10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416
Comparative constructions of inequality display a recurrent pattern throughout all Germanic languages, which is partially inherited from the Indo-European mother tongue. This common semasiological format consists in a copulative construction in which the adjective expressing the quality carries a comparative suffix and is accompanied by a particle introducing the standard. For the latter, a morpheme coming from various onomasiological domains is generally recruited. After a general overview of the construction within the Germanic family, the paper will focus on its consistency in the German linguistic islands of Northern Italy, where a remarkable variety is found, which is only partially due to the long-standing contact with Romance languages. Besides an overview of the Bavarian islands of the North-East, particular attention is devoted to the Walser German islands of the North-West, where a number of peculiar patterns are found, which partially reflect structural possibilities attested in earlier stages of the German-speaking territory, but also display unique developments such as for instance the comparative particle ŝchu ‘so’ found in Rimella.
application/pdf
2785-0943
13416
1
en
Livio Gaeta
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
language contact
Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy: a semasiological approach
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
1
Research articles
2021-08-31
2021-08-04
2021-08-31
2021-10-11
288-332
LTC
Livio Gaeta
2021/08/31
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416
288
University of Turin
2785-0943
1
language contact
en
332
</body>
Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy: a semasiological approach
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/13416/13037
1
           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332   ISSN 2785-0943



                            Comparative constructions
                 across the German minorities of Italy:
                             a semasiological approach

                                         LIVIO GAETA1
                      1
                          DEPARTMENT OF HUMANITIES, UNIVERSITY OF TURIN




                    Submitted: 25/11/2020        Revised version: 16/06/2021
                      Accepted: 22/06/2021          Published: 31/08/2021




                                             Abstract
Comparative constructions of inequality display a recurrent pattern throughout all Germanic
languages, which is partially inherited from the Indo-European mother tongue. This common
semasiological format consists in a copulative construction in which the adjective expressing
the quality carries a comparative suffix and is accompanied by a particle introducing the
standard. For the latter, a morpheme coming from various onomasiological domains is
generally recruited. After a general overview of the construction within the Germanic family,
the paper will focus on its consistency in the German linguistic islands of Northern Italy,
where a remarkable variety is found, which is only partially due to the long-standing contact
with Romance languages. Besides an overview of the Bavarian islands of the North-East,
particular attention is devoted to the Walser German islands of the North-West, where a
number of peculiar patterns are found, which partially reflect structural possibilities attested
in earlier stages of the German-speaking territory, but also display unique developments such
as for instance the comparative particle ŝchu ‘so’ found in Rimella.


Keywords: comparative construction; semasiology; onomasiology; language minority;
linguistic island; language contact.




1. Introduction


Comparative Constructions of Inequality (= CCI) display a recurrent pattern
throughout all Germanic languages, which is partially inherited from the Indo-
European mother tongue and corresponds to the other cognates of the family. This


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                288
Gaeta                                   Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


generally consists in a copulative construction in which the adjective expressing the
quality also carries a comparative suffix and is accompanied by a particle introducing
the standard. In addition, as is also typical of other Indo-European languages, the
suffixes show to be diachronically replaced by comparative adverbs preceding the
adjectives. A similar trend towards the increase of analytic coding also concerns the
expression of the standard, which in Proto-Germanic used to display case-marking in
the absence of any comparative particle. From this perspective, it does not come out
as a surprise to observe that the new analytic pattern displays a variety of particle
types coming from a set of source morphemes distributed from North to South in a
consistent way.
In this paper, basically relying on Stolz’s (2013) impressive typological investigation
on CCIs in the European languages, I will discuss in Section 2 the theoretical premises
of my work suggesting a semasiological approach to CCIs as a convenient way for
doing typological comparison. On this basis, I will review in Section 3 the
comparative constructions as they are found throughout the Germanic family,
including varieties found outside Europe. Then in Section 4, I will focus on the
German linguistic islands of Northern Italy. We will see that they display interesting
and partially unprecedented developments within the Germanic family. In Section 5
the systematic distinction between the semasiological and the onomasiological level
will be shown to shed light on some inconsistencies emerging in Stolz’s approach,
especially with regard to the diachronic perspective opened by grammaticalization.
Section 6 draws the conclusion.


2. CCIs and the semasiological approach


One of the substantial merits of Stolz’s (2013) impressive monograph on comparative
constructions is the development of a clear conceptual apparatus, which allows us to
investigate CCIs on safe methodological grounds. Accordingly, Stolz (2013: 9)
assumes the following possible components of a constructional schema for CCIs:


(1)        [The comparison]COMPAREE is [more]DEGREE [natural]QUALITY [than]TIE [the contrast]STANDARD


      •   the COMPAREE (= C) is the participant in a situation of comparison whose share
          of the QUALITY (= Q) is measured against the STANDARD (= S);




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                        289
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


    •    the STANDARD is the participant in a situation of comparison which serves as
         yardstick for the measurement of the QUALITY with the COMPAREE;
    •    the QUALITY is the property in which the COMPAREE and the STANDARD partake;
    •    the DEGREE (= D) expresses the (in)difference of the shares the COMPAREE and
         the STANDARD have of the QUALITY;
    •    the TIE (= T) is the relation connecting the STANDARD to the COMPAREE and the
         QUALITY.



On this basis, we can construct what we can label as the semasiological format of a
CCI, i.e. the sign-oriented set of its possible components. This has to be kept distinct
from the onomasiological content, which points to the semantic domain to which the
involved signs actually refer. This distinction is based on Geeraerts’ (2010: 23)
classical formulation (see also Glynn 2015 for further discussion):


        [S]emasiology takes its starting point in the word as a form, and charts the meanings
        that the word can occur with; onomasiology takes its starting point in a concept, and
        investigates by which different expressions the concept can be designated, or named.
        Between the two, there is a difference of perspective: semasiology starts from the
        expression and looks at its meanings, onomasiology starts from the meaning and looks
        at the different expressions.


In Gaeta (2013), this basic distinction, traditionally applied to lexical entries, is
extended to semasiological formats which are distinct from the onomasiological
contents connected with them.


2.1. The semasiological format of CCIs


The semasiological format is not based on the postulation of a common semantic
value – i.e., an onomasiological format defined a priori – but it rather generalizes over
single formal components of a construction, in our case involving a comparative
procedure. The latter constitutes a specific situation type – for convenience
exemplified by the English example in (1) above – for which “the morphosyntactic
construction(s) or strategies used to encode” (Croft 2003: 14) are investigated cross-
linguistically:




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                             290
Gaeta                                        Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


     Although categories (and constructions) are language-specific as morphosyntactic
     structures, categories and constructions may be compared across languages according to
     their function … The formulation of cross-linguistic universals is in fact dependent on
     identifying categories and constructions across languages in terms of shared function
     (Croft 2001: 51).


Thus, the semasiological approach takes advantage of Croft’s radical constructional
procedure, which allows us to concretely identify language-specific constructions
which display cross-linguistically a shared function. On the other hand, “the
semasiological approach aims to provide a typology of the source constructions which
give rise to [CCIs]. This typology allows us to reconstruct those cognitive processes
of meaning extension and generalization which are at the heart of the genesis of
grammar” (Gaeta 2013: 478-479). In this perspective, the typology opens a diachronic
window on the possible sources of the morphemes recruited in the language-specific
constructions via common processes of grammaticalization.
     To illustrate the semasiological format, I will use two examples from Gothic, which
at the same time show the two constructions that are likely to be postulated for Proto-
Germanic:1


(2)      Gothic (East-Germanic; Stolz 2013: 244, Harbert 2007: 174)


a. unte þái       [sun-jos            þis              áiwis]C        [frod]Q[-oz]D-ans
     and then son(M)-PL.NOM this.GEN                   time.GEN       wise-COMP-M.PL.NOM


     [sun[-um]T          liuhadis]S         in kunja        seinamma        sind
     son(M)-PL.DAT       light.GEN          in kind.DAT their.DAT           are.3PL




1
    Besides the standard abbreviations, the translations provided in the glosses correspond to the general
semantic content of the morphemes in the languages at stake. Accordingly, the Gothic morpheme þau
is glossed as ‘but’ because this is its general value, although in this context it rather corresponds to the
value of the English particle than. Moreover, I will make general reference to the BUT-particle, because
this also corresponds to its etymological value. This latter need not coincide with the actual semantic
content attested in a language. For instance, I will gloss the German morpheme weder as ‘neither’,
although I will refer to it in terms of a WHETHER-particle, because the latter represents its etymological
value. Finally, I will also use the caps to refer to the onomasiological domain of a sign occurring in a
semasiological format. Accordingly, the Gothic particle pertains to the domain of CONTRAST.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                             291
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


     ‘For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of
     light.’
b. frijondans                    [wiljan          seinana]C           [mais]Q+D [þau]T
     love.PRS.PTCP.M.PL.NOM will(M).ACC POSS3.M.ACC                   more          but
     [guþ]S
     God(N).ACC
     ‘lovers of their will more than lovers of God.’


In both CCIs, the QUALITY and the DEGREE are expressed by means of the comparative
form of an adjective. On the other hand, they differ in the strategy adopted for
expressing the TIE: in the first case (2a), a synthetic coding is found consisting of a
suffix for dative case on the STANDARD, while in the second case the TIE consists of a
particle preceding the STANDARD.2 As shown by the examples, this is an undeniable
advantage of Stolz’s approach, which is fairly well accommodated into the
semasiological format: the single ingredients may take different forms (affixes or
analytic particles) encoding the same constructional role. Thus, the semasiological
format results from the (language-)specific constructions concretely instantiating a
certain general pattern which can be taken to correspond cross-linguistically to a
similar situation type encoded via grammatical means, in our case the CCIs. The
semasiological approach focuses on the signs entering the construction as well as on
their general role within the particular language.
     The difference observed in the two Gothic examples is likely to be due to the
different internal structure of either CCI. In particular, in (2b) the difference is due to
the particular morphosyntactic environment in which the STANDARD is placed, i.e. “the
standard of comparison is always introduced by þau when the two things being
compared are not (understood) subjects” (Harbert 2007: 174). For this reason, “the
dative as TIE might render the construction difficult to parse and thus the disjunctive
conjunction is an alternative solution” (Stolz 2013: 244). Thus, the synthetic coding
of the TIE is dispreferred when it is likely to lead to syntactic opacity, i.e. when the


2
    An anonymous reviewer contends that the two examples are different because in the second one the
QUALITY is incorporated into the particle expressing the DEGREE. While this is only partially true, because

the form mais can be further segmented in a suppletive base ma- to which a comparative suffix -iz- is
added (cf. Braune 2004: 125), this does not affect my point that the STANDARD is expressed in different
ways in the two examples. A similar coding is theoretically conceivable and in fact attested in Old
Icelandic (cf. Habert 2007: 175).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                          292
Gaeta                                   Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


case-marking blurs the syntactic coding of the STANDARD if the latter differs from the
arguably default case, i.e. the nominative. In this case, the analytic construction is
employed as a viable alternative recruiting a particle which is normally used with a
disjunctive value. Thus, the rise of the analytic alternative is held to respond to a
constraint of a different nature (parsing ease), while the particle is recruited on the
basis of independent factors.
  The independence of the formal aspects from their semantic content is well
captured by the semasiological format and qualifies as a further advantage of this
approach because it does not contain any reference to the range of possible semantic
values, nor to the formal aspect (particle, clitic, affix, etc.) covered by the single
components. In addition, not every piece of the semasiological format needs to be
concretely realized in a language-specific construction. This is shown, for instance, by
Wolof, in which the CCI lacks the overt expression of the TIE, and by Dhaasanac,
where the DEGREE is absent or inferable from the TIE:


(3)     Wolof (Senegambian, Niger-Congo; Malherbe & Sall 1989: 37)
        [suma kër]C     moo              [gën]D [mag]Q [sa          kër]S
        my      house 3PS.SBJ.FOC        more      big       your house
        ‘My house is the one which is bigger than your house.’


