS 11 dllference between the comparaove particle baino and the element balnan 'but". As for the etymology of the Item bazno!bano!bane, It is conceivable that th15 1tem has been denved from the element bat. This IS the general affirmahve particle 'yes', and IS albo employed as a coordmate marker: (1)
BASQUE'
Hwa bm • baman ez he yes but •He; not you'
zu not you
342
Notes to pages 195-204 (u)
Soldaddak
baz gauaz
bat egunaz
hor
zauden
sold1ers~I:.RG and day·MED and mght·MtD there were
'The soldiers stayed there day and mght'
The suffix ·no m bamo m1ght be Identified as a lamitarive suffix, wnh a basic meanmg of 'now that', '1£ only'. Evidence for th1s analysis comes from the fact that the suffix -no also occurs m the Basque subordinate conjuncnon de-no 'now that (It i6o)', which consists of the fonn de 'n is' and the suffix under d!SCUS!IIOD.
(m)
Cp.:
BASQUE'
Hemen
de -no dohatsu
grra
here-INESS he-1s-PRl happy-PL we-are 'Now that he IS here, we are happy'
In short, one might propose that the element bat-no IS a subordmatc form of a pred1canve stem bat 'n 1s, It 1s so', so that the comparattve construction m Ba~que could have been modelled on a subordinate clause type wtth the meamng 'now that It IS so'. Thus, a sentence hke (IV}
BAIQU£.-
jakes
bamo /od1-ago da
j.~NOM PRT
fatter he-1s 'He is fattu than Jakes~
would have as rtsonganal UKamng: 'Now that Jakes IS fat, he IS fat', that 1s, the meanmg of a consecutwe cham. In thts context, tr m1ght also be argued that the Item barnan, wh1ch 1s gtven by Lafitte (1944: 176) as the element for 'but', IS ongtnally the Inessive case of the element bar, so that It would have the etymologtcal meamng 'm Its bemg, whdc It i!.'. If we accept thts analysts, baman 'but' would be the simultaneous counterpart of the essentially consecuuve formation batno 'than'. 2 For thts latter optmon, seem pamcular We.~gand (1913: 49) and Kacor~ (1979:
153). 3 Jf the element meer 'more' ts moved together with the dan-clause, these M:ntenccs are perhaps not very elegant Dutch, but they are cerramly better than !Hb!c). Cp.: (1)
DUTCH'
? Httts meer dante zou denken veranderd
(n) ? Meer dan 1e zou denken ts htt veranderd These facts suggest that, m Dutch, the comparative clause and the comparanve marker meer form a con!.tttuent. However, such a conduston wdl ratse problems of Its own, smce m many Dutch comparanves the comparanve tnJrker (in thts case, the morpheme -er) is morphologtcally bound to the predtcate. Cp.:
Notes to pages 217-38 (111)
343
DVICH:
Hrj IS slumu eJ dan Je denkt 'He IS smarter than you tbmP
In other words, we would have to assume that the Dutch comparative clause IS m construcuon with an element wh1ch IS {or can be) morphologacally bound to another consntuent. We will nor pursue this matter furcher here. 4 For a thorough discussion of the rule of Gapping, and references to earber work on this rule, see Netjt-Kappen (1979). 5 I am grateful to Wus van Lessen Kloeke for these facts of High German. 6 Bernard Comrie (personal commumcatlon) IS of the 0p1mon that, an presentday Enghsh, very few speakers actually control the system where the case of the NP after than is the same as that of the comparee NP. He suggests that speakers who use the Nommanve after than generalize thiS nominative for
both sub1ecc and obJeCt funcnon; m other words, for these speakers, than IS JUS£ a preposition which happens to take the Nommat1ve. If thi'S analysis 1s accep£ed, we have another piece of a--idence for the claim that English is more 'rad1cal' m its syu£acnzarion of the comparative construction than Dutch; there are numerous Dutch speakers (mdudmg myself) who spontaneously treat the comparative as a denved-case constructiOn. 7 Classical Greek can be placed in this category 1f we assume that the meamng of the diSJUnctive element 'or' Incorporates a negation, 1.e., 1f we conceive of 'A or B' as bemg cognate to 'A, and 1( not A. then B'. Some evidence for such a pos1tion comes from ClaSSical Arabic, where the element wala 'or' is etymologlcally a conditional phrase, with the meaning 'ff it IS not'. Chapter 10: An Examjnation of Secondary Choices I The dative ease of the pameiple 1n ·dams is also, though rarely, used as a representation of absolute stmultaneous predJ.cares (Endzdm,. 1922: 786). Cp.: (1)
LA'fVlAN:
V1lninu
verp-dam
·al
wool·ACC spm·l'CP. PR!l.S·I)A'r
~
7Til&'kins
rulCfl
sleep
came
'While she was spmnmg the wool, she fell asleep' 2 Boas and Deloria (1941: 143) state: 'A cons1derable number of adverbs end in p. These are derived from verbs endmg in p~a, most of whtch are obsolete. Some of these adverbs form new verbal themes wtth the endtng ·tu." An example of thas latter type of formatton is the element rwangkab~tu, whtch appears in the followmg comparatave. taken from Buechel (1939: 95):
344
Notes to pages 241-78 (t)
DAKOTk
Worlake ung king he ttangangye king he servant PRT the the-one h1s-lord the che-one iwangkab-tu snt superior/above not 'The servant is not greater than his lord' 3 The indeterminacy of the structural funcnon of constituents appears to be a general charactensnc of Australian languages; these languages are to a large extem 'non-configuraaonal' (see Hale, 1983). 4 I am indebted to Prof. Dr R. Veder for these Russian data. 5 The absolutive form m Albanian seems to be subject to constderable dialecucal vanatton. In d.ddttJ.on to the construction exemplified m (56b), Hetzer (1978: 197) mentions an absolute construction m wh1ch the predicate has the form of the Perfect Parnciple, and is preceded by the particle chain mete u. Cp.: {t)
ALBANIAN:
Me te u khtyer ABS. PRT
...
retum-PCP. PERF
•After he had returned . . .' Chapter 11: Theoretical Background Assumptions 1 These word-order correlaoons have been formulated in sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3. 2 I assume here that the scannmg of hngwst1c structures proceeds m the order in which the elements of the structure are perceived; in our writing system, th1s order is matched by a left·to·right ordering. The reader will have noted that this assumption has already been tacitly adopted in the principles that were developed in sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3. 3 It should be understood here that the d~rectionality m this diagram (i.e., the placement of the negative s1de of the parameter to the left, and the placement of the positive side of the parameter to the nght) IS purely a matter of graphical convention, and that no claim for a parncular ordering should be attached to
"· Chapter 12: Cognitive Strategies in Comparative Formation 1 As will have become clear from the CS of comparison, the extent x must also be understood to be defined in such a way that it envelops extent y. Chapter 13: Grammatical Procedures in Comparative Formation 1 The dtstlOctlon between 'configurattonal' and 'non-configurational' languages, wh1ch I alluded tom chapter 10, n.3, may be a structural manifestation of thts funcuonal split between languages.
Notes to pages 279-312
345
2 I adopt here the 'dass1c;' view of cyclicity, m whtch the sentence 1s taken to be the unit by whtch rules of encodmg and decodmg are bounded. 3 Or from other hnguistic clues such as person~tnarking, wh~eh are present independently of the presence or absence of tdentlty condtttons. 4 In a number of cases, apphcation of identtty ddenon leads to a further structural regroupmg of the remaining consmuents. See, among others, Tat {1969) and Hames {1978) for a dtscussion of thts process. 5 After the application of S·Deletion, Malagasy requtres that the two verbs m the sentence be regrouped mto a verb phrase. Therefore, the connective ary 'and', wh1ch can only conjoin sentences, must be replaced by the phrasal conJuncnon sy {Keenan, 1976B). Alternattvely, of course, one m1ght hold that there is no procedural relation at all between the sentences m (12), and that a sentence hke (12b) is base~generated. Wuh respect to this pomt, we should remmd the reader that our approach Is model~neurral. What the !lentences in (12) are meant to illusrrare IS that, in a verb-mittallanguage hke Malagasy, rhe subJect of conJomed verbs follows the second verb and not rhe first one. Thus, a sentence hke (t) should be ungrammatical, wh1ch It 1s:
(t)
MALAGASY' .~-
Mtsotro Rabe arylsy mihtnarn-bary
6 Sentences (13a/b) are taken from Cra1g (1977: 38). As will be noted from sentence (13a), use of the conjunction wal, wh1ch s1gnals an oppO'lltiOn, leads to a regroupmg of the VSO word order m the second clause of such a conJunction. Th1s, however, does not alter the fact that Gappmg m this bas1c VSO-language applies forward. See Craig (1977: 35-9) for further dJscussion. 7 In addmon, Enghsh has the poss1bihty of formauons such as
(t)
ENGLISR
(u)
My father drinksJ and my mother does, too My father drinks~ and so does my mother
I take it that the element do/do so
lS
the pronommal form for verb phrases m
English. However, whatever the status of th1s element may rurn out robe, it will be clear that both of these sentences offer add1tmnal evJdence for the Boundary Constramt on rdentity ddetron.