(4)     Dhaasanac (Cushitic, Afro-Asiatic; Tosco 2001: 293)
        [máa=l=a]C         [ye]S         [ɗu]T     [ɗér]Q
        man=DEM=DET        1SG.OBL       upon      tall
        ‘This man is taller than me.’


2.2. The onomasiological content of CCIs


The semasiological format is distinct from the conceptual level expressed by means
of event schemas as maintained by Stolz (2013) in Heine’s (1997) shade. For instance,
the Gothic particle used as TIE in (2b) above is held to pertain to the event schema of
CONTRAST.    Basically, Heine’s event schemas reflect what I label as onomasiological
domains from which their sign-components – the semasiological formats – are
recruited, that concretely encode a CCI. As demonstrated by Stolz (2013: 264), “[t]he
choice of event schema is largely independent from that of the morpho-syntax of the
construction type and vice versa”. On the other hand, this conclusion, which gives



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                        293
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


support to a strict separation between the semasiological format and the
onomasiological content, forces us to discard the confusing term ‘event schema’
adopted by Stolz.
   A first reason for doing this is that in many cases no event stricto sensu is involved
as shown by the Wolof and Dhaasanac examples, but rather a situation type in Croft’s
sense mentioned above. In this sense, a given situation type, which involves one or
more entities, provides the general accommodation for a detailed semantic
representation referring to one specific onomasiological domain such as for instance
CONTAINER    or GIVE, in whose connection processes of naming are likely to take place.
The onomasiological process of naming consists in adopting a certain onomasiological
domain to encode a certain situation type. Accordingly, the onomasiological domain
– which originally refers to a basic situation type – adopted for encoding a different
situation type (in our case the CCI) carries along its original semasiological format,
which is recruited for the new function via metaphorical processes of meaning
generalization and semantic bleaching typical of grammaticalization processes.
   A second reason for speaking of onomasiological domains rather than of event
schemas is that they allow us to express their complementary role with regard to the
semasiological formats, and in fact to account for their peculiar status, which can also
have an impact on the latter forcing a certain concrete output. For instance, in Goemai
the onomasiological domain pertaining to OUTDO does not involve any explicit TIE or
QUALITY    – the latter is implicit in the COMPAREE – as it involves a transitive verb
encoding the DEGREE, while in Hausa the QUALITY is represented as a post-verbal
adjunct:


(5)   Goemai (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic; Dixon 2012: 357)
      [kˈoom       muk]C        [ma]D        [m-mak]S
      strength     3SG.POSS     surpass      NMLZ-2SG.M.POSS

      ‘He is stronger than you’, lit. ‘His strength surpasses yours.’


(6)   Hausa (Chadic, Afro-Asiatic; Dixon 2012: 356)
      [Bàlaa yaa]C              [fi]D     [Muusaa]S [karfii]Q
      Bala      3M.SG.COMPL exceed Musa                strength
      ‘Bala is stronger than Musa’, lit. ‘Bala exceeds Musa in strength.’




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                         294
Gaeta                                   Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


On the other hand, the same onomasiological domain can be expressed by means of
different semasiological formats as in the case of the onomasiological domain
pertaining to LOCATION in the following two examples, from Swahili and Malto:


(7)     Swahili (Bantu, Niger-Congo; Heine 1997: 123)


a. [Juma]C       ni     [m-refu]Q     [ku-li-ko]T       [Ali]S
  Juma           COP    CLF1-long     INF-be-LOC        Ali
  ‘Juma is taller than Ali’, lit. ‘Juma is long there being Ali.’
b. [Juma]C ni         [m-refu]Q     [ku-shinda]D        [Ali]S
  Juma       COP      CLF1-long     INF-defeat          Ali
  ‘Juma is taller than Ali’, lit. ‘Juma is long defeating Ali.’


(8)     Malto (Dravidian; Stolz 2013: 16)
        [sardareh]C        [majyen]S[-te]T       [beḍoh]Q
        sardar             village.chief-LOC     high
        ‘A sardar is higher than a village-chief.’


In the example (7a) from Swahili I interpreted the verbal infinitive carrying a locative
marker as TIE, paralleling in this way the Malto example in (8), where the locative
marker is suffixed to the noun serving as STANDARD. In fact, kuliko is normally glossed
as corresponding to (more) than (cf. Burt 1910: 191, Brauner & Bantu 1964: 124).
Exactly the same structure is employed in Swahili in the example (7b) in connection
with the onomasiological domain pertaining to OUTDO and actually shows that they
“are constructed essentially in the same way” (Heine 1997: 123). This is because in
its etymology kuliko “is the infinitive of a verbal stem -liko ‘to be at, to be present’”
(Stassen 1985: 170), where -ko is a locative suffix. From this perspective the verbal
infinitive of (7a) might also be interpreted as a DEGREE, paralleling the example in
(7b).


2.3. Distinguishing the levels


The clear-cut distinction between a semasiological “skeleton” and its complementary
onomasiological “flesh” helps us avoid a conceptual flaw which lurks in Stolz’s
approach and has severe consequences on the whole picture. In fact, Stolz interprets



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                        295
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


Heine’s event schemas, i.e. in our terms: onomasiological domains, as prototypically
connected with particular constructions, i.e. semasiological formats. For instance,
with regard to the LOCATION schema Stolz (2013: 17) says that “[p]rototypically, the
TIE   is represented by spatial adpositions or spatial cases (e.g. locative, essive, inessive,
superessive, etc.)”.
   While this alignment of the semasiological format (adpositions or case-marking)
and the onomasiological content pertaining to LOCATION might generally be true, it
actually runs into troubles with what Stolz and Heine term PARTICLE COMPARATIVE in
which “[t]he TIE marker is a particle, i.e., usually a free invariable monomorphemic
element which does not govern (morphologically) the elements it combines with”.
The crucial point is that in this type the particle “is etymologically non-transparent,
or opaque” (Heine 1997: 120). In Heine’s and Stolz’s typology, this type simply flanks
the other ones which are based on a precise onomasiological content. As is well
known, the issue of opacity and of the relevance of the source domains for synchronic
typological comparison – especially with regard to “the crucial problem of
determining how far back in (pre-)history one has to look to determine the
etymological origin of a given item” – is in fact “a general problem of
grammaticalization research” (Stolz 2013: 23).
   In my view, while it is true that the onomasiological domain is often captured only
in etymological terms as it is synchronically blurred, this is not a problem of
grammaticalization studies, but rather an advantage. In fact, as pointed out by Heine
(1997: 111) “like other grammatical expressions, comparative markers tend to be
derived from other, more concrete, entities”. The onomasiological content has to be
understood as the range of possible meanings to which the source morphemes
composing the semasiological format can be traced back in etymological terms. In
this light, no zero option is admitted where the source morphemes are opaque. In
principle, any ingredient of a semasiological format should be traced back to a source
morpheme. Then, opacity can only be due to the limits of our knowledge, but cannot
be immanent in a morpheme. For this reason, the usage of a PARTICLE COMPARATIVE on
a par with the other onomasiological contents cannot be accepted, unless it is used as
it is, namely as referring to a specific semasiological format, i.e. an analytic
construction, which is based on an element recruited for serving as TIE. We will see
in the next sections that the recruitment has not necessarily to be seen in terms of the
direct grammaticalization of a certain morpheme pertaining to a given
onomasiological domain.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                              296
Gaeta                                     Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


     Thus, in contrast to Stolz’s mixed (and to a certain extent confusing) approach, it
is more convenient to adopt a strictly semasiological representation which accounts
for the whole range of constructions types which can give rise to CCIs (cf. Dixon 2012:
346, and Gaeta 2013: 483 for a view on existential constructions):3


                                           Mono-clausal CCIs
                         i.      ENT1C (COP) PARTD PROPQ PARTT ENT2S
                         ii.     ENT1C PREDD ENT2S PROPQ
                                             Bi-clausal CCIs
                         i.      ENT1C (AND) ENT2S (COP) / ENT1C (COP)
                                 PROPQ
                         ii.     ENT1C (COP) PROPQ / ENT2S (COP) ¬PROPQ


                                Table 1: Semasiological formats for CCIs.


First, there are mono-clausal CCIs of the type seen above. A first type (i) of mono-
clausal CCIs in Tab. 1 is basically encoded by means of a copulative construction (COP)
in which the copula is present as in Gothic (cf. (2) above) or not as in Wolof (cf. (3)
above), the subject refers to the COMPAREE (ENT1C), while the QUALITY is explicitly
expressed by means of a specific morpheme (PROPQ). In this first type, the DEGREE and
the TIE are encoded respectively via analytic particles (resp. PARTD and PARTT) as in
Wolof (cf. (3) above) or via affixal elements attached to the STANDARD (ENT2S) as in
Gothic (cf. (2a) above) or via a combination of the two as in Gothic (cf. (2b) above).4
A second type (ii) of mono-clausal CCIs exploits a predicative construction in which
the verb encodes the DEGREE as in Goemai (cf. (5) above) while the QUALITY is possibly
represented by an adjunct as in Hausa (cf. (6) above).


3
    For brevity, no indications referring to word order in the CCIs are provided in the semasiological
formats in the Tab. 1, although this is an important parameter of variation which should also be taken
into consideration. This also means that the linearization of the abstract components given in the Tab.
1 for convenience does not exclude that the opposite orders are also possible and remains a matter for
further investigation. Given the parasitic nature of CCIs with regard to other syntactic constructions
(copula- or verb-centered, adposition- or complementizer-based, etc.), the null hypothesis is that their
word order reflects that of their source constructions. At any rate, this deserves a specific investigation
which cannot be undertaken here.
4
    In other words, the semasiological formats given in Tab. 1 as analytic constructions can be rephrased
according to the specific morphosyntactic properties of a language, for instance by means of a suffixal
representation as shown in (2a) above for Gothic: ENT1C COP PROPQ-SUFFD ENT2S-SUFFT.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                          297
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


   In addition, in Tab. 1 the bi-clausal CCIs are also reported in which the comparative
value emerges inferentially from the juxtaposition of two clauses. The first type (i) of
bi-clausal CCIs in Tab. 1 has been called by Heine (1997: 120) TOPIC SCHEMA because
the COMPAREE (ENT1C) and the STANDARD (ENT2S) are paired in a coordinated
conjunction (AND) and serve as the topic for the subsequent clause which implicitly
profiles the COMPAREE against the STANDARD on the basis of the QUALITY encoded by a
specific morpheme (PROPQ) as in the following example from Nyanja:


(9)   Nyanja (Bantu, Niger-Congo; Heine 1997: 120)
      [madzi]S      ni     [čakudia]C [komo]Q       [čakudia]C
      Water         and food           good         food
      ‘Food is better than water’, lit. ‘As for water and food, food is good.’


The second type (ii) of a bi-clausal CCI in Tab. 1 is termed POLARITY SCHEMA by Heine
(1997: 117) because the second clause contains the STANDARD (ENT2S), which stands
either in an antonymic or in a negative relation with regard to the QUALITY (¬PROPQ)
predicated for the COMPAREE (ENT1C), as in the following examples respectively from
Monumbo and Hixkaryana:


(10) Monumbo (Torricelli, Papuan; Stassen 1985: 185)
      [tsek]C [angam]Q, [ek]S [put]¬Q
      you        tall        I     short
      ‘You are taller than me.’


(11) Hixkaryana (Cariban; Stassen 1985: 186)
      [kaw-ohra]¬Q naha            [Waraka]S,       [kaw]Q naha      [Kaywerye]C
      tall-NEG           3M.SG.COP Waraka           tall    3M.SG.COP Kaywerye
      ‘Kaywerye is taller than Waraka.’