Chapter 14: Optimal and Non-optimal Language Types not stnctly true. US-1.2) wh1ch IS produced by the Independent Strategy, also meets tlus reqmrement, at least to a cerram degree. I will come back to th1s pmnt 10 section 15 .2.
1 Th1s
IS
Chapter 15: An Explanatory Model of Comparative-type Choice 1 For a further eluctdatlon of th1s point see Keenan ( 1976a}. 2 At dus pomt, the reader may wonder where the second extent-mdex (I.e., the
346
Notes to pages 314-31
mdex x) wdl end up m <>urface structure. I have no conclusive answer to thts quesnon. One posstbdlty that suggests Itself IS that this mdex ends up as the morphologtcal comparanve marker on the predtcate. Gtven this assumption, the fact that, in Dutch, thiS comparatiVe marker seems to form a constttuent
wtth the followmg comparative clause can be explamed; in the process of relanvJzatJon whtch thts type of Parttde Comparative presuppose~, the extentmdex x functiOns as the antecedent, and hence as the head ot the relative
clause. Moreover, as we saw in section 2.4, It IS a fact that morphological markmg of comparative predicates 1s especially popular among languages with some kmd of Particle Comparative. Needless to say, however, thts suggested ongm of the comparative marker 1s m need of further corroboratton, espeaally w1th respect to the etymological status of the marking elements mvolved. 3 See, however, the discussion m &ectton 14.2, where tt is suggested that the deletion of a subject m1ght be a mmtmal prerequisite for the start of a derankmg process. 4 In this connecnon, 1t ts also mreresring to note that Quechua seems to bema process of losmg Its abthty for Backward Gappmg. See Pulte (1971) for further discusston.
Appendix A Alphabetical Listing of the Sample
Language 1 ABIPON 2 ALBANIAN
Area
Source
Gran Chaco, Paraguay
Dobnzhoffer (1902)
Albama
Weigand (1913), Lambertz (1959), CamaJ (1969), Hetzer (1978), Kacon (1979) Ethiopia Cohen (1936) 3 AMHARIC Colombia Landaburu (1979) 4 ANDOKE Arabta Yushmanov (1961), Nasr 5 ARABIC (1967) (CJaSS!caJ) New South Wales Strehlow (1944) 6 ARANDA de Torres Rubio (1966) BoliVIa 7 AYMARA T1sserant (1930) Central Afncan Repubhc 8 BANDA Spagnolo (1933) Sudan, Uganda 9 BAR! Northern Spain, Rollo (1925), Gavel (1929), 10 BASQUE Lafitte (1944), N'Diaye S.W. France (1970) Ethiopia, Sudan Conti Rossmi (1912) 11 BEDAUYE Ethiopia, Eritrea Re1msch (1882) 12 BJLIN Ternes (1970) Bnttany 13 BRETON Okell (1969) Burma 14 BURMESE Northern Afghamstan Lonmer (1935) 15 BURUSHASKI Cambodia Jacob (1968) 16 CAMBODIAN de Goe1e (1978), Hoff (1968) Guyanas 17 CARIB Southern and Central Brazil Mana (1914) 18 CAYAPO Wolff (1967) Cebu, Phtlipp1nes 19 CtBUANO North-East S1bena Bogoras (1922) 20 CHUCKCHEE Re1chard (1933) 21 CCEUR D'ALENE Idaho FISch (1912) Ghana, Togo 22 DAGOMBA N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Buechel (1939), Boas and 23 DAKOTA Montana Delona (1941)
Appendix A Area
Source
lttmann (1939) Cameroon The Netherlands, Northern own data Belg1um Drabbe (1952) New Guinea (West Highlands)
Brinsh Isles, Northern America, Australia, New Zealand, South Afnca Alaska, Northern Canada, Greenland
Thalbttzer (1911), Hammerich (1970)
Fmland
Fromm and Sadeniem1 (1956)
France, Switzerland, Southern Belgtum,
native speakers
Canada Sahel temtory
Scotland Chad, Central Afncan Repubhc, Zaire Northern Venezuela Greece
Paraguay :JIR
New South Wales Northern Nigeria, N1ger
Palestme
lA
'
native speakers
Gaden (1909), Taylor (1921), Leith-Ross (1922), Labouret (1951) McKinnon (1971) Samarm (1966) Celedon (1878), Holmer ( 1949) Kuhner-Stegmann (1963) Guasch (1956), Gregores and Suarez (1967) Smythe (1948), Eades (1979) Marre (1901), MJSchlich (1911), Taylor (1923), Abraham (1941), Snnrnova (1981) Brockelrnann (1956)
Northern and Central lnd1a McGregor (1977) Derbyshtre (1979) Norrhern Brazil Simonyt (1907), Nagy (1919), Sauvageot (1951), Tompa (1968) N1gena Welmers (1973) Luzon, Mmdanao, Mindoro Lopez (1928) North-East New Gumea Dempwolff (1939} Guatemala Day (1973), Craig (1977) Hungary
Appendix A
349
Area
Source
Japan Siberia Northern N1gena, N1ger
Kuno (1973, 1978) WJibeehm (1915) HaJdu (1963) Lukas (1937)
Kashmir
Grierson(1919)
Mongo!Ja
Street (1963)
Burundi
Menard (1908), Meeussen
Java Central~ North
New Gumea {East Htghlands) Korea
(1959) Davtes (1981) Ramstedt (1939/1968), Pultr (1960)
S1bena Italy
Benzmg (1955) Kuhner-Gerth (1955)
Latvia
Endzelin (1922), Dravms and
Georgia (USSR)
Ruke (1958) Dm (1928) Ferrand (1903)
Madagascar Manchuna
Adam (1873), Haenisch
(1961) Nonhero and Central Chma Mulhe (1947) Guinea, Sterra Leone I
Northern Temtory, Australia New Zealand
Chtle North~East N1geria
Kenya, Tanzama Wisconsm Nicaragua, Honduras Cahfornta
Delafosse (1929), Labouret
(1934) Merlan (1982) Rere (1965) de Augusta (1903) Hoffmann (1963) Tucker and Mpaayi (1955) Bloomfield (1962) Conzemius (1929) Freeland (1951), Broadbent
South Mex1c0
(1964) Alexander (1980)
Central New Guinea
Vormann and Scharfenberger
(1914) New Gumea {Port Moresby) Lister-Turner and Clark (1930) Centrallncha Hoffmann (1903) Ind1a, Assam, Burma Gnerson (1903) Central Mcx1co Andrews (1975)
Appendix A Source Namtbta Arizona, New Mextco,
Utah, Colorado NewHebndes Sudan, Ethtopia
Southern New Ireland
Bohvta Peru, Ecuador
,.