With this general typology of possible semasiological formats for CCIs in mind, in the
next section we will turn to the Germanic family, in which a peculiar type of CCI is
actually attested.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                        298
Gaeta                                 Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


3. CCIs in the Germanic family


The Germanic family consistently adopts for the CCI the type (i) of the mono-clausal
semasiological formats in Tab. 1 above. Relevant points of variation concern the
different onomasiological domains from which the particles expressing the TIE are
recruited as well as the form in which the DEGREE and the TIE are encoded. In the
Gothic example in (2b) the TIE is taken from the onomasiological domain of CONTRAST
– which also parallels the Greek original – while in (2a) the dative case can be
reconstructed as reflecting an old ablative and refers insofar to the domain pertaining
to SOURCE. The latter used to be quite widespread across the old Indo-European
languages settled in Europe and outside (cf. Stolz 2013: 278).


3.1. CCIs in the modern Germanic languages


In the modern Germanic languages, case-marking for the TIE – in dative – is only found
in Icelandic (12a) where it is flanked by a second possibility also mirroring the Gothic
construction with the TIE expressed by a particle pertaining to the domain of CONTRAST
(12b):


(12) Icelandic (West-Scandinavian, North-Germanic; Stolz 2017: 47, 57)


a. [hún]C var    [hver[-ri]T    kon[-u]T]S           [fríð]Q[-ari]D
  she      was each-DAT         woman-DAT            beautiful-COMP
  She was more beautiful than each woman.’
b. [Harry]C   var   [fljót]Q[-ari]D    [en]T     [Higgs]S.
  Harry       was fast-COMP            but       Higgs
  ‘Harry was faster than Higgs.’


Besides Icelandic, the North-Germanic languages, i.e. Danish, Faroese, Norwegian and
Swedish, all converge in showing a source morpheme for the TIE belonging to the
domain of CONTRAST, while the North-Sea Germanic group excluding Frisian, i.e.
English and Dutch, recruits for the TIE a particle pertaining to the onomasiological
domain of SEQUENCE as exemplified by Dutch dan ‘then, than’:




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                      299
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


(13) Dutch (Low Franconian, West-Germanic)
        [Harry]C     was [snell]Q-er]D [dan]T [Hilarius]S.
        Harry        was fast-COMP         then        Hilarius
        ‘Harry was faster than Hilarius.’


Moving towards the South, the rest of the West-Germanic family mostly recruits for
the TIE particles pertaining to the SIMILARITY domain, coming in particular from two
different source morphemes, namely Luxembourgish wéi ‘how’ (cf. German wie ‘how’)
and als ‘as, when’ shown by the standard German example:


(14) Luxembourgish (Central Franconian, West-Germanic; Freimann et al. 2010: 18)
        [China]C     ass   [méi]D [grouss]Q [(e)wéi]T [Lëtzebuerg]S
        China        is    more      big           how            Luxembourg
        ‘China is bigger than Luxembourg.’


(15) Standard German (High German, West-Germanic)
        [Harry]C     war [schnell]Q-er]D      [als]T     [Higgs]S.
        Harry        was fast-COMP            as         Higgs
        ‘Harry was faster than Higgs.’


Note that in Limburgian a small transition area is observed, in which the THEN-type
alternates with the HOW-type (cf. Stolz 2013: 49).5 The two particles found on the
German territory are distributed unevenly insofar as the AS-particle is mostly found –
besides Standard German – in the North: West Frisian (Tiersma 1999: 47), North
Saxon (Goltz & Walker 1990: 45), North Central Westphalian (Durrell 1990: 78), East
Low German (Stavenhagen, Schönfeld 1990: 111), and in some varieties along the
Rhine border, namely Alsatian (Colmar, Philipp & Bothorel-Witz 1990: 321), Central
Swabian (Russ 1990: 351) and High Alemannic (in particular the varieties spoken in
Bern and Zürich, Russ 1990: 373).


5
    Examples of the THEN-type are also found in Standard German in particular environments, namely in
combination with the particle je ‘ever’ and to avoid the repetition of als (DUDEN: 372):


(i) [Online-Tauschbörsen]C    sind   [beliebt]Q[-er]D [denn]T     [je]S.
     online-swap.meet.PL      are    liked-COMP        then       ever
     ‘Online swap meets are more popular than ever.’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                     300
Gaeta                                         Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


     Note that the AS-particle coming from Standard German is reaching a wider
distribution as shown by the city dialect of Zürich in (16a), at the expense of the older
particle wëder also found in Zürich (16b), which corresponds to Standard German
weder ‘neither’ (see Old High German (h)wedar ‘which of the two, whether’) and
pertains to the domain of CONTRAST:


(16) Swiss German (Alemannic, West-Germanic; Reese 2007: 75, SI: s.v. wëder)


a. das äigentlich [di                   alerelteschten Uufname]C …[fascht besser]Q+D sind
     that in.fact           DET     oldest             recordings            almost better         are.3PL
     [als]T[die,           wo   dän spöö̀ t̀ -er    ygschpilt                woorde                sind]S
     as       DEM.PL REL        then late-COMP record.PST.PTCP become.PST.PTCP                     are.3PL
     ‘that in fact the oldest recordings … were almost better than those which were
     taken later.’
b. [’s]C ischt nid          [vil        [grȫß]Q-er]D g’sīn [wëder]T            [dā,     wo-n-ich
     it       is     not much           big-COMP       been neither            there    where-LE-1SG
     g’lëge   n
                   bin]S
     posed am
     ‘It is not much bigger than where I am placed.’


Besides Luxembourgish (13c), the HOW-particle is mainly found in central and south-
eastern German varieties as well as in Austria, namely South Hessian (Durrell &
Davies 1990: 231), Palatinate Franconian (Kaulbach, Green 1990: 252), Thuringian
(Unterellen, Spangenberg 1990: 279), Upper Saxon (Friedersdorf, Bergmann 1990:
304), Bavarian (Wiesinger 1990: 489) and West Tyrolean (Wiesinger 1990: 508). Note
that in Tyrolean the AS- and the HOW-particles are combined (cf. Stolz 2013: 49).6


(ii) Heutzutage      sind       Mediziner    [wenig]Q-er]D [als      Heiler]C [denn]T   [als   Berater]S
     nowadays        are.3PL    physician.PL little-COMP     as      healer.PL then     as     advisor.PL
     gefragt.
     ask.PST.PTCP
     ‘Nowadays physicians are in great demand less as healers than as advisors.’
6
    This possibility is deemed to be obsolete in German, but it is still found in authors like Thomas Mann
(from Der Zauberberg) and in non-standard or colloquial registers (ii) (cf. DUDEN: 372):
(i) Es ist [hier]C[anders]Q        [als]T1   [wie]T2   [zu        Hause]S.
     It is here different          as        how       to         home
     ‘Here it’s different from home.’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                                 301
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


     Besides the variation relating to the onomasiological domains which provide the
source morphemes for the particle used as TIE, another issue concerns the synthetic /
analytic expression of the DEGREE, which in the Gothic examples in (2) above used to
be strictly synthetic by means of a suffix attached to the adjective encoding the
QUALITY.     This state-of-affairs is also likely to hold for Proto-Germanic (cf. Hopper
1975: 75, Lehmann 1975: Section 5.1.2). Recall that the Gothic example in (2b) also
contains the adverb mais ‘more’ used for cases in which no explicit QUALITY carrying
the DEGREE occurs in the morphosyntactic environment.
     In the modern languages a general tendency towards the usage of an analytic
particle for the DEGREE cognate with Gothic mais and preceding the QUALITY is
observed, as shown for instance by the particle méi in the Luxembourgish example in
(13b) above. However, this usage is not fully generalized nor uniformly distributed
across the family. The picture emerging from Stolz (2013: 51-53) shows that within
the Germanic family the suffixal marking of the DEGREE is still quite robust, although
in several languages there is a more or less pronounced tendency for polysyllabic,
morphologically complex and/or non-native adjectives to display the analytic particle
for the DEGREE. At any rate, this tendency affects the Scandinavian as well as the
North-Sea group of the Germanic family, leaving apart German and its varieties where
the analytic expression of the TIE is mostly unknown (cf. Šticha 2011).7 A true
exception to this homogeneous picture found in the area covered by the German-
speaking territory is provided by a variety for which language contact can be argued
to play a major role, as reconstructed in details by Stolz (2013: 50), namely
Luxembourgish with regard to French, where only analytic coding is found. On the
other hand, “[n]one of the other Germanic varieties which are heavily exposed to

(ii) [Das]C schmeckt doch [viel besser]Q+D      [als]T1 [wie]T2   [Sprudel ohne        Geschmack]S.
      this taste.3SG yet    much better         as        how     fizz      without flavor
     ‘This tastes much better than fizz without flavor.’
7
    Notice, however, that also in German the analytic particle is used with participles which have a
“heavily verbal character” (i) or with adjectives whose synthetic comparative is “hard to form” as for
instance with compounds (ii) (cf. Helbig & Buscha 1991: 307):


(i) [Diese    Straße]C ist [mehr]D [befahren]Q [als]T [die            Nebenstraße]S.
      this.F.SG street(F) is more       congested    as     the.F.SG side.street(F)
     ‘This street is more congested than the back road.’
(ii) [Hans]C ist [mehr]D [be-mitleiden-s-wert]Q             [als]T [du]S.
      Hans    is more       PREF-commiserate-LE-worth       as    you.2SG
     ‘Hans is more pitiful than you.’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                          302
Gaeta                                       Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


influence from French attest to the remodeling of their [CCI] according to the
Romance model” (Stolz 2013: 54). Thus, it is crucial that Luxembourgish lies at the
margin of the German-speaking territory, and is therefore less exposed to normative
influences than the varieties spoken in Germany.


3.2. The role of contact: the case of Yiddish


Language contact can also be made responsible for the use of a variety of particles for
encoding the TIE which characterizes Yiddish, historically subject to intense contact
with the Slavic languages. In Yiddish up to five different particles are found, with the
addition       of    the   possible    use     of   als,   considered       however      a    Germanism
(“daytshmerish”):


(17) Yiddish (High German, West-Germanic; Jacobs 2005: 183)


a. [er]C              iz [rajx]Q[-ǝr]D [vi       / ejdǝr      / vidǝr]T [der
     3SG.M.NOM        is rich-COMP      how / before / again               DET.M.SG.NOM

     man]S.
     man(M).SG
     ‘He is richer than the man.’
b. [er]C            iz [rajx]Q[-ǝr]D [far        / fun]T [dem              man]S.
     3SG.M.NOM is rich-COMP           before / from DET.M.SG.DAT man(M).SG
     ‘He is richer than the man.’


In (17a), besides the particle vi ‘how’, which pertains to the SIMILARITY domain, the
particles ejdǝr and vidǝr – which mean respectively ‘before’ and ‘again’ in Yiddish –
pertain to the CONTRAST domain, because they are etymologically connected
respectively with an EITHER- and a WHETHER-particle, although in the latter case a
merge with the particle meaning ‘again’ (cf. respectively German jeder and wieder,
Old High German eogiwedar and widar) has taken place, but see the form jetvidǝr ‘each,
every’.
     Furthermore, in (17b) we also find particles pertaining to GOAL – far ‘for, before’,
see German vor ‘before’8 – and to SOURCE – fun ‘from’, see German von ‘from, of’. In

8
    This is the account suggested by Stolz (2013: 56), although the reference to the domain of     LOCATION

might appear more appropriate. At any rate, I leave the issue open for further investigation.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                            303
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


particular, Stolz emphasizes the role of contact with Slavic for the usage of the particle
fun, which corresponds straightforwardly to the use of ablative particles for the TIE in
Polish and Macedonian (od ‘from’), Bulgarian (ot ‘from’), Ukrainian (vid ‘from’), etc.
(cf. Stolz 2013: 65), and has no direct matching within the Germanic family. On the
other hand, in spite of the rich attestation of analytic coding for the DEGREE found
throughout the Slavic languages (cf. Stolz 2013: 177–179), the synthetic expression
of the DEGREE is usually preserved in Yiddish.9


3.3. The role of contact: German varieties outside Europe


That contact can have a strong impact enhancing the general tendency towards an
analytic expression of the DEGREE is also shown by cases of contact involving Germanic
varieties outside Europe. A first example is Afrikaans, which continues and expands
the tendency already present in Dutch of using the analytic particle with polysyllabic,
complex (especially converted from participles) and non-native adjectives:


(18) Afrikaans (Low Franconian, West-Germanic; Donaldson 1993: 177-178)
        [Sy]C     is [(nog) [lang]Q[-er]D / [meer]D [tevrede]Q [as]T [ek]S.
        3F.SG.s is even       long-COMP         / more       satisfied   as   1SG.S
        ‘She is (even) taller / more satisfied than I.’