(
E
Schils (1891), Memhof (1903) Haile (1926, 1941), Pmnow (1964) Ray (1926) Crazzolara (1933) Peckel (1909) Matteson (1965) von Tschudt (1884), Lastra (1968), Adelaar (1977), Cole (1981)
Sov1et Umon
Pulkma and ZakhavaNekrasova (1974)
Cahforma Samoa Peru Flores Island Oregon Sunnam
Mason (1918) Marsack (1975) Tessmann (1929) Arndt (1931) Frachtenberg (1922)
East Afnca
Ashton (1947), Brauner and Bantu (1964), Loogman (1965) Rastorgueva (1963)
Ta)Jktstan Central Sahara
Voorhoeve (1962)
Hanoteau (1896), Laoust
(1918), DeHamg (1920), Johnson (1966) Southern Indta, Northern Arden (1942), Beythan Sn Lanka (1943), Meile (1945), Asher (1982) Central Mextco Foster (1969) South IndJa Gnerson (1906), Bhaskararao (1972) That land Noss (1964) Tibet jaschke (1929), Lalon (1950) Central Sumatra van derr Tuuk (1867) Niger, Chad Lukas (1953) Braztl, Paraguay, Argentma, Platzmann (1874) Bo!!Vla Turkey Swift (1963), Lewis (1967) Black Sea Coast (USSR) Dm (1928) Nepal Gnerson ( 1909) Vietnam K1m (1943), Jones and Thong (1960)
351
AppendiX A Area
Source
Senegal T1erra del Fuego Nonhem and Central An zona
Rambaud (1903) Adam (1885) Kendall (1976)
Nigena
Bamgbose (1966), Awolobuyi (1973)
Appendix B Genetic and Areal Stratification of the Sample
Eurasia Indo·European
Indte Dard1c Iranian Hellenic Italte Balttc
HlNDI KA!,HMlR1
TAJIK GREEK
UTIN LA1Vlfu"i
Slavtc Romamc
!'RENCH
Germanrc
DUTCH, ENGLISH
Celtic isolated
llRETON, GAEUC ALBANIAN
RUSSIAN
Caucasian North-West
Kartt!eUan Uu.I-Altatc Ura!tc Bolto-Fmmc Ugnc SamoyedJc
AltaiC Tungus
Turktc Mongol japanese isolated
Isolated
UBYKH
LAZ
FINNlSH HUNGARIAN )UllAK
LAMUTIC, MANCHU TURKISH KHAll
BASQUE
Appendix B Asia Sino-Tibetan Ttbeto-Burmese Central Lolo-Bunnese Naga-Kuki-Chtn Gyurung-Mishmi Sinittc
TIBETAN BURMESE NAGA VAYU MANDARIN
Kam-Ta1
THAI
Isolated
BURUSHASKI
Palaeo-S1benan Dravidian Munda Moo-Khmer
CHUCKCHEE
Khmer Vtetnamuong
CAMBODIAN V!CTNAMESF
TAMIL, TELUGU MUNDARI
Africa and Middle East Afroas1at1C Berber Chadtc Cushtttc Central Southern Semtttc South-West Northern Central Afncan
TAMAZIGHT HAUSA, MARG! BlLIN BEDAUYE ARABIC HEBREW AMHARIC
N1ger-Congo West-Atlanttc Kwa Cur Mande Adamawa-Eastern Bantu
FULANl, WOLOr IGBO, YORUBA DAGOMBA MANDINKA BANDA, GBEYA DUALA, KIRUNDJ, S\X
Nilo-Saharan Saharan Ntlotic Western Eastern
Khmsan
KANURI, TUBU NUER BAR!, MASA! NAMA
4
Appendtx B America Esk1mo~Aleur
Athapaskan
ESKIMO NAVAHO
S1ouan
DAKOTA
Sahshan Algonquian
I.XEUR D'ALENE
Hokan
SALINA!'J, YAVAPA1
Oto-Manguean Uto-Aztecan
MIJ
Mayan
jACALTEC
Pano Ge
SHIPIBO CAYAI'O MAPUCHE SR.A..IIIAN TARASCAN
MENOMINI
Araucan
Creohzatlon Isolated
NAHUATL
Penuoan M1wok-Costanoan Yak.onan Chtbchan
MIWOK SIUSLAWAN
Arawakan
GOAJIRO
Macro-Canb Canb
MISKITO
CARIB HIXKARYANA ANDOKE
Wttotoan Tup1
TUPI, GUARANI
Guaycuru
ABIPON
Ande&-Languages
QUECHUA AYMARA, YAGAN
(affihauon unclear)
Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean
Austronestan West-Indonesian
MALAGASY JAVANESE TOBABATAK
Moluccan 1'!1tlt1'1'111~
New Gutnean
SIKA CEBUANO ILOCANO JABEM MOfU
Appendix B MAORI SAMOAN
NGUNA PALA EKAGI
KOBON MONUMBO
ARANDA
GUMBAINGGIR MANGARAYI
Bibliography
Superior figures after dates m the followzng list denote edittons.
Abaev, V.I. 1964. A grammattcal sketch of Ossetic, Bloommgtonffhe Hague. Abraham, R.C. 1941. A modern grammar of spoken Hausa. London. Adam, L 1873. Grammaire de Ia langue mandchou. Paris. Adam, L. 1885. Grammatre de Ia langue 1agane. Paris. Adelaar, W .F.H. 1977. Tarma Quechua. Grammar, texts, dtctionary. Lisse, The Netherlands. Alexander, R.M. 1980. Gramatica nuxteca. Mex1co City. Alexandre, C. 1880. Du:ttonnaire grico·fran~ais compose sur un nouveau plan.
Pans. Anderson, J.M. 1971. The grammar of case: towards a localistic theory. London. Anderson, J.M. 1977, On case grammar: prolegomena to a theory of grammatual relattons. London. Anderson, J.M. and Dubois-Charlier, F. (eels). 1975. Lagrammazre des cas. Paris. Andrews, J.R. 1975, Introduction to Class zeal Nahuatl. Austin, Tex. Annamala1, E. 1970. 'On moving from coordinate structures in Tamil', m: Papers from the Szxth Regmna/ Meetmg of the Chicago Lmguisttc Soctety, Chicago, Ill., 131-46. Arden, A. H. 1942. A progressive grammar ofcommon Tamil. Madras. Arndt, P.P. 1931. Grammatik der Stka-Sprache. Ende, Hores. Asher, R.E. 1968. 'Existential, possessive, locative and copulanve sentences m Malayalam', m: J. Verhaar (ed.), The verb 'be~ and tts synonyms, part 2, Dordrecht, Holland, 88-111. Asher, R.E. 1982. Tamtl. Amsterdam. Ashton, E.O. 1947 2• Swahili Grammar. London, New York, Toronto. de Augusta, F.j. 1903. Gramatica araucana. Valdivia, Chile. Awolobuyi, 0. 1973. 'The modifying serial construction: a critique', Studtes m African Linguzstzcs, 4, 87-111. Bamgbose, A. 1966. A grammar of Yoruba. Cambridge, UK. Bell, A. 1978. 'Language samples', m: j.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E. Moravcs1k (eds), part 1, 123-56.
Bibliography
.l57
Bennett, D.C. 1970. Spattal and temporal uses of Engltsh prepostttons. Ann
Arbor, Mich. Benvemste, E. 1948. Noms d'agent et noms d'actzon en /ndo-europien. Pans. Benzmg,J. 1955. Lamutzsche Grammattk. W1esbaden. Bergmans, L. 1982. 'Semanttc aspects ot companson m Dutch, Engl!~h and other language~·.
Ph.D. D1ss., Louvam. Beythan, H. 1943. Prakttsche Grammattk der Tamtlsprache. Le1pZ1g. Bhaskararao, P. 1972. 'On the syntax of Telugu ex1stennal and copulattve predicat1om', m: j. Verhaat (ed.), The verb 'be' and tts synonyms. Dordrecht,
Holland, 153-206. 8Jerw1sch, M. 1967. 'Some ~emant1c umvcrsals of German adJCCt:lvals', Foundations of Language, 3, 1-36.
Bloomfield, L. 1962. The Menomini language. New Haven, Conn./Lon don. Boas, F. and Deloria, E. 1941. Dakota Grammar. Washington, DC. Bogoras, W. 1922. 'Chuckchee', m: F. Boas (ed.), Handbook of Amencan Indtun languages. parr 2, 631-903. Brauner, S. and Bantu, J.K. 1964. Lehrbuch des Swahtli, Leipzig, Bresnan, J. 1971. 'On "a non-source of comparatives'.., Linguistic lnqurry, 1, 117-25. Bresnan, J. 1973. 'Syntax of the comparative clause construction 10 Engl1sh', Lrngutst1c. Inquiry, 4 (3), 275-343. Bresnan, J, 1975. 'ComparatiVe deletion and constramts on transform.uions', LtngUJStJc Inquiry, 7, 3-40. Broadbent, S.M. 1964. The Southern Sierra M1wok language. Berkeley, Cal. Brockelmann, C. 1956. Hebrdische SynttlX. Neuk1rchen {Kre1s Moers). Buechel, E. 1939. A grammar of Lakota, St Francis MissiOn. CamaJ, M. 1969. Lehrbuch der albanischen Sprache. W1esbaden. Campbell, A. 19 59. Old Engltsh grammar. Oxford. Cantrall, W.R. 1977. 'Comparison and beyond', in: Papers of the Th~rtet•nth Regtonal Meetmg of the Chtcago Ltngutsttc Soctety, Ch1cago, IlL, 69-81. Celedon, R. 1878. La lengua goajira. Lima. Chomsky, N.A. 1964. Current rssues in lingu.istrc theory. The Hague. Chomsky, N.A. 1973. 'Condtttons of transformations', m: S.R. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds), A Festschrzft for Moms Halle, New York, 232-86. Chomsky, N.A. 1980. 'On Btndmg'. Lmguzsttc Inqutry, 11, 1-46. Chomsky, N.A. 1981. Lectures on Government and Btndmg. Dordrecht. Chung, S. 1978. Case mwrkmg and grammattcal relatzo11s m Polyneswn. Au<.tm, Tex. Clark, E.V. 1971. 'On the acqmsttton of the meanmg of before and after' ,joumal of Verbal Learnmg and Verbal Behavtaur, 10,260-75. Clark, E.V. 1973. 'How children descrtbe ume and order', tn: C.A. Ferguson and D.l. Slobm (eds), Studtes of chrld language development, New York, 585-606. Clark, E.V. 1975. 'Knowledge, context and strategy in the acqmstt1on of meaning', in: D.P. (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on languages and linguisttcs. 1975. Developmental PsycholmgUisttcs: Theory and Appltcatwns. Washmgton, DC, 77-98.
35H
Bibliography
Clark, E.V. 1978. 'Locanonals: eXJstennal, locanve and possesstve ronstrucnons', m: j.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E. Moravcuk (eds),. part4~ 85-126.
Clark, H.H. 1970. 'Comprehending cornparanves•, m: G.B. Rores d"Arca1s and
W.J.M. Levelt (eds), Advances m psycholmgrnstus, Amsterdam/London, 194-206.
Clark, H.H. 1973. 'Space, time, semantics and the chdd', m: T.E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acqutsttiOn of language, New York, 28-64. Cohen, M. 1936. Trattt de Ia langue amhartque (Abyssmie). Pans. Cole, P. 1981. fmbabura Qutrhua. AmSterdam. Comne, B. 1975. 'The syntax of causanve constructwns: cross-language Simllarines and diVergences', m: M. Sh1batam {ed.), 261-312.
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. An mtroductwn to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambr1dgc, UK. Comne, B. 1978a. 'Erganvny', m: W.P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactu; typology, Hassocks, Sussex, UK, 329-94. Comne, B. 1978b. 'LinguiStiCS IS about languages', m: B.B. Kachru (ed.), 1.tngutstiCS In the sevt'nttes: directions and prospects, Urbana, m., 221-36. Comne, B. 1981. Language unwersals and lmgwmctypology. Oxford. Conti Rossm1, C. 1912. La langue des KemmaenAbyssmre. V1enna. Conzemms, E. 1929. 'Notes on the Mlsluto and Sumo languages of Eas£em Nicaragua and Honduras', International Journal of Amen.am Lingu1sttcs, 5, 57-115. Cr.ug. C.G. 1977. The Structures oflacaltec. Ausnn, Tex./London. Crazzolara, J.P. 1933. Outlme of a Nuer grammar. V1enna. Cresswell, M.j. 1976. 'The semanbcs of degree', m: B. Panee (ed.}, Montague J..'Tammar, New York, 261-92. Curme, G.0.1931. A grammar of the &rgilsh language. Boston, Mass. Davtcs.j. 1981. Kobon. Amsterdam. Day, C. 1973. The Jacaltec lmtguage. Bloomington, Ind. Delafosse, M.l929. La lmtgJ<emandmgz<e et ses d1alectes. PariS. Dempwolfl, 0.1939. Gnmmumk der jabem·Sprache au(Neugumea. Hamburg. Derbysh1re, D.C. 1979. Hrxkaryana. Amsterdam. Desramg, E. 1920. Etzuk sur k tbalecte berbere des A1t Seghrouclien (Moyen Atlas marocam). Pans. D1k, S.C. 1968. Cormlmahon. lis rmpl~eatiOns for the theory of general lrngutstlcs. Amsterdam. D1rr, A. 1928. Em{Uhrung m das StudJUm der kaukasrschen Sprachen. l..elpztg. D~bnzhoffer, M. 1902. Auskunft uber d~e ab1pomsche Sprache. Edited by Juhus Platzmann. Letpztg. Doherty, M. 1970. ·zur Komparatton amonymer AdJektJve', ASG~Bencht, 6 (2}, Berhn. Doherty, P.C. and Schwartz, A. 1967. •The syntax of the compared ad)ecttve in English', Language, 43,903-36. DordJ!Ion, R.I. 1931. Grammmre et dtcttonna~re de Ia langue des lies Marqrnses. Pans.
Bibliography
359
Dowmng, B. 1978. 'Some uruversals of relative clause structure', m: J.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E. Moravcs1k (eds), part 4, 375-418. Drab be, P. 1952. Spraakkunst van het Ekagt. The Hague. Dravms, K. and Ruke, V. 1958. Verbalfonnen und undekhmerbare Redetetle m der Mundart von Stenden. Lund. Dumezil, G. 1933.Introductton a fa grammmre comparee des langues caucasten· nes du Nord. Paris. Eades, D. 1979. 'Gumbayngg.r', m: R.M.W. D1xon and B.J. Blake (eds), Handbook of Australtan Languages, Vol. 1. Amsterdam, 244-361. Ehott, D., Legum, S. and Thompson, S.A. 1969. 'SyntactiC vanatwn as linguistic data', m: Papers from the Ftfth RegiOnal Meetmg of the Chtcago Lmguisttc Soaety, Ch1cago, Ill., 52-9. Endzelm, J. 1922. Letttsche Grammattk, R1ga. Ere!t, M. 1973. 'Some remarks on comparative and superlaove sentences in Estoman', m: F. Kiefer (ed.), Trends in Soviet theoreticallznguzstics. Dordrechtf Boston, Mass., 135-47. Ern out, A. and Meiilet, A. 19794 • Dtcttonnaire itymologique de Ia langue lattne: htstotre des mots. Pans. Falcr, L.M. 1977. 'Reflex1vizaoon: a study m Universal Syntax'. Ph.D. Diss., Berkeley. Ferguson, C.A. 1978. 'H1stoncal background of universals research', in: J.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E. Moravcs1k (eds), part 1, 7-31. Ferrand, G. 1903. Essai de grammatre malgache. Pans. Fisch, R. 1912. Grammat1k der Dagomba-Sprache. Berlm. Fodor, J.A. 1976. The language of thought. Hassocks, Sussex, UK. Fodor, J., Bever, T. and Garrett, M. 1974. The psychology of language. An mtroductwn to psycholingutstrcs and generative grammar. New York. Foster, M.L. 1969. The Ttlrascan langtmge. Berkeley/Los Angeles, Cal. Frachtenberg, LJ. 1922. 'Sauslawan (Lower Umpqua)', m: F. Boas (ed.), Handbook of Amencan Indian languages, part 2, Washington, DC, 441-629. Freeland, L.S. 1951. Language of the Sterra Miwok. Bloomington, Ind. Fromm, H. andSadeniemi, M. 1956. Fmmsches Elementarbuch. Hetdelberg. Gaden, H. 1909. Essai de grammatre deJa langue baguirmtenne. Paris. Gavel, H. 1929. Grammatre basque. Bayonne. George, I. 1975. 'A grammar of Kwa-type verb senahzation: its nature and significance in current generative theory' Ph.D. Diss., Ann Arbor, Mich. Gtv6n, T. 1975. 'Senal verbs and syntactic change: Niger~Congo', in: C.N. Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, Austm, Tex., 47-111. Gtv6n, T. 1979. On understandmg grammar. New York, de Goeje, C.H. 1978. Etudes lmgutsttques caratbes. Wtesbaden (reprmt from: Amsterdam, 1909). Greenberg, J.H. 1963. 'Some umversals of language, wtth particular reference to the order of meamngful elements', m: j.H. Greenberg (ed.), Untversals of language, Cambridge, Mass., 73-113. Greenberg, j.H. 1966. Language umversals, wah spectfic reference to feature hterarchtes. The Hague.