Moreover, Afrikaans clearly departs from Dutch because the particle as is normally
used, while “[d]an is a very formal synonym of as in this sense and if used at all, is
used to avoid confusion with other as’s” (Donaldson 1993: 177).
     Further peculiar examples are provided by two varieties exposed to strong contact,
namely Pommersch or Pomeranian spoken in Brazil and Unserdeutsch or Rabaul
Creole spoken in Papua New Guinea. Pommersch results from the migration of
Lutheran settlers in the state of Espírito Santo in Brazil from Farther Pomerania
(Hinterpommern or Ostpommern) around 1850. They spoke Ostpommersch, a variety
of Low Saxon, and in this light we are not surprised to observe that the AS-particle is
used for encoding the TIE:




9
    However, in the superlative an analytic construction is found involving the particle samǝ: “di samǝ
grojsǝ štot = di grestǝ štot ‘the biggest city’” (Jacobs 2005: 183).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                       304
Gaeta                                   Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


(19) Pommersch (Low Saxon, West-Germanic; Postma 2019: 210)
        [Kaie]C ka     [beeter]Q+D     [as]T    [ik       un      mijn uldsch]S.
        no.one can better              as       1SG.S     and my wife
        ‘No one is more apt than me and my wife.’


On the other hand, Unserdeutsch is the only German-based relexified creole of the
world developed towards the end of the 19th century by children who usually spoke
Tok Pisin (New Guinea Pidgin English) when they were hosted in the orphanage of
the Vunapope Catholic Mission on the Gazelle Peninsula of New Britain (then called
Neu-Pommern, New Pomerania). Given the presence of English in the speakers’
repertoire, we are not surprised to observe the use of the THEN-particle for encoding
the TIE in (20a), besides the AS-particle typical of (Low) German in (20b):


(20) Unserdeutsch (West-Germanic; Maitz, Lindenfelser & Volker in press)


a. [mehr]D [dunkel]Q [than]T [me]S
  more       dark        then        1SG.ACC
  ‘darker than me.’
b. [ganz     mehr]D [jüng]Q[-er]D [als]T        [i]S
  very       more      young-COMP as            1SG
  ‘much younger than me.’


Note that for the DEGREE we observe analytic coding by means of a particle (20a) as
well as the simultaneous combination of the synthetic and of the analytic construction
(20b). The same examples are also found in Pommersch:


(21) Pommersch (Low Saxon, West-Germanic; Postma 2019: 94)


a. åwer wen            [dai eir]C      [meir]D [hard]Q is, ...
  but when             DET   earth     more     hard      is
  ‘but when the soil is harder, ….’
b. wen       [dai farken]C [meir]D [gröt]Q[-er]D sin, ...
  when       DET     pig.PL more       big-COMP         are.3PL
  ‘when the pigs are bigger, …’




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                        305
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


The cases of double marking are fairly well known in first and second language
acquisition and in several non-standard varieties (cf. English examples like more
happier) as well as in several other languages (typically with suppletive comparatives
like non-standard Italian più migliore ‘more better’) and “suggest for the stepwise
replacement of the synthetic degree-marking strategy by the analytic strategy” (Stolz
2013: 53). At any rate, contact seems to play a crucial role in this connection.


3.4. Intermezzo: The overall typology of CCIs in Germanic


In sum, considering the semasiological elements (SemElem) forming the
semasiological format and their onomasiological content (OnomCont) we obtain the
following space of variation for CCIs in the actual Germanic family:


                         SemForm = ENT1C COP PROPQ-SUFFD PARTT ENT2S
         SemElem     Germanic branch                OnomCont
         TIE
                     †
                      East Germanic                 ENT2S-T: SOURCE (DAT)
                                                    PARTT: CONTRAST (OR)
                     North Germanic                 ENT2S-T: SOURCE (DAT)
                                                    PARTT: CONTRAST (BUT)
                     North-Sea West Germanic        PARTT: SEQUENCE (THEN)
                     Continental West Germanic      PARTT:    SIMILARITY   (AS,   HOW), CONTRAST

                                                    (WHETHER)
                     Isolates: Yiddish              PARTT: CONTRAST (ejdǝr, vidǝr), GOAL (far),
                                                    SOURCE   (fun), SIMILARITY (vi, as)
                               Afrikaans            PARTT: SIMILARITY (as)
                               Pommersch            PARTT: SIMILARITY (as)
                               Unserdeutsch         PARTT: SEQUENCE (than), SIMILARITY (als)
         DEGREE      Luxembourgish                  PARTD: (méi)
                     North/North-Sea Germanic       PARTD:      (MORE)     when       PROPQ    is
                                                    [polysyllabic], [converted], [– native]
                     Isolates: Afrikaans            PARTD:      (meer)     when      PROPQ     is
                                                    [polysyllabic], [converted], [– native]
                               Pommersch            PARTD: (mehr) (before PROPQ-SUFFD)
                               Unserdeutsch         PARTD: (meir) (before PROPQ-SUFFD)


                 Table 2: The overall typology of CCIs through the Germanic family.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                        306
Gaeta                                    Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


As for the source particles for the TIE, there is a clear division of labor among the
three groups within the Germanic family. Apart from cases like Icelandic and Zürich
German where an older expression is being replaced by the newer particle, one single
source domain is normally selected, namely CONTRAST in North-Germanic, SEQUENCE
in North-Sea Germanic and – mostly – SIMILARITY in Continental Germanic.10 In
contrast to this, Yiddish, isolated from the German-speaking territory and exposed to
massive contact, displays a certain richness of possible analytic strategies and –
besides particles attested in the rest of the family – shows peculiar developments
which are essentially different from what is observed in the rest of the family.
     As for the encoding of the DEGREE, Luxembourgish stands alone in Continental
Germanic as for the full adoption of the analytic strategy. In the other varieties, a
similar trend towards the use of a particle with complex adjectives is observed, which
is even more pronounced in varieties found outside Europe as shown by Afrikaans,
Pommersch and Unserdeutsch. In Yiddish, on the other hand, this trend is not
observed in spite of the analytic constructions displayed by the neighboring languages.


4. German minorities in Italy


Besides the South-Tyrolean region, in which German, including its varieties, is in fact
the majority language, two distinct groups of language minorities are also present in
Northern Italy, in the West and in the East, belonging respectively to the Alemannic
and to the Bavarian branches of the German dialects. They share a similar origin, as
they both result from Low Middle-Age migrations of settlers looking for better pasture
and farming conditions.


4.1. CCIs in the linguistic islands of North-Eastern Italy


Several Bavarian enclaves survive in the north-eastern Italian territory, which are
immersed as linguistic islands in a Romance-speaking environment, including


10
     However, it cannot be excluded a priori that also in these branches of the Germanic family other
types are possibly attested besides those listed above and in Stolz’s (2013) detailed investigation. More
research is needed here in order to answer the question whether the contact with non-Germanic
languages and the isolation from the West-Germanic territory really account for the rise of analytic
particles, or whether it is rather the low codification of these varieties that provides the key to really
understand the phenomenon.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                          307
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


varieties like Venetian, Ladin and Friulan. Cimbrian villages are found in the North-
West of Veneto – especially in the provinces of Verona and Vicenza – and in the South
of Trentino (cf. Bidese et al. 2005, Bidese 2008, 2010, Tyroller 2003), while Mòcheno
is spoken in three towns of the Bersntol ‘Valley of the river Fersina’ in Trentino (cf.
Bidese & Cognola 2013, Rowley 2010). Other sparse Bavarian enclaves are found in
other villages of Friuli, namely Sappada, Sauris and Timau:




                    Figure 1: The Bavarian islands in Veneto, Trentino and Friuli.


These islands result from different migration waves which started around the year
1000, coming either from Germany or from Austria. Since they are placed in different
environments and partially display different origins, their actual sociolinguistic
condition is not homogeneous across the different villages and places.
   As for the CCIs, synthetic coding is the most widespread way of encoding the
DEGREE     in Luserna Cimbrian (22) and in Mòcheno (23):


(22) Luserna Cimbrian (Bavarian, West-Germanic; WDS: 127)
      Soinante        khalt,    lege-mar            å       [a    [sber]Q-ar]D-na     franéla]C
      be.PRS.PTCP     cold      put.1SG-1SG.DAT on          DET   heavy-COMP-SG.ACC   flanel
      [alz]T    [da bombasate]S.
      as        DEM   cotton
      ‘Being cold I put on a heavier sweater than this of cotton.’
(23) Mòcheno (Bavarian, West-Germanic; Rowley 2010: 123)
      [hait]C is [khelt]Q[-er]D [as]T [gester]S.
      today     is cold-COMP       as     yesterday
      ‘Today is colder than yesterday.’



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                   308
Gaeta                                   Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy




On the other hand, the usage of an analytic particle is also found, especially – but not
exclusively – with polysyllabic and/or non-native adjectives (cf. Kranzmayer 1981:
259, Tyroller 2003: 150 and Rowley 2010: 123), in Mòcheno (24) as well as in Seven
Communities Cimbrian (25) and in Thirteen Communities Cimbrian (26):


(24) Mòcheno (Bavarian, West-Germanic; Rowley 2010: 123)
        de         hom        [mear]D [naturalet]Q galòt                [de      plent]C
        DEM.PL     have.3PL more       natural         let.PST.PTCP DET          polenta
        ‘They left the polenta more natural.’


(25) Seven Communities Cimbrian (Bavarian, West-Germanic; WDS: 127)
        Sodar         benne   ’s       machet      khalt ich            leghe    mich          au
        so.there      when    3N.SG    make.3SG cold 1SG.NOM            put.1SG 1SG.ACC        also
        [an büllana]C [meeront]D         [sbear]Q [bon]T [doi bon bombaas]S.
        DET    husk        more          heavy from          DEM    from cotton
        ‘Because it’s cold, I put on a heavier sweater than this of cotton.’


(26) Thirteen Communities Cimbrian (Bavarian, West-Germanic; WDS: 127)
        Tort          iz      machat     kalt, I             leige-an                [a    majùn]C
        because       3N.SG   make.3SG cold 1SG.NOM          put.1SG.NOM-on          DET   sweater
        [mearur]D [sbèr]Q [mun]T [daz            ’un   bombolje]S.
        More          heavy when       DEM       from cotton
        ‘Because it’s cold, I put on a heavier sweater than this of cotton.’


Besides the question of the analytic particle for the expression of the DEGREE, Mòcheno
and Cimbrian, as well as the other Bavarian enclaves of North-Eastern Italy, are
interesting also because they display a certain variety for the encoding of the TIE. In
the Cimbrian villages of the Seven and of the Thirteen Communities, the particles bon
(25) and mun (26) are respectively found which are etymological cognates of German
von ‘from, of’ and wenn ‘when, if’ and pertain to the domain of SOURCE and SEQUENCE.
Moreover, besides the AS-particle found in Luserna Cimbrian (22) and in Mòcheno
(24), Cimbrian also displays the THEN-particle (27a) pertaining to SEQUENCE and
usually attested in the North-Sea Germanic, as well as the particle ödar (27b)




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                          309
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


pertaining to CONTRAST (see weder above) which corresponds to German entweder
‘either’ (see Swiss German eiter – SI, s.v. – from eindeweder ‘either’):11


(27) Cimbrian (Bavarian, West-Germanic; Stolz 2013: 54–55)


a. s’ist [pessor]Q+D          [an stuke        marmelada         bon bostanajen un           proat]C [dan]T
     it=isbetter              a      piece     marmalade from carrots                  and bread      then
     [brioss        un     andere gaplettarach]S.
     brioche        and other        things
     ‘A slice of carrot-marmalade and bread is better than brioche or such like.’
b. [beelz         jaar     iste]C gabest       [mear]D [hungar]Q [ödar]T [hemmest]S.
       many years          ago exist.PST       more       hunger        either today
     ‘In the past, there was more hunger than today.’