Bibliography
360
Greenberg, J.H., Ferguson, C.A. and Moravcs1k, E. (eds). 1978. Universals of human language. Vols 1-4. Stanford, Cal. Gregores, E. and Suarez, J.A. 1967. A descnption of colloquial GuaTam. The
Hague. Grin; H.P. 1975.
•
~Log1c
and conversation', m: P. Cole and J.L Morgan (eds),
Syntax and semanttcs. Vol. Ill. Speech Acts. New YOlk e£c., 41-58. Grierson, G.A. (ed.). 1903. Linguisttc survey of lnd1a. Vol. III. Tibeto-Burman family. Part II. Spectmens of the Bodo. Naga and Kachin groups. Calcutta • Grierson, G.A. (ed.). !906. Linguistic survey of lndra. Part IV. Munda and Dravtdian languages. Calcutta. Grierson, G.A. (ed.). 1909. Lmgutstic survey of India. Part 1/1. Tibeto-Burman famtly. Part l. General introduGtton. Speamens of the T;betan diate,ts, the lbmalayan dialects and the North Assam Group. Calcutta. Grierson, G.A. (ed.). 1919. Lmgursttc survey of India. Vol. VII. Part II. Spectmens of the Dardrc or Pisacha languages (tncluding Kashmm). Calcutta. Guasch, P.A. 1956. El idtoma Guarant. Asunct6n. Haemsch, E. 1961. Mandscbu-Grammattk. Leipzig. Haile, B. 1926. A manual of Navaho grammar. St Michael's, Arizona. Haile, B. 1941. Learmng Navaho./-lll. St Michael's, Ariwna. HaJdu, P. 1963. The Samoyed peoples and languages. Bloomtngton, Ind. Hale, K. 1976. 'The adjoined relative clause in Australia', in: R.M.W. Dixon (ed.), Grammattcal categories m Australtan languages, Canberra, 78-105. Hale, K.. 1983. 'Walptri and the grammar of non
Hankamer, j. 1977. •Multiple analyses', in: C.N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change, Austin, Tex., 602-20. Hankamer, J. 1979. Deletion in coordinate structures. New York. Hanoteau, A. 1896 2• Essai de grammaire deJa langue Tamachek'. Algiers. Hanoteau, A. 1906. Essai de grammaire kabyle. Algiers. Harrtes) H. 1978. 'Coordination Reduction)) in: J.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E. Moravcsik (eds), Vol. 4, 515-83. Hawkin~ J.A. 1979. 'Implicational universals as predictors of word order change', lAnguage, 55, 618-48. Hawkins, J.A. 1980. 'On implicational and distributional universals of word order', journal of Lingurstics, 16, 193-235. Hawkins,j.A. 1984. Word order rmiversals and their explanation. New York. Hellan. L 1981. Towards a11 mtegrated analysts of comparattves. Til bingen.
Bibliography
361
Hendnck, R. 1978. 'The phrase structure of adJeCtives and comparatives', LingUistiC Analysis, 4 (3), 255-99. Hetzer, A. 1978. Lehrbuch der vereinhettlichten albanzschen Schnftsprache. Hamburg. Higgins, E.T. and Huttenlocher, ]. 1971. 'AdJeCtives, comparatiVeS and S}'l-
logisms', Psychological Review, 78,487-504. Hoeksema, J. 1983. 'Negative polarity and the comparattve', NatUTa{ Langua5e and Linguistic Theory, 1, 403-34.
Hoff, B.j. 1968. The Canb language. The Hague. Hoffmann, C. 1963. A grammar of the Marg1language. London. Hoffmann, J. 1903. Mundari grammar. Calcutta. Holmer, N.M. 1949. 'GoaJiro (Arawak) Ill: verbs and assoctated morpheme.;;', International Journal of Amencan Linguisttes, 15, 145-57.
Hopper, P.J. 1979. 'Aspect and foregrounding m discourse', m: T. Gtv6n (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12. Dtscourse and syntax. New York, 213-41. Hopper, P.J. and Thompson, S.A. (eds). 1982. Studtes rn transttiVJty. (Syntax and semanttcs, Vol. 15). New York, etc. Hyman, L 1971. 'Consecut!VIzation in Fe'fe', Journal of Afncan LmgtHSttcs, 10 (2), 29-43. Hyman, L. 1975. 'On the change from SOV to SVO: evtdence from NtguCongo', in: C.N. Li (ed.), Word order and word order change, Austin, Tex., 113-47.
lttmann,J. 1939. Grammattk des Duala (Kamerun). Berhn. Jacob, j.M. 1968. Introduction to Cambodian. London. ]aschke, H. 1929. Tibetan grammar. Berlm/Leipzig. Jessen, M.J. 1974. 'A semanttc study of spatial and temporal expresstons'. Ph.D. Diss., Edinburgh. Johnson, M.J. 1966. 'Syntacttc structures of Tamaz1ght'. Ph.D. D1ss., UCLA. Joly, A. 1967. Negation and the comparattve particle tn English. Quebec. Jones, R.B. and Thong, H.S. 1960. lntroductton to spoken Vtetname:,.e. Washmgton, DC. Kacon, T. 1979. A handbook of Alba11ian. Sofia. Keenan, E.L. 1976a. 'Towards a untversal definition of "subject'", in: C.N. L1 (ed.), Subject and toptc, New York, 303-33. Keenan, E.L 1976b, 'Remarkable subjects m Malagasy', in: C.N. L1 (ed..), Sub,ect and topte, New York, 247~301. Keenan, E.L 1978. 'The syntax of subJect-final languages', in: W.P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, Hassocks, Sussex, UK, 267-327. Keenan, E.L and Comrie, B. 1977. 'Noun Phrase Accesstblhty and Universal Grammar', LinguistiC lnquzry, 8, 63-100. Keenan, E.L and Comrie, B. 1979. 'Data on the Noun Phrase Accessibtltty H1erarchy', Language, 55, 333-51. Kendall, M.B. 1976. Selected problems m Yavapaz syntax. New York/London. Kiliaan, H.N. 1919. Javaansche spraakkunst. The Hague. Ktm, T.T. 1943 2 . Gramrnatre annam1te. Hanoi.
362
Bibliography
Klem, E. 1980. 'A semanncs for posmvc and compar:mve adJeCtiVes', Lmgutsttcs aPd Phzlosophy, 4, 1-45. .
Klooster, W. 1972. The structure underlymg measure phrase sentences. Dordrecht. Klooster, W. 1976. 'Adjektieven, neutrahtelt en comparaneven', m: G. Koefoed and A. Evers (eds}, LJJ»en van taaltheorettsch onderzoek, Gronmgen, 229-59. Klooster, W. 1978. 'Much m Dutcb', 10: Papers {rom the Fourteenth Regional Mectmg of the Chtcago Lmgutst1e Soctety, Clucago, IlL, 217-28. Klooster, W. 1979. 'Opmerkmgen over de comparat1ef', m: Handeltngen van het XXX Tile Vlaams Fzlologencongres, Louvain, 197-206. Kout'>ouda<>, A. 1971. 'Gappmg, conJuncnon reduction and coordmauon delenon', Foundatwns of Language, 7, 337-86. Kuhner, R. 1955. Ausfuhrftche Grammattk der fatemzschen Sprache. Bearbettet von B. Gerth. Leverkusen. Kuhner, R. 1963. Ausfuhrlrche Grammattk der grtechtschen Sprache. Bearbe1tet von C. Stegmann. Darmstadt. Kuno, S. 1973. The structure of the japanese language. Carnbndge, Mass. Kuno, S. 1978. 'Japanese: a charactenstiC OV language', in: W.P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntacttc typology, Hassocks, Sussex, UK, 57-138. Kuno, S. 1981. 'The syntax of comparative clauses', in: Papers from the
Seventeenth Regwnal Meeting of the Chtcago Ltngutsttc Society, Ch1cago, Ill., 136-55. Labouret, H. 1934. Les Mandmg et leur langue. Pans. Labourer, H. 1952. La langue des Peuls ou Foutbe. Han-Dakar. Lafitte, P. 1944. Grammatre basque (Navarro-Labourdin littba1re). Bayonne. Lakatos, I. 1978. The methodology of setenttfic research programmes. Edited. by John Worrall and Gregory Curne. Cambndge, UK. Lakoff, G. 1972. 'Lmguist1cs and natural logic', m: D. Davtdson and G. Harman (eds), Semantzcs of natura/language, Dordrec.ht, 545-665. Lalou, M. 1950. Manuel ilimmtatre du Ttbitam classtque. Pam..
Lambertz, M. 1959. Lehrgang des Albantschen. Halle (Saale). Landaburu,J. 1979. La langue des Andoke (Amazome colombtenne). Pans. Laoust, E. 1918. Course de Berbere marocain. Paris. Larousse. 1970. Grammarre Larousse du frant;ats contemporam. Par JeanCL1ude Chevalwr et autres. Pans. Lastra, Y. 1968. Cochabamba Quechua syntax. The Haguel1'ans. Lees, R.B. 1961. 'Grammatical analysis of the English comparative construction', Word, 17,171-85. Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relattvsat~. T ubmgen. Lehmann, W.P. 1973, 'A structural pnnctple of language and tts imphcauons', Language, 49,47-66. Le1th~Ross, S. 1922. Fulam grammar. Lagos. Levm, N.B. 1964. The Assmtbome language. Bloomington, IndJfhe Hague. Lew I~, G.L 1967. Turk1sh grammar. Oxford. Lew1s, H. and Pedersen, H. 19743. A conCise comparatwe Ceittc grammar. GOttmgen.
Btbltography
363
L1, C.N. (ed.). 1975. Word order and word order change. Ausnn, Tex. U, C.N. (ed.). 1977. Mechamsms of syntact1c change. Austm, Tex. L1, C.N. and Thompson, S.A. 1973a. 'Serial verb constructions in Mandarin Chinese: subordination or coordmaoon', in: C. Corum er al. {eds), Papers from the Comparative Syntax Festwal, Chtcago, Ill., 96-103. Ll, C.N. and Thompson, S.A. 1973b. 'Co-verbs m Mandarin Chinese: verbs or prepos1dons?', m: Papers from the Szxtb International Conference on SmoTtbetan languages and lingu:stzc studres, La jolla. LI, C.N. and Thompson, S.A. 1975. 'Thesemanticfunctionofwordorder: a case study in Mandarin', in: C.N. L1 (ed.), Word order and word order change, Ausnn, Tex., 163-95. L1, C.N. and Thompson, S.A. 1978. 'An exploration of Mandarin Cl:unese, m: W.P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic typology, Hassocks, Sussex, UK, 223-66. LISter· Turner, R. and Clark, J.B. 1930. ReiiiSed Motu grammar and uocalndary.
Port Moresby. Loogman, A. 1965. Swahtlt grammar and syntax.l.ouvain. Lopez, C. 1928. Companson of Tagalog and Iloko. Ph.D. Diss., Hamburg. Loruner, D.L.R. 1935. The Burus/1aski language. Vol. I. Introduction and grammar. Oslo. Lukas, J. 1937. A study of the Kamm language. London. Lukas,). 1953. Dte Sprache der Tubu in derzentralen Sahara.llerlm. Lyons, J. 1967, 'A note on possessive, existential and locative sentences', Foundations of Language, 3, 390-6. Lyons, J. 1968. 'Fvstencx, location, possession and transitivity', m~ B. van Rootselaar andj.F. Staal (eds), Logic, methodology and philosophy of sctence III, Los Angeles, Cal., 495-504. Lyons,J. 1977. Semantics. Cambndge, UK. Lyoos, J. 1979. 'Knowledge and truth: a localistic approach', m: Allerton, D.J., Carney, E. and Holdcroft, D. (eds}, Funct1on and control in lmguistJC analysis. Cambndge, UK, I 11-41. McCawley, J.D. 1972. 'A program for logic', in: D. Dav1dson and G. Harman (eds), Semantics of nmu•allanguage, Dordrecht, 498-544. McGregor, R.S. 1977. Outlme of Hmdi grammar. Delhi. McKinnon, R. 1971. Teach yourself Gaelic. London. Mallmson, G. and Blake, B. 1981. Language typology. Amsterdam. Mana, P.A. 1914. 'E._qat de grammatre Ka1ap6, langue des Ind1ens Ka1ap6, Btis1l\ Anthropos, 9, 233 40. Marre, E.C. 1901. Die Sprache der Rausa. V1enna!Budapest1Le1pzig. Marsack, C.C. 19754 • Teach yourself Samoan. London. Mason, J.A. 1918. The language of the Sal~nan Indians. Berkeley, Cal. Matteson, E. 1965. The Ptro (Arawakmt) language. Berkeley/Los Angeles, Cal. Mitzner, E. 18803 • Englische Grammatik. Berhn. Meeussen, A.E. 1959. Essai de grammaire Ktrundt. Tervuren (Belgtum). Melle, P. 1945. Jntroductton au Tamoul. Pans. Memhof, C. 1909. Lehrbuch der Nama-Sprache. Berlm. Menard, F. 1908. Grammaire Ktrundt. Algiers.
364
Bibliography
Merlan, F. 1982. Mangarayi. Amsterdam. Milner, G.B. 1956. FtJtan grammar. Suva, FiJI. Mischbch, A. 1911. Lehrbuch der Hausa~Sprache. Berhn. Mittwoch, A. 1974, 'Is there an underlying negative element in comparative clauses?', Linguistecs, 122,39-45. Mullie, J.L.M. 1947. Korte Chinese Spraakkunst van de gesproken taal (Noord~ Pekmees dialect). Brussels. Nagy, A. 1929. Ungartscbe Konversationsgrammatik. Heidelberg. Napoh, D.J. and Nespor, M. 1976. 'Negattves in comparatives', Language, 52, 811-38. Nasr, R.T. 1967. The structure of Arabic. Bet rut. N'Diaye, G. 1970. Structure du dialecte basque de Maya. The Hague. Neijt-Kappen, A.H. 1979. Gapping. A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht. Noss, R.B. 1964. Thm reference grammar. Washington, DC. Okelt, J. 1969. A reference grammar of colloquwl Burmese. London. Peekel, P.G. 1909. Grammattk derneu·mecklenburgischenSprache. Berlin. Perkms, R. 1980. 'The evolution of grammar and culture'. Ph.D. Diss., Buffalo, NY. Ptlch, H. 1965. 'Comparative constructions m Engltsh', Language, 41,37-58. Pmnow, H.-J. 1964. Dtenordamerikanischen !ndumersprachen. Wiesbaden. Plank, F. (ed.). 1979. Ergativrty: towards a theory of grammattcal relations. London. Platzmann,J. 1874. Grammattk der brastltamschen Sprache. Letpzig. Popper, K. 1934. Logtk der Forschung. Vienna. Pulkina, I.M. and Zakhava-Nekrasova, E. 1974. Russian. A practical grammar with exercises. Moscow. Pulte, W. 1971. 'Gapping and word order in Quechua', in: Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chtcago Ltnguistic Society, Chicago, Ill., 193-7. Pultr, A.1960. Lehrbuch der koreanischen Sprache. Halle. Rambaud,J.-B. 1903. La langue Wolof. Pans. Ramstedt, G.J. 1968. A Korean grammar. Oo~terhout (Holland}. Rastorgueva, R.S. 1963. A short sketch o{TaJzk grammar. The Hague. Ray, S.H. 1926. A comparative study of the Melanestan tsland languages. Cambndge, UK. Re1chard, G.A. 1933. 'Creur d'Alene', 10: F. Boas (ed.), Handbook of Amencan Indian languages, part 3, Washington 1 DC, 515-707. Reinisch, L. 1882. Dte Btlm~Sprache in Nordost·Afrtka. V1enna. Rere, T. 1965. Maort lessons for the Cook Islands. Wellington, Rollo, W. 1925. 'The Ba~que dtalect of Marquma', Ph.D. Diss., Leyden. Rosenbaum, P.S. 1967. The grammar of Engltsh predrcate complement construe· tions. Cambridge, Mass. Ross, J.R. 1967. 'Constramts on variables in syntax'. Ph.D. Diss., Cambridge, Mass., MIT. Ross, J.R. 1970. 'Gapping and the order of consmuents', in: M. Bierwisch and K.