In Mòcheno we also record the complex particle abia (28) resulting from the
combination of the AS- and of the HOW-particle as observed for West Tyrolean above:


(28) Mòcheno (Bavarian, West-Germanic; Rowley 2010: 123)
         [der main            hunt]C is [greas]Q[-er]D [abia]T [der dain]S.
         DET      1SG.POSS    dog        is big-COMP         how        DET     2SG.POSS
         ‘My dog is bigger than yours.’


Similar examples of complex particles are also found in the Friulian enclaves of
Sappada (29), Sauris (30) and Timau (31):



(29) Sappada (Bavarian, West-Germanic; WDS: 127)
         Bail’s               kòlt is,         leigimer                    [ana        [dick]Q[-ar]D-a
         because=3N.SG cold be.3SG put.1SG.NOM.1SG.DAT DET                             thick-COMP-SG.ACC

11
     This is likely to be the oldest particle in Cimbrian, because it is mentioned in Slaviero’s (1760)
grammatical sketch: Du pist reichor öder ich ‘You are richer than me’. The account suggested by Stolz
(2013: 55) in which öder as well as the Yiddish cognate ejdǝr seen above are held to correspond to
German eher ‘earlier, rather’ and accordingly to pertain to        SEQUENCE     does not stand the etymological
reconstruction and has to be rejected. In this connection, it is noteworthy to observe that in the 19th
century the particle bedar – corresponding to German weder ‘neither’ – is also found for encoding the
TIE:   ear ist grözor bedar ich ‘he is taller than me’ (cf. SWB, s.v. bedar).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                               310
Gaeta                                            Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


        fanèlla]C        on     [a bi]T [dei pambullina]S.
        flanel           on     as how DEM cotton
        ‘Because it’s cold, I put on a heavier sweater than this of cotton.’


(30) Sauris (Bavarian, West-Germanic; WDS: 127)
        [d]C’ist              [dikh]Q[-ar]D       [assbie]T          [de sele va         pamböle]S.
        DEM=be.3SG            thick-COMP          as.how             DET     that from cotton
        ‘This is heavier than that of cotton.’


(31) Timau (Bavarian, West-Germanic; WDS: 168)
        [Dar peton]C meik hakli                   sain,           ovar nit     [haklig]Q[-ar]D
        DET   cement may frangible be.INF but not frangible-COMP
        [a bia]T         [dar glos]S!
        as how           DET    glass
        ‘The cement can be frangible, but not more frangible than the glass!’


Finally, in Mòcheno as well as in Luserna Cimbrian the particles bos (32) and baz (33)
are respectively found, which correspond to German was ‘what’:


(32) Mòcheno (Bavarian, West-Germanic; WDS: 127)
        ’S         ist          kòlt, alura I                     leig       me      u’ [an
        3N.SG      be.3SG cold then 1.SG.NOM put.1SG 1SG.ACC on DET
        [dick]Q[-er]D-en                jack]C              [bos]T           [der sell   va   bombasch]S.
        thick-COMP-M.SG.ACC jacket(M)                       what             DET   that from cotton
        ‘It’s cold, then I put on a heavier sweater than this of cotton.’


(33) Luserna Cimbrian (Bavarian, West-Germanic; WDS: 168)
        [Dar zemént]C           möse                        lai      prèchan,        ma
        DET   cement            must.SUBJ.PRS.3SG PTC break.INF                      but
        nètt [pell]Q[-ar]D              [baz]T        [’z         glass]S!
        not soon-COMP                   what          DET         glass
        ‘The cement might also break, but not easier than the glass!’




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                                 311
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


4.2 The Walser German area


The label ‘Walser German’ identifies a group of dialects belonging to the Highest
Alemannic branch of Upper German, originally spoken in the most south-western
province of Switzerland, the Wallis ‘the (Rhone) Valley’, whence Wal(li)ser. At the
outset of the last millennium groups of settlers left the Wallis and migrated south-
and eastwards in search of better conditions for life and founded villages on the higher
segments of the alpine valleys characterized by a common architectural landscape,
hallmarked by the Städl, the typical Walser house made of wood and stone (cf. Rizzi
1993). A number of villages were also founded on the south side of the Monte Rosa
massif, in which they were in contact with the local Romance-speaking population
for centuries without losing, however, their relations and contacts with the native
homeland as well as with the southern regions of Germany. Nowadays, the Walser
islands on the Italian territory, which are placed in Aosta Valley and Piedmont (see
fig. 2), are losing their linguistic identity with the last speakers of the Walser German
variety mostly using the other varieties of their repertoire, namely Piedmontese and
Standard Italian as well as French and Franco-Provençal for the varieties spoken in
Aosta Valley, although the process of language shift is not yet completed (cf. Dal
Negro 2004).




                Figure 2: The Walser German islands in Piedmont and Aosta Valley.


In recent years, a number of projects were started to preserve this identity, to collect
data on the Walser German varieties in order to make it available for future
generations as well as for research. Thanks to these projects, the data presented in
this section could be collected into a digital archive and carefully analyzed (cf.
Angster et al. 2017, 2020, Gaeta in press for details).
   Given their position at the southern edge of the Upper German area, Walser
German dialects are traditionally known for their conservative character typical of


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                         312
Gaeta                                   Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


such marginal areas (cf. Bohnenberger 1913, Russ 1990: 367, and Eufe & Mader 2018
for a recent survey). This is for instance reflected in the retention of adjective
agreement in predicative position as well as of distinct classes for weak verbs in neat
contrast to all other dialectal varieties found in Germany and Switzerland (see Gaeta
et al. 2019, Gaeta 2020 and Russ 1990: 383 for a survey). In this connection, however,
one should not forget the role of language contact enhancing for instance the
retention of final unstressed vowels which is a crucial factor for preserving those
morphological traits (cf. Moulton 1941: 39, Zürrer 2011: 105).


4.2.1. CCIs in Walser German


While CCIs are expectedly based on the general semasiological format typical of the
Germanic family summarized in Tab. 2 above, we observe an astonishing variety of
the particles used for encoding the TIE. As for the two villages of Aosta Valley,
Gressoney, which lies across the Swiss border, displays the AS-particle belonging to
the SIMILARITY domain (34) also found in German, while in the near village of Issime
the THEN-particle belonging to the SEQUENCE domain occurs (35):12


(34) Gressoney (Alemannic, West-Germanic; DOK_0441)
        [De Gnid]C éscht [schterch]Q[-or]D         [als]T[ds     Bedure]S
        DET   envy    is    strong-COMP            as     DET    compassion
        ‘The envy is stronger than compassion.’


(35) Issime (Alemannic, West-Germanic; SW: 96)
        [d    sunnu]C ischt gsing [schtoarh]Q[-ur]D [den]T [is]S
        DET   sun     is    been strong-COMP              then      3M.SG
        ‘The sun was stronger than him.’


Note that in Formazza, which is found in Piedmont on the western side of Monte
Rosa, in spite of its distance from Issime the THEN-particle is found, too:




12
     The Walser examples indicated by DOK come from CLiMAlp, a digital archive which is freely
accessible online at the website www.climalp.org (see Angster et al. 2017, 2020, Gaeta et al. 2019).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                        313
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


(36) Formazza (Alemannic, West-Germanic; SW: 94)
      Un     äso der       wén         het   erchent              das [t     sunna]C
      and thus DET wind(M)             has admit.PST.PTCP that DET sun(F)
      éscht [schterch]Q-er]D [de]T [är]S.
      is     strong-COMP         then 3M.SG.S
      ‘And thus the wind admitted that the sun was stronger than itself.’


It must be added that – similarly to what we have seen above for the Zürich variety
of High Alemannic – the AS-particle found in Gressoney should be treated as a
Germanism modeled after the standard variety, because the older particle used for
the TIE is wan, which corresponds to German wann ‘when’ and can be held to pertain
to the SEQUENCE domain:


(37) Gressoney (Alemannic, West-Germanic; Zürrer 1982: 83)
      [d           χue]C         iš [gross]Q[-ur]D [wan]T [ds              χalb]S.
       DET.F.SG    cow(F)        is big-COMP        when      DET.N.SG     calf(N)
      ‘The cow is bigger than the calf.’


In this connection, note that the other Walser island surrounded by Romance varieties
but placed in the Swiss Ticino, namely Bosco Gurin, displays the same WHETHER-
particle shown in (16b) above in Zürich as the older alternative with regard to the
actual AS-particle:


(38) Bosco Gurin (Alemannic, West-Germanic; PALWaM: 41)
      wen-sch      grian-s       fress-en, éscht    [dar          chaaŝch]C [fell [galw]Q-ar]D
      when-3PL green-N.SG eat-3PL be.3SG DET.M.SG                 cheese(M) very yellow-COMP
      [widar]T     wenn      [wenn-sch héww         fress-en]S.
      neither      when      when-3PL hay           eat-3PL
      ‘When (the cows) eat green (grass), the cheese is much yellower than when they
      eat hay.’


In the other Walser villages of Piedmont other ways for encoding the TIE are found,
which come from disparate source morphemes and are partially unprecedented in the
Germanic family. In Alagna (39) and Macugnaga (40) the FROM-particle representative
of the SOURCE domain is found:



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                     314
Gaeta                                      Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


(39) Alagna (Alemannic, West-Germanic; SW: 93)
        Der schturmwind          het    miessä         erchennä [di        ŝchonna]C ŝchi
        DET   storm.wind(M) has must.INF               admit.INF DET sun(F)              3F.SG
        ŝchige             [schterch]Q[-ur]D       [fam]T [ŝchi]S.
        be.SUBJ.3.SG       strong-COMP             from      3F.SG.S
        ‘The heavy gale had to admit that the sun was stronger than itself.’


(40) Macugnaga (Alemannic, West-Germanic; SW: 96)
        Der gruos wind           hetschi        ŝchi      móssó        zeichu,      [t     sunna]C
        DET   big wind(M)        has.3F.SG 3F.SG          must.INF     show.INF DET sun(F)
        hettschi     si       ksid [schterch]Q[-er]D         [fan]T        [ém]S.
        had.3F.SG be.INF been strong-COMP                    from          3M.SG.DAT
        ‘The big wind had to indicate that the sun had been stronger than itself.’


Paralleling the case of Yiddish seen in (17b) above with respect to Slavic, the particle
fan (or van) ‘from, of’ – as well as the particle bon found in Seven Communities
Cimbrian seen in (25) above – is likely to result from contact with the surrounding
Romance varieties, in particular Italian di, Valdotain de, etc. (cf. Stolz 2013: 60).


5. Grammaticalization and the semasiological approach


In the other two Romance languages normally belonging to the Walser speakers’
repertoire, the particle used for expressing the TIE is “an element que/ca that,
synchronically, has a wide range of functions beyond the [CCI] such that it can be
understood as a desemanticized general subordinator” (Stolz 2013: 58). This is true
both for French que and Piedmontese che, but in fact in other Romance varieties this
particle is widely used as an – in several cases obligatory – alternative for encoding
the TIE. For instance, in Italian the situation is quite complex – as also recognized by
Stolz (2013: 142) – and reflects both the employment of di and of che, depending on
the type of STANDARD:


(41) Standard Italian (Romance)


a. [Andare         in bici]C è [più]D       [faticos-o]Q            [che]T / *[di]T        [andare
  go.INF           in bike is more          strenuous-M.SG          that            of     go.INF



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                           315
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


     in moto]S.
     in motorcycle
     ‘Biking is more strenuous than riding a motorcycle.’
b. [La bici]C       è [più]D    [faticos-a]Q           [della]T / (coll.) [che]T        [la
     DET   bike(F) is more      strenuous-F.SG         of.DET              that         DET

     moto]S.
     motorcycle
     ‘A bike is more strenuous than a motorcycle.’


Note that also in the case of a STANDARD consisting of a NP the alternative use of che
is largely possible, although it might sound slightly colloquial to some speakers’ ears.
Moreover, it should be added that also di serves a large variety of functions, while the
SOURCE value      is in fact only possible in sentences like Teo è di Roma ‘Teo is from Rome’
containing a place name which identifies the birth place of the subject, but does not
have a true ablative value: Teo viene da / *di Roma ‘Teo comes from Rome’. On this
basis, one might argue that also di serves as a general desemanticized subordinator
although it introduces a different class of subordinated elements with regard to che.
     This brief discussion shows that, while the question of the desemanticized general
subordinator is marginal for the Germanic family, it raises an important theoretical
question which lies behind Stolz’s (2013: 58) general conclusion that “[m]ost
probably, constructions with que/ca are the closest one can get to the ideal form of a
PARTICLE COMPARATIVE”.       As already hinted at in Section 2.3 above, here is where the
semasiological format is mixed with the onomasiological content. Recall that on the
basis of such a desemanticized subordinator, Stolz identifies an autonomous type of
PARTICLE COMPARATIVE       for encoding the TIE on a par with the other types which are
strictly connected with a specific onomasiological content referring to a basic
cognitive domain. But in fact, the alleged onomasiological content which can be
associated with the autonomous type of PARTICLE COMPARATIVE in the European
languages basically coincides with the que/ca particle found in the Romance
languages.13 Besides a certain circularity in the reasoning, the philosophy adopted in
this paper cannot share Stolz’s conclusion because the semasiological approach
crucially relies on a principled distinction between the form and the content of CCIs,
and no ‘ideal comparative particle’ can be envisaged.

13
     In Stolz’s (2013: 84) sample 22 of the 32 languages belonging to the alleged type of     PARTICLE

COMPARATIVE    belong to the Romance family which on the whole features 44 languages.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                      316
Gaeta                               Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


  Instead, we adopt the vantage point provided by grammaticalization, which allows
us to build a diachronic bridge between the conventionalized forms observed in a
language and their onomasiological source domain. This does not mean, however,
that for any single semasiological format a certain onomasiological source domain
can be directly identified. In fact, particles recruited for encoding parts of a CCI can
result from processes which are not immediately connected to grammaticalization
channels of the type suggested by Heine (1997), i.e. via gradual semantic bleaching
from a well-defined cognitive domain. In fact, they may also result from the
generalization of certain morphemes already grammaticalized in a given language for
certain functions. The functional motivation is similar to what we have already
observed for the Gothic example in (2b) above in which the particle allows to encode
as STANDARD any possible syntactic configuration (NPs, subordinate clauses, etc.).
Especially when the latter is complex, languages can resort to employ general
subordinators in order to overcome the possible structural difficulty and the resulting
syntactic opacity. This is especially the case in languages where such general
subordinators are widespread in a whole range of syntactic contexts like in the
Romance languages. The Italian examples seen in (41) above illustrate pretty well
this state-of-affairs. In this light, it is misleading to adopt a specific type called
PARTICLE COMPARATIVE    on a par with the other onomasiological domains, because the
former identifies cases which result from a different diachronic mechanism than the
latter ones.
  Moreover, among the examples included by Stolz under PARTICLE COMPARATIVE we
should distinguish cases where the original meaning of the particle is “irretrievable
synchronically”, as maintained by Stolz (2013: 80), from cases where we have really
to do with the probable generalization of a desemanticized subordinator. The
Romance languages provide a good example of this second case, to which the
Albanian particle se can be added as the latter displays a rather wide range of
functions and overlaps with that of English that, than, because, since, unless, etc. (Stolz
2013: 80). Their usage for encoding the TIE unveils a different diachronic mechanism
of generalization. For this reason, they might be called generalized subordinators (=
SUB)   in order to express the neat contrast to the other particles which are related to a
full-fledged onomasiological domain via a process of grammaticalization. Notice that
the etymology of these SUB-particles is not obscure at all as they go back respectively
to the Latin pronoun quid and to the Proto-Albanian pronoun *tšiā (cf. Orel 1998, s.v.
se), both going back ultimately to Proto-Indo-European *kuid.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                    317
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


     The case of SUBs where the particle displays a full-fledged variety of functions has
to be kept fully distinct from examples where no clear etymological source can be
identified (yet). These latter examples are better treated with caution, also because
further research might provide the correct account in the future. For instance, in
Breton two different particles are used for encoding the TIE, namely eget and evit, with
the former giving ground to the latter in colloquial registers. While this latter displays
a large variety of usages, including the introduction of the benefactive or of the topic
role as well as of concessive and final clauses, eget is apparently limited only to CCIs.
Accordingly, Stolz (2013: 81) assigns evit to the onomasiological domain of GOAL,
while eget is assigned to the type of PARTICLE COMPARATIVE in the light of its
etymological opacity. But this example is clearly different from the Albanian and
Romance cases discussed above and cannot be considered a SUB-particle. Rather, we
have to conclude that eget defies a precise categorization and requires more research
in the future.14 Thus, the type SUB assumed here does not qualify as a sort of Restklasse,
but points to an important channel for recruiting morphemes used as TIE, which is of
a different nature with regard to grammaticalization.


5.1. The SUB-particle as an alternative to grammaticalization


The relevance of this brief discussion becomes tangible when we consider data coming
from another Germanic variety exposed to a long-standing contact. In particular, in
Pennsylvania German, which results from the migration from the 17th to the 19th
centuries of German settlers coming from the Upper Rhine valley and speaking a
variety of Central Franconian, both the HOW-particle (42a) and the AS-particle are
found (42b):


(42) Pennsylvania German (Palatinate Franconian, West-Germanic; Haldeman 1872:
         36, 54)


a. [Dær            mann]C iss [krank]Q[-ǝr]D       [wie]T [d’r            annǝr]S.
     DEM.M.SG      man      is sick-COMP           how       DET.M.SG     other


14
     One can tentatively group eget with other Breton particles like nemet ‘except’, estreget ‘other than’,
etc. (cf. Press 1986: 117) in a set which reminds us of the EITHER- and WHETHER-particles seen above in
several Germanic varieties and is likely to pertain to CONTRAST. At any rate, this has to be left open for
further research.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                           318
Gaeta                                  Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


  ‘This man is sicker than the other.’
b. Wii kummt        ǝs,        dass dii         jung-i      buuwǝ [selli        meed,
  how come.3SG 3N.SG           that DET.PL young-PL boy.PL that.PL girl.PL
  woo reichi, daadis hen]C,               [liiw]Q[-ǝr]D noochschpringǝ [als]T[dii
  REL     rich.PL dad.PL have.3PL dear-COMP              after.jump.INF as          DET.PL

  aarmi]S?
  poor.PL
  ‘How comes it that the young men sooner run after those girls who have rich fathers
  than the poor ones?’


On the other hand, we also find the generalized usage of a SUB-particle which
corresponds to the German general subordinator dass ‘that’ for encoding the TIE in the
construction of equality (43a) as well as in the CCI (43b):


(43) Pennsylvania German (Palatinate Franconian, West-Germanic; Haldeman 1872:
        38, 42)


a. des    land is aw      [frei]Q [for mich]C [so        goet]D    [das]T       [for dich]S.
  DET     land is also free      for      1SG.ACC so     good      that         for    2SG.ACC
  ‘This country is also free for me as well as for thee.’
b. [wass]C is [schenn]Q[-ǝr]D uf          dǝr   welt     [dass]T [blimlin,          root un
  what       is beautiful-COMP on         DET   world that         flower.DIM       red and
  weiss]S?
  white
  ‘What is finer in the world than flowerets, red and white?’


The contact situation is likely to have favored the expansion of the SUB-particle –
which is unprecedented in the Germanic family for encoding the TIE – to the expense
of the canonical particles found in the original Rhenish varieties. Thus, far from
concluding that “the PARTICLE COMPARATIVE is mostly a Romance phenomenon with the
occasional parallel in several other phyla” as maintained by Stolz (2013: 87), the
development of SUB-particles illustrates an important diachronic mechanism of
generalization of multifunctional particles which can be recruited for serving as TIE,
namely as an analytic marker for introducing complex syntactic structures employed
as STANDARD. A similar account can also be suggested for the usage of the WHAT-



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                       319
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


particles in Mòcheno and Cimbrian seen in (32) above, because they are a calque
based on the Italian multifunctional particle che which is used – besides as a TIE, see
(41) above – also as interrogative pronoun, similarly to German was. Thus, both
Mòcheno bos and Cimbrian baz are good examples of SUB-particles. On the same track,
one can also interpret the particles fan and bon found respectively in
Alagna/Macugnaga Walser German and Seven Communities Cimbrian as reflecting
SUB-particles        calqued on the Italian multifunctional particle di.
   Finally, this distinction leads us to our last example drawn from the Walser
communities, namely the particle ŝchu [ʒu] for the TIE used in the Piedmontese village
of Rimella, which stands alone throughout the whole Germanic family:


(44) Rimella (Alemannic, West-Germanic; SW: 97)
        Un der              chalte       vend          het    messu      erchannju das [d
        and DET.M.SG cold.M.SG wind(M)                 has must.INF      admit.INF that DET.F.SG
        ŝchunna]C isch gŝchid                   [mis]D [schtarch-e]Q           [ŝchu]T [ier]S.
        sun(F)         is     be.PST.PTCP       more      strong-F.SG          so          3M.SG
        ‘And the cold wind had to admit that the sun was stronger than itself.’


The particle ŝchu corresponds to the German adverb so ‘so’ and can be related to the
onomasiological domain pertaining to SEQUENCE or SIMILARITY. Note that ŝchu is also
employed for introducing the protasis of a conditional sentence (45a), a concessive
sentence in combination with another conjunction (45b) and an interrogative
sentence (45c):


(45) Rimella (Alemannic, West-Germanic; WDS: 39, 55, 97)


a. Ŝchu ŝchei          wistet              nid    ŝchiéh-e,        der              Dŝchwànd
   so        3F.SG     be.SUBJ.PST.3SG not sick-F.SG               DET.M.SG         John
   tiéttet                    schpìlju     bet         ŝchi        wattà.
   do.SUBJ.PST.3SG            play         with        his.F.SG    sister(F)
   ‘If she were not sick John would play with his sister.’
b. Tiög        z wasschu         d         tallerà vàm dum                     Luis,
   do.IMP to wash.INF DET.PL dish.PL of                       DET.M.SG.DAT     Luis
   öich ŝchu hét                 dschà          gwascht            gaschter.
   also so           have.3SG already           wash.PST.PTCP      yesterday



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                       320
Gaeta                                               Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


       ‘Let Luis wash the dishes, even if he has already washed them yesterday.’
c. Pì            nid      ŝcheccher ŝchu ìsch               en       donder: matte                ŝchi         e       ruvenu.
       be.1SG not sure                  so         be.3SG DET thunder might be.INF DET landslide
       ‘I am not sure whether it is a thunder: it might be a landslide.’