Btblwgraphy
365
Hc1dolph {eds), Progress in lmguiSttcs, The Hague, 249-59. Ross, J.R. 1972. 'The category sqmsh: Endstat1on Hauptwort', m: Papers from the Etghth Regtona[ Meetrng of the Chtcago Lmgutsttc Soctety, Chicag.o, Ill., 316-28. Sarnann, W.J. 1966. The Gbeya language. Berkcleyllo!> Angc\c~, Cal. Sanders, G.A. 1976. 'A functional typology of elliptical coordmanon~·. Indiana Umverstry LingUJsttcs Club, Bloomingto11, Ind. Sanders, G.A. and Ta1, J. 1972. 'Immediate dommance and 1dentity deletion', Foundatrons of language, 8, 161-98. Sauvageot, A. 1951. Esqutsse de la langue hongrotse. Paris. Schachter, P. 1977. 'Reference-related and role-related propertieS of subJects', m: P. Cole and J.M. Sadock (ed!>), Grammattcal relatzons. Syntax and semantrcs, Vol. 8. New York, 279-306. Schils, G.H. 1891. Grammmre complete de Ia langue des Namas. Louvam. Seuren, P.A.M. 1973. 'The comparattve', m: F. K1efer and N. Ruwet (eds), Generattve grammar m Europe, Dordrecht, 528-64. Scuren, P.A.M. 1978. 'The structure and selection of positive and negatJve gradablc adJecnves', m: Papers from the Parassesston on the LexzconJ Fourteenth Regzonal Meetmg of the Chrcago LinguzstJC Soctety, Chicago, Ill., 336-46. Seurcn, P.A.M. 1984. 'The comparative revisited', journal of Semanttcs, 3, 1 12, 109-141. Sherman, M. 1969. 'Some effects of negation and adJeCtival marking on sentence comprehension'. Ph.D. Diss., Cambndge, Mass., Harvard. Sh1batani, M. (ed.}. 1975. Syntax and Semanttcs. Vol. 6. The grammar of causative constructions. New York. Shopen, T. 1973. 'Ellipsis as grammattcal mdetermmacy', Foundattons of Language, 10, 65-77. Simonyi, S. 1907. Dte ungarische Sprache. Geschrchte und Charaktensttk. Strassbourg. Skeat, W.W. 1901. A concise etymological drctronary of the Engltsh language. Oxford. Small, G. 1923. The compar~son of inequabty. The semantics and syntax of the comparative parhclre in English. Baltimore. Small, G. 1929. The Germanu; case of comparison wtth a spectal study of Engltsh, in: Langu.age Monographs, 4, Phtl.addphta, Penns. Smunova, M.A. 1982. The Hausa language. London, etc. Smythe, W.E. 1948. Elementary grammar of the Gumbamggar language (No~th Coast. N.S. W.). Sydney. Spagnolo, L.M. 1933. Ban grammar. Verona. von Stechow, A. 1984. 'Comparmg semannc theones of companson', joumal of Semanttcs, 3, 112, 1-77. Steele, S. 1978. 'Word order varianon: a typologtcal ~tudy', m: j.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E. Monvcsik (eds), part 4, 585-623. Strachan,). 1909. An mtroduction to early Welsh. Manchester, UK. Street, J.C. 1963. Khalka structure. Bloommgton, Ind. Strehlow, T.G.M. 1944. Aranda phonetics and grammar. Sydney.
366
Btblrography
Sw1ft, L.B. 1963. A reference grammar of modem TurktSh. 81oommgton~ Ind. Ta1, J.H.· Y. 1969. 'Coordmaoon Reduction,. Ph.D. Dtss., Bloommgton, Ind. Ta1, J.H.~Y.197L •Jdenttty deletiOn and regroupmg m coordmate structures', m: Papers (rom the Seventh RegtOnal Meettng of Ch,cago [...tngUistic Soetety, Ch1cago, llL, 264 74.
Talmy, L. 1978. "Relanons between subordmation and coordmatlon', m: J.H. Greenberg, C.A. Ferguson and E. Moravcstk {eds), part 4, 487-513. Taylor, F.W. 1921. A first grammar of the Adamawa dtalect of the fulam la>~guage (Fulfulde). Oxford. Taylor, F.W. 1949. A practtcal Hausa grammar. London. Ternes, E. 1970. Grammatre structurale du Breton de l'rle de CroiX (dtalecte a&ctdental}. He1delberg. Tessmann, G. 1929. 'D1e Tschama·Sprache', Anthropos, 24, 241-71. Thalbl!zer, W. 1911. 'Esktmo', m: F. Boas (ed.), Handbook of Ammcan lndtan languages, part 1, Washmgton, DC, 967-1069. Ttsserant, Ch. 1930. Fssat sur Ia grammatre banda. Paris, Tompa,J. 1968. Ungansche Grammattk. The Hague. de Torres Rubio, D. 1966. Arte de Ia lengua aymara. Lima. Traugott, E.C. 1975. 'Spanai cxpresstons of tense and temporal sequenong', SemJOttca, 15,207-30. von Tschudt, J.J. 1884. Organrsmus der Khetsua-Sprache. Le1pztg. Tucker, A.N. and Mpaay1, J.T.O. 1955. A Masat grmnnJar. London. van derTuuk, H.N. 1867. TobascheSpraakkunst. Amsterdam. Valm, R. 1952. Esqutsse d'Wle thione des degres de comparatson. Quebec. Vennemann, Th. 1974. 'Themencal word order studies: results and problems', Patnere ~ur LtnguJsttk, 7, 5-25. Vennemann, Th. 1975. 'An explananon of dr1ft', m; C.N. Lt (ed.), Word order and word order change, Austin, Tex., 269-305. VISser, F. Th. 1963. A htstortcal syntax of the English /angJUJge. Leyden. Voegehn, C. F. and Voegelin, F.M. 1977. Classtficatton and mdex of the world's languages. New York!Oxford/Amsterd:lm. Vogt, H. 1940. The Kalrspellanguage. Oslo. Vomhoeve,J. 1962. Sranan syntax. Amsterdam. Vormann, F. and Scharfenberger~ W. 1914. Dre Monumbo-Sprache. V1enna. Walbeehm, A.H.J.G. 1915.JavaanscheSpraakkunst. Leyden. Walde, A. and Hoffmann~ j.B. 19543 • Latetmsches etymologrsches WOrterbuch. Hetdclberg. We1gand, G. 1913. Albanestsche GrammatJk. Le1pz1g. Welmers, W. 1973. Afncan language structures. Berkeley. Whorf, B.L. 1956. Language, thought and rea/tty. Selected wntmgs of 8en1amm Lee Wharf. Ed1ted by John Carroll. New York. Wojok, R. 1976. 'The copula as aux1hary 10 a surface VSO-Ianguage",rn: Papers from the Twelfth Regtonal Meetmg of the Chtcago Lmguisttc Socrety, Chicago, Ill., 666-75.
Wolff,J.V. 1967. Begmnmg Cebuano. New Haven, Conn./London. Yusbmanov, N. V. 1961. The structure of the Arabtc language. Washmgton, DC.