The usage of so in these three contexts is already found in Middle High German where
it competes with other possible subordinators.15 From this point of view, the variety
of usages observed in Rimella might also speak in favor of an analysis in terms of a
general subordinator, in which ŝchu is extended as a SUB-particle to the role of a TIE.
This interpretation in terms of a SUB-particle might also be further supported by the
parallel range of usages shared by ŝchu with the Italian multifunctional particle se ‘if,
whether’, although they are not etymologically connected to each other nor does the
Italian particle serve as TIE. Such an influence can be held to play a role on the vitality
of this generalized usage of ŝchu because it is also found in other Walser German
varieties as well, for instance in Gressoney, where the protasis (46a), the concessive
(46b) and the interrogative value (46c) of so are also found:


(46) Gressoney (Alemannic, West-Germanic; DOK_0088, DOK_0002, DOK_0013)


a. etza kammo desche ässe                          so eschmo
       now can.one this.PL eat.INF so be.3SG.one



15
     Besides a temporal value (i) corresponding to German als, we also record a modal similative value
(ii) corresponding to German wie, and a conditional value (iii) corresponding to German wenn:


Middle High German (West-Germanic; Paul 2007: 415, 425, 415)
(i)      sô si              gedâht’                an    Helchen, daz         tet                 ir           inneclîche       wê
         so 3SG.F.NOM       think.PST.3SG          at    Helchen, this        do.PST.3SG          3SG.F.DAT internal.F.SG pain
         ‘When she thought of Helchen, this hurt her innerly.’
(ii)     jâ      huoten        si            ir          êren,             sô noch          die        liute           tuont
         yes     protect.3PL 3PL.NOM         POSS.3      honor.ACC         so still         DET        people          do.3PL
         ‘Yet they defend their honor, like people still do.’
(iii)    dû          kindest                 al der               werlte      fröide        mêren,             sô dû            ez
         2SG.NOM can.SUBJ.PST.2SG            all   DET.F.SG.DAT   world(F) joy              increase.INF so 2SG.NOM 3N.SG
         ze guoten             dingen                    woltes                     kêren
         to good.N.PL.DAT      thing(N).PL.DAT           want.SUBJ.PST.2SG return.INF
         ‘You could increase the joy in the whole world, if you would turn it into a good thing.’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                                                     321
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


   enema               Jägerchs-Hus                   engladenz
   DET.N.SG.DAT        hunter.GEN-house(N) invite.PST.PTCP.N.SG
   ‘Nowadays one can eat these (things) when one is invited into one hunter’s house.’
b. Fer     d’oalto          litté,     ou      sò sinn       fell         joar     vorbi kanget,
   for     DET=old.PL       people also so be.3PL much.PL                 year.PL over go.PST.PTCP
   éscht     das no         ni       ònder     d’erennròng          uskanget
   BE.3SG    that yet       not under DET=memory go.out.PST.PTCP
   ‘For the old people, even if many years have passed, this has not yet gone out of
   their memory.’
c. Hein         éntsch gfregt                  so     hätteber              chònnò
   have.3PL 1PL.ACC ask.PST.PTCP so                   have.SBJ.PST.1PL      can.INF
   eppés     séege     vòn Greschòney
   INDEF     say.INF of          Gressoney
   ‘They asked us whether we could tell something about Gressoney.’


Thus, while the usage of ŝchu as particle for the TIE is only found in Rimella, its
multifunctionality might also be interpreted in terms of a SUB-particle, whose
generalized use found also outside Rimella is likely to have been favored by contact.


5.2 Analytic coding and morphological complexity


The variety of Rimella is also peculiar because it expresses the DEGREE by means of an
analytic particle as shown by the example (44) above, which does not normally occur
in the other Walser German varieties, although sporadic exceptions are found, for
instance in the following example from Alagna:


(47) Alagna (Alemannic, West-Germanic; WDS: 127)
      Denn           erfriärd          lekki          mich          [as          triku]C [mei]D
      because        freeze.3SG        put.1SG        1SG.ACC       DET.N.SG     shirt(N) more
      [schweir-s]Q [van]T              [d’          bowolins]S.
      heavy-N.SG       of              DEM          cotton.GEN
      ‘Because it’s cold, I will put on a heavier sweater than this of cotton.’


However, the synthetic encoding of the DEGREE generally remains quite stable
throughout the Walser German islands, while only Rimella clearly testifies of a



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                         322
Gaeta                                    Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


reduction of morphological complexity in favor of analytic coding. As we have seen
in Section 4.1 above, this holds partially true for the Bavarian linguistic islands found
in the North-East of Italy, with remarkable exceptions found in Mòcheno (24) as well
as in Seven Communities Cimbrian (25) and in Thirteen Communities Cimbrian (26).
  On the other hand, the reduction of morphological complexity is also observed
with regard to the inflectional properties of the adjectives used for expressing the
QUALITY.   In this regard, in Section 4.2 I observed that Walser German varieties – in
neat contrast to most Germanic varieties – preserve the subject agreement of the
adjectives in the predicative position, besides the attributive position found in
German and its varieties (cf. Fleischer 2007, Gaeta 2018, 2020). This is shown by the
following examples from Gressoney:


(48) Gressoney (Alemannic, West-Germanic; DOK_0348, DOK_0192)


a. d’gròss-ò            lougò           ésch      gwäschn-e                 kanget
  DET=big-F.SG          laundry(F)      be.3SG wash.PST.PTCP-F.SG           go.PST.PTCP
  ‘The big laundry has been washed.’
b. D’schuelstòbo                éscht   gròss-e      gsid            mé        drie      fäntschtre
  DET=school.room(F)            be.3SG big-F.SG      be.PST.PTCP     with      three     window.PL
  òn    en     steinenen          ofe
  and DET stony.M.SG              oven(M)
  ‘The classroom was big, with three windows and one stone stove.’


However, the adjective agreement in the comparative is only found in the attributive
position (49a), while in the predicative position the uninflected form is found (49b),
as in the other Walser German varieties seen in (34), (38) and (39) above:


(49) Gressoney (Alemannic, West-Germanic; DOK_0424, DOK_0296)


a. Z’gébiet    vòn den Éndre              hät           sotte no     gròss-or-é
  DET=area     of       DET     Éndre     have.3SG so         still big-COMP-F.SG
  wéerdé       kriegt             fer   alpinismus      òn    skisport
  value(F)     get.PST.PTCP for         alpinism        and ski.sport
  ‘The area of the Éndre has acquired in this way an even bigger value for alpinism
  and skiing.’



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                          323
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


b. chant        d’flammò           en bétz gròss-òr         si
   can.3SG      DET=flame(F)       a little big-COMP be.INF
   ‘The flame can be a little bigger.’


Thus, when it occurs in the more complex predicative position the comparative form
of the adjective follows the trend observed in German and in the other Germanic
varieties, which consists in reducing the morphological complexity of inflection. Note
in this case the contrast with the surrounding Romance varieties where adjective
agreement is well preserved – see the Italian examples in (41) above, where the
comparative form relies on an analytic particle. That the analytic construction can
have an effect on the adjective agreement is shown by the cases of Rimella and Alagna
in (44a) and (47) above where analytic comparatives are found which display
agreement, similarly to the Italian examples. In this light, it is straightforward to
conclude that the morphological complexity of the synthetic comparative militates
against the occurrence of agreement in the more complex predicative position with
regard to what happens in the attributive position.


5.3 A diachronic outlook


The impressive variety found in the German villages of Northern Italy substantially
enriches Stolz’s (2013) picture and is arguably due to the complex contact situation
in which any direct connection with the German-speaking home country was
substantially interrupted in the last 150 years. Thus, we could identify the influence
of the German standard variety only in sporadic cases – namely in Gressoney, where
direct contacts with the German-speaking territory are well attested also after Italy’s
unification (cf. Zürrer 2009). Note that this richness also characterizes other contact-
involving varieties, from Pennsylvania German to Yiddish.
   In this light, it is interesting to observe that the variety found in Continental
Germanic – and preserved if not further expanded in the isolated varieties – closely
mirrors the manifold options which are witnessed throughout its linguistic history.
While for the other two branches of Germanic the diachronic development is linear
and basically testifies of the diffusion of the analytic particles already present as an
alternative to dative case-marking for encoding the TIE in the older stages, namely
THAN   and BUT respectively for North-Sea Germanic and North-Germanic, this was not




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                        324
Gaeta                                      Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


the case for Continental Germanic. The initial Old High German stage paralleled the
corresponding THAN-particle for the TIE found in the rest of the West-Germanic branch:


(50) Old High German (West-Germanic; Schrodt 2004: 155)
        [thu]C        mo            [liab]Q[-ar]D-a       bist        [thanne]T [al          gifugiles]S
        2SG.NOM       3M.SG.DAT dear-COMP-M.SG            be.2SG than                 all    fowl.GEN
        ‘He likes you more than all fowl.’


Thereafter, the range of particles used for the TIE increased dramatically in
dependence on grammatical (e.g., the type of STANDARD) and extra-grammatical
(among others: diatopic) factors. In Middle High German, besides danne we record
also wan:


(51) Middle High German (West-Germanic; DWB, s.v. wann1)
        [daʒ]C        ist      [beʒʒer]Q+D [wan]T            [aller            creatûren        werc]S
        this.N.SG     be.3SG better             when         all.GEN.PL creature.PL             work
        ‘This is better than every creature’s work.’


Later – from the second half of the 16th century on – als (52a) is firstly found,
subsequently weder (52b), and wie (52c), also in the combination als wie (52d):


(52) Early New High German (West-Germanic; Ebert et al. 1993: 480, DWB, s.v.
        weder, wie)


a. dz            es         vnmoglich das [er]C           [hoch]Q[-er]D ader [mehr]D
  this.N.SG      be.3SG impossible that 3M.SG             high-COMP            or     more
  moge                      geheilget              werdē ...          [als]T        [er      gereit
  may.SUBJ.PRS.3SG sanctify.PST.PTCP               become.INF as                    3M.SG    already
  geheiliget                ist]S
  sanctify.PST.PTCP         be.3SG
  ‘It is impossible that he might be sanctified in a more and more elevated way than
  he is already sanctified.’


b. darumb        das [es]C          [wolgeschmack]Q[-ter]D
  therefore that 3N.SG              well.taste.PST.PTCP-COMP



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                               325
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


   were                [weder]T        [ander fleisch]S
   be.SBJ.PST.3SG      neither         other    meat(N)
   ‘For the reason that it was more tasteful than other meat.’
c. [mer]D [daran          verbrechen]C [wie]T          [gutt machen]S
   more      therein      break.INF       how          good make.INF
   ‘to commit a crime therein more than to do good.’
d. es        kan          [keiner]C       [frömm]Q[-er]D seyn,
   3N.SG     can.3SG      none(M)         pious-COMP        be.INF
   [als wie]T      [es       jhme         gott zugemessen]S
    as    how      3N.SG     3M.SG        God allot.PST.PTCP
   ‘Nobody can be more pious than God has allotted him to be.’


This diversity appears to be only partially reflected in the actual situation found in
the German-speaking territory where the AS-/HOW-divide is still observed, while it
clearly strikes the observer when linguistic islands – as well as other contact-involving
varieties – are considered.