Index ofTopics
Ablative Absolute, 69-70,86,87, 246--7
adverbial comparatives, 31, 37, 106, 317-21,323,326--34 passim classification of, 31-4
subc:ategorlzation of, 36 Allative Comparative, 33, 40--1, 107, 109, 136-45 passim, 158, 235-43,308,317,320,323-34
passtm anteriOr predicate, 75-6
balancing, 76, 95, 97, 99, 100, 106, 108, 294, 297,298-302, 310-13, 315,317,318,325-35 passzm Bonndary Constraint, 285-8 causal COnstruction, 74
chaining-based uJUVeiSals, 104, 105-11 passzm, 223, 334-5 dm:ct corroboration of, 115, 137, 146,153,172 mduect corroboranon of, 123, 139, 148,172,174
clausal comparatives, 141, 201-2 clause-embedding, 78-83 passmr, 134-5,156
cogrurive structure, 258-9, 260-1 of comparison, 262-5, 266, 267, 271-3 comparanveconstmctio~ 10 and
pass1m
ddinitron of, 15,24-5 primary, 27, 109, 323-34 passim secondary, 27, 109, 223-51 passim~ 323-34 passim Comparative Ellipsis, 208, 210,212, 216
comparative marker, 27-8, 64-5, 337, 346 comparanve particle, 38-9,46, 60-4 passim, 189-98 passim, 200-21
passhn comparative predicate, 26, 64 5 compan:e NP, 26 and passim com::ess1ve constructmn, 74 conchnonabty, 84, 100 of derank1ng, 84-8, 91-2, 95, 101 of identity deletion, 283 of serial verb strings, 162-3 Conjoined Comparative, 38-9,44-5, 60,108,110,183-8,255, 315-19, 322-34 passtm
consecut1onal construction, 74 consecutive action, 66, 70-3 consecutive chain, !S, 58, 70-3 and
passim converb, 122, 126, 127
Coordmate Structure Constraint, 76, 77 coordination, 59,76-7, 189,211-13, 216
adversanve, 38, 61-2, 95, 189 Coordination Ellipsis, 208,210,212, 219,280,311
Index
368 Coordination Reduction, see
Coordmation Ellips1s deranking, 77, 78-83, 99, 106, 256, 279,281-2,290-4,298,325-35
passim absolute, 85-8,92,95, 97, 106-7, 294,297-8,299-302,305,309, 317,318,326,329 anterior, 88, 92, 97, 317 conditional, 84-8,92,95, 106,294, 297-303 passim, 313-15,317, 318,329 consecutive, 83-94 passim, 317 optional, 103 posterior, 88, 92, 97,317 simultaneous, 95, 97, 317
strict, 103, 115 derived case, 29, 45, 46, 106 derived-case comparatives, 28, 37, 107,183,188,223,318 directionality, &8, 96, 284 of deranking, 88-90,91-2, 100 of identity deletion, 284-8 direct-object comparatives, 30-1,37
disjunction, 62-3,191 downgrading, 216,221,279 ellipsis, 201,216,280,322
Equi-NP-Deletion, 8, 294, 336 Exceed Comparative, .30--1,42-4, 60, 106, 159-82 passim, 228-35, 314-15,317-19,321,324, 328-34 passim final chain, 71-3, 145,158, 177
fixed case, 29, 106 fixed-case comparatives, 28, 37, 106 formal semantics, 199 Forward Principle of Deranking, 91 Forward Princ1ple of Identity Deletion, 284-5,286 Gapping, 205-6,208,210,213,214, 280,320,321,322
gerund, 83, 119, 121, 124, 125 grammatical procedure, see procedure identity deletion, 25 6, 280-94 passim, 296, 298, 319-23 passim, 325-35
passim hmited, 284, 294, 296, 297, 299-303,313-15,317,319, 323-34 passim no,284,29~296,317,319
total, 284, 294, 296, 299-303, 305, 309-13,317,318-21,323, 326--34 passim
Independent Strategy, 272-3, 276, 296, 298-302 passim, 309, 316, 328-9 indeterminacy, 18-19,47-51 passim, 136,145,152,246-7 island constraints, 4
linguistic borrowing, 333 lmguistic relativ1sm, 265 locahsm, 9, 36-7,58,337
Locative Comparative, 33, 41-2, 107, 109,110,146-58,235-43, 308-9,317,320,323-34 passim
-
manner adverbials, 175 mixed comparatives, 26, 4 7-51 passim, 155, 315, 317, 319, 322, 328 modelhng-hypothesis, 105,175, 188, 255,256,262 model-neutrality, 21-2,257 negation,198,217-19,222,337 incorporation of, 217, 221, 311 neutralization, 35 partial, 35-6 of spatial concepts, 35, 136, 152
of syntactic chaining, 68-70, 99 non-randomness of variation, 4, 5, 16, 57,265,305,335 Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy, 4,21
369
Index nouny adjectives, 178-82 passim NP~comparatives,
25,201
optimal language type, 295, 298-303 passim, 304,305, 325,328-35
passim Ordered Strategy, 273-5,276,296, 297,298-302 passtm, 305,307, 309,310,326-34 passim parameter, 4 in comparative typology, 28-52 passim, 5 5-6 language-independent definitiOn of, 14-16,264 Parttcle Comparative, 39,45-7,60, 108, 188-221 passtm, 255, 311-13, 317, 318, 320-1, 324, 326, 327, 329, 331 possesstve construction, 14, 37 posterior predicate, 75-6 Principle of Optimal Harmony, 295-302 passim, 304,307,331 Principle of Parallel Chaining, 99 Principle of Procedural Dependency, 291-4,299,326,328 Principle of Strategy Retention, 331-4 procedure, 256,259,266,277-89
passtm, 190 procedure-based universals, 316, 334
procedure-types, 256,291 Pro-Drop, 280-1,319,322
backward, 284, 286, 302 forward, 284, 287, 288, 303 Separative Comparative, 33,39-40,
107,109,110,111,114-35 passtm, 243-51 passtm, 308, 317, 320, 323-34 passim serialization, 60,67-8, 160-3,329 serial verb stnng, see serialization simultaneous action, 66, 94 simultaneous cham, 15, 58, 94-5, 270 spatial relations, 9, 32,56-8,338 allat1ve, 33 locative, 32-3 separative, 32-3 standard NP, 26 andpasstm strategies, 259,266,267-76 passtm structure~ reducing procedures, 279 Subjacency ConditiOn, 4 subordination, 79-81, 279 surface structure, 257-9,261, 266 syntactizatton, 202,206,207,211,
213,215,216-21 passim, 256, 311-13 temporal chaining, 15, 58,66-103
passtm tendenctes, 20, 54, 90 typology, 4, 5 and passtm construction of, 16-19 determmantof, 7, 9, 53-65 passim,
104 function of, 5-6, 16
purposive construction, see final chain underlying structure, 258-9,266, Relative Strategy, 275-6,296,297,
298-302passim, 314-16, 328-34
passim relativn•,ation, 219, 221-2, 311 sample, 3 and passim areal bias in, 11 construction of, 11-13 genetic bus in, 11, 13 S~Deletion,
284-6, 287, 296
267-76 passtm Universal Grammar, 2, 3, 5, 20, 104 explanations in, 7-10,53, 104,255 methodology of, 3,10-11 tasks of, 9-10, 22, 265 umversals, 4 and passim absolute, 4 counterexamples to, 20-1, 110-11 evaluation of, 19-21 rmplicational, 6, 19 um~lateral,
111
Index WH-Movement, 215
word order, 15, 39,53-6,59,88-91,
92-4,101,109,284-9,306-8, 327,335 word-order-based universals, 54-6,
104, 114
Index of Languages
Abipon, 45, 184 Acholi, 48, 315, 317, 319, 328-9
Albanian, 40, 47, 194-5, 196-7,249, 312, 320, 324 Amharic, 40, 67, 68, 101, 124,320 Andoke,40, 117-18 Arabic (Classtcal), 40, 54, 90, 130-2
Aranda,40,118-19 Assiniboine, 237-8 Aymara, 40, 44, 119-20, 233, 324, 331,333 Banda,43,45,167-8,224,324
Bari,43, 47, 61, 89,168,226-7,311,
Duala, 31,43, 164,166, 170-1,181 Dutch, 27, 35, 47, 60-1, 73, 90, 189, 198-215 passim, 218,222,294, 312,320,336 Eastflemish, 62, 191 Ekagi, 45, 184 English, 15, 26, 27, 33, 34, 39, 40, 46,
47,61-2,63, 67, 68, 72, 74,76-7, 78,80,90,95,96,97,102-3,189,
194, 198-215 passim, 218,219, 221,222,250-1,263,280,287-8, 312, 320, 324, 327 Eskimo, 40, 125, 128
324,333
Basque,28,40,42,47,61,190,216, 236,245-6,311,324 Bedauye, 40, 117 Bdin, 40, 123, 174 Breton, 41, 142-4, 158, 320, 328 Burmese, 40, 125, 126 Burushaski, 40, 86-7, 88, 117 Cambodian, 43, 160, 163 Canb, 40, 119
Cayapo,45,184 Cebuano,41,154-5,320 Chuckchee,41,42,146-7 Coeur d'Alene, 40, 54, 129-30 Dagomba, 43, 163, 166 Dakota,42,45,184,237-8,324
Ftjian, 242 Finnish, 34, 40, 47, 90, 195, 196, 197, 219,248,312,320 French, 28, 40, 47, 90, 194, 196, 197, 219,222,249-50,312,320,324, 327 Fulani, 43, 48, 145, 176-8, 182, 316, 317,319,322,328-9 Gaelic, 47, 63, 190, 217, 312, 320 Gbeya, 43, 164 German, 27, 202, 207-8, 263 Goaj1ro, 47,49-50, 64, 189-90,311 Gothic, 62, 191, 312 Greek (Classical), 40, 47, 62, 191, 201,217,247-8,312,320,324, 327