6. Conclusion


The semasiological approach adopted in this paper has proved substantially useful in
characterizing the general format of the CCIs in the Germanic family and in delimiting
the possible onomasiological domains filling the format. As for the semasiological
side, we could pinpoint two loci of variation, namely the analytic coding of the TIE
and of the DEGREE. Especially the TIE qualifies as the main point of variation with
regard to the range of possible onomasiological domains providing the source
morphemes. The latter are well-distributed across the main branches of the Germanic
family in a rather consistent way. A remarkable exception is constituted by
Continental Germanic which deviates from this neat picture because it offers a certain
number of possible alternatives for the TIE, which is even larger when varieties
exposed to language contact are taken into consideration. Note that in the latter case
we could also identify cases of the TIE belonging to the type SUB, i.e. resulting from
the generalization of multifunctional subordinators.
   We can summarize the types collected in the German minorities of Italy as follows:




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                         326
Gaeta                                  Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


                      SemForm = ENT1C COP PROPQ-SUFFD PARTT ENT2S
        SemElem     Dialect branch                OnomCont

        TIE         Bavarian:    Cimbrian         PARTT: SOURCE/SUB (bon), SEQUENCE (mun,
                                                  dan),   SIMILARITY     (alz),   CONTRAST   (ödar),
                                                  SUB   (baz)
                                 Mòcheno          PARTT: SIMILARITY (as, abia), SUB (bos)
                                 Sappada          PARTT: SIMILARITY (a bi)
                                 Sauris           PARTT: SIMILARITY (assbie)
                                 Timau            PARTT: SIMILARITY (a bia)
                    Alemannic: Gressoney          PARTT: SIMILARITY (als), SEQUENCE (wan)
                                 Bosco Gurin      PARTT: CONTRAST (widar)
                          Issime, Formazza        PARTT: SEQUENCE (dén, de)
                          Alagna, Macugnaga       PARTT: SOURCE/SUB (fan)
                                 Rimella          PARTT: SIMILARITY/SUB (ŝchu)
        DEGREE      Bavarian: Cimbrian,           PARTD:        (MORE)      when      PROPQ       is
                                 Mòcheno          [polysyllabic], [converted], [– native]
                    Alemannic: Rimella, Alagna    PARTD: (MORE)


              Table 3: The overall typology of CCIs in the German minorities of Italy.


This manifold picture witnesses of the high complexity of these varieties which have
to be seriously taken into consideration when carrying out typological investigations
and particularly areal typology. In this regard, the mixture of isolation and contact
seems to enhance variation which partially exploits models occurring in the
diachronic development of a language sub-family, and partially elaborates interesting
new patterns calquing models present in the speakers’ repertoire.



Acknowledgements


This paper grew out from a number of research projects funded in the last years, and,
in particular, the project CLiMAlp (2020-23) supported by the Italian Ministry of
University (MIUR) and accessible at the following site: www.climalp.org. I am deeply
indebted with all the collaborators in the project for help and support, as well as
Adriano Murelli and two anonymous reviewers for observations and remarks.
Remaining mistakes are mine.


Abbreviations


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                           327
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332




 ACC   = accusative                GEN   = genitive              POSS   = possessive
 C=COMPAREE                        INDEF   = indefinite          PREF=     prefix
 CLF   = classifier                INF   = infinitive            PROP=     property
 COMP    = comparative             IMP   = imperative            PS   = person
 COMPL    = completive             LE   = linking element        PTC    = particle
 COP   = copula                    LOC   = locative              PTCP   = participle
 D=    degree                      M    = masculine              Q   = quality
 DAT   = dative                    N   = neuter                  REL   = relative
 DEM   = demonstrative             NEG   = negation              S   = standard
 DET   = determiner                NMLZ    = nominalizer         SBJ   = subjunctive
 DIM   = diminutive                NOM    = nominative           SG   = singular
 ENT=    entity                    PART=    particle             SUFF   = suffix
 EXIST   = existential             PL   = plural                 T=TIE

 F   = feminine                    PRS   = present
 FOC   = focus                     PST   = past


References


Angster, Marco & Bellante, Marco & Cioffi, Raffaele & Gaeta, Livio. 2017. I progetti
     DiWaC e ArchiWals. In Livio Gaeta (ed.), Le isole linguistiche tedescofone in Italia:
     situazione attuale e prospettive future (Workshop, Torino, 24 febbraio 2017). Special
     issue of Bollettino dell’Atlante Linguistico Italiano 41. 83-94.
Angster, Marco & Cioffi, Raffaele & Bellante, Marco & Gaeta, Livio. 2020. Corpora e
     varietà minoritarie: le isole walser in Italia. Rivista Italiana di Dialettologia 44. 107-
     125.
Burt, F. 1910. Swahili Grammar and Vocabulary. London: Society for Promoting
     Christian Knowledge.
Bidese, Ermenegildo. 2008. Die diachronische Syntax des Zimbrischen. Tübingen: Narr.
Bidese, Ermenegildo Bidese. (eds.) 2010. Il cimbro negli studi di linguistica. Padova:
     Unipress.
Bidese, Ermenegildo & Cognola, Federica. (eds.) 2013. Introduzione alla linguistica del
     mòcheno. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier.
Bidese, Ermenegildo, Dow, James R. & Stolz, Thomas (eds.). 2005. Das Zimbrische
     zwischen Germanisch und Romanisch. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Bergmann, Gunter. 1990. Upper Saxon. In Charles V. J. Russ (ed.), The Dialects of
     Modern German, 290-312. London: Routledge.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                               328
Gaeta                               Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


Bohnenberger, Karl. 1913. Die Mundart der deutschen Walliser im Heimattal und in den
  Außenorten. Frauenfeld: Huber.
Braune, Wilhelm. 2004. Gotische Grammatik. 20th edn. by Frank Heidermanns.
  Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Brauner, Siegmund & Bantu, Joseph K. 1964. Lehrbuch des Swahili. Leipzig:
  Enzyklopädie-Verlag.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge
  University Press.
Dal Negro, Silvia. 2004. The Decay of a Language. Bern: Lang.
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2012. Basic Linguistic Theory 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University
  Press.
Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993. A grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
DUDEN = Duden. Die Grammatik, 8th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
Durrell, Martin. 1990. North Central Westphalian. In. Charles V. J Russ (ed.), The
  Dialects of Modern German, 59-90. London: Routledge.
Durrell, Martin & Davies, Winifred V. 1990. Hessian. In Charles V. J. Russ (ed.), The
  Dialects of Modern German, 210-240. London: Routledge.
DWB = Grimm, Jacob & Grimm, Wilhelm. 1854-1961. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Leipzig:
  Hirzel.
Ebert, Robert P. & Reichmann, Oskar & Solms, Hans-Joachim & Wegera, Klaus-Petera.
  1993. Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Eufe, Rembert & Mader, Anna. 2018. Das Walserdeutsche im deutschen und
  italienischen Sprachgebiet. In Nicole Eller-Wildfeuer & Paul Rössler & Alfred
  Wildfeuer (eds.), Alpindeutsch, 113-138. Regensburg: vulpes.
Fleischer, Jürg. 2007. Zur Herkunft des flektierten prädikativen Adjektivs im
  Höchstalemannischen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 74. 196-240.
Freimann, Annick & Lemal, Carine & Simon, Isabelle & Lulling, Jérôme & Sgiarovello,
  Alain. Lëtzebuergesch léiere mat MP3 (https://www.vdl.lu).
Gaeta, Livio. 2013. Existential constructions: a semasiological perspective. In Elly van
  Gelderen & Michela Cennamo & Jóhanna Barðdal (eds.), Argument Structure in flux:
  the Naples/Capri Papers, 477-510. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gaeta, Livio. 2018. Im Passiv sprechen in den Alpen. Sprachwissenschaft 43. 221-250.
Gaeta, Livio. 2020. Remotivating inflectional classes: An unexpected effect of
  grammaticalization. In Bridget Drinka (ed.), Historical Linguistics 2017. Selected



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                    329
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


   papers from the 23rd International Conference on Historical Linguistics, San Antonio,
   Texas, 31 July – 4 August 2017, 205-227. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gaeta, Livio. In press. The Observer’s Paradox meets Corpus Linguistics: Written and
   oral sources for the Walser linguistic islands in Italy. In Genesin, Monica, Hempel,
   Gerhard & Kahl, Thede (eds.), Endangered linguistic varieties and minorities in Italy
   and the Balkans. Vienna: VLACH.
Gaeta, Livio & Bellante, Marco & Cioffi, Raffaele & Angster, Marco. 2019.
   Conservazione e innovazione nelle varietà walser: i progetti DiWaC e ArchiWals.
   In Rosselli Del Turco, Roberto (ed.), Dall’indoeuropeo al germanico: problemi di
   linguistica storica, 141-193. Alessandria: dell’Orso.
Goltz, Reinhard H. & Walker, Alastair G. H. 1990. North Saxon. In Charles V. J. Russ
   (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German, 31-58. London: Routledge.
Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glynn, Dylan. 2015. Semasiology and onomasiology. In Jocelyne Daems & Eline
   Zenner & Kris Heylen & Dirk Speelman & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Change of
   Paradigms – New Paradoxes. Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics. Berlin &
   Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 47-79.
Green, W. A. I. 1990. The Dialects of the Palatinate (Das Pfälzische). In Charles V. J.
   Russ (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German, 241-264. London: Routledge.
Haldeman, S. S. 1872. Pennsylvania Dutch. London: Trübner.
Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University
   Press.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University
   Press.
Helbig, Gerhard & Buscha, Joachim. 1991. Deutsche Grammatik. Leipzig:
   Langenscheidt.
Hopper, Paul J. 1975. The syntax of the simple sentence in Proto-Germanic. The Hague:
   Mouton.
Jacobs, Neil G. 2005. Yiddish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kranzmayer, Eberhard. 1981. Laut- und Flexionslehre der deutschen zimbrischen
   Mundart. Ed. by Maria Hornung. Vienna: VWGÖ.
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1975. A Grammar of Proto-Germanic. University of Texas at
   Austin:                     Linguistics                  Research            Center.
   (https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/lrc/resources/books/pgmc/)




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                        330
Gaeta                               Comparative constructions across the German minorities of Italy


Maitz, Péter & Lindenfelser, Siegwalt & Volker, Craig A. In press. Unserdeutsch
  (Rabaul Creole German), Papua New Guinea. In Hans C. Boas & Deumert, Ana
  Deumert & Mark L. Louden & Péter Maitz (eds.), Varieties of German Worldwide.
  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malherbe, Michel & Cheikh, Sall. 1989. Parlons Wolof. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Moulton, William G. 1941. Swiss German Dialect and Romance Patois. (Yale University
  Diss. Supplement to Language 17). Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.
Orel, Vladimir. 1998. Albanian Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill.
PALWaM = Antonietti, Federica & Valenti, Monica & Angster, Marco (eds.). 2015.
  Piccolo Atlante Linguistico dei Walser Meridionali. Aosta: Tipografia Valdostana.
Paul, Hermann. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 25th edn. by Thomas Klein &
  Hans-Joachim Solms & Klaus-Petera Wegera & Prell, Heinz-Peter Prell. Tübingen:
  Niemeyer.
Philipp, Marthe & Bothorel-Witz, Arlette. 1990. Low Alemannic. In Charles V. J. Russ
  (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German, 313-336. London: Routledge.
Press, Ian. 1986. A Grammar of Modern Breton. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Philipp, Marthe & Bothorel-Witz, Arlette. 1990. Low Alemannic. In Charles V. J. Russ
  (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German, 313-336. London: Routledge.
Postma, Gertjan. 2019. A Contrastive Grammar of Brazilian Pomeranian. Amsterdam &
  Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Reese, Johannes. 2007. Swiss German. München: Lincom.
Rizzi, Enrico. 1993. Storia dei Walser. Anzola d’Ossola (Novara): Fondazione Arch.
  Enrico Monti.
Rowley, Anthony R. 2010. Deskriptive Grammatik des Deutsch-Fersentalerischen
  (Mòcheno). Frankfurt/Main: Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg.
Russ, Charles V. J. 1990. Swabian. High Alemannic. In Charles V. J. Russ (ed.), The
  Dialects of Modern German, 337-393. London: Routledge.
Slaviero, Girardo. [1760] 1991. Grammatica della lingua tedesca dei VII Comuni. Giazza:
  Taucias Garëida.
Schönfeld, Helmut. 1990. East Low German. In Charles V. J. Russ (ed.), The Dialects
  of Modern German, 91-135. London: Routledge.
Schrodt, Richard. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik II. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Spangenberg, Karl. 1990. Thuringian. In Charles V. J. Russ (ed.), The Dialects of
  Modern German, 265-289. London: Routledge.
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                                    331
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 288-332


Šticha, František. 2011. Der kommunikative und der systembezogene Status
   grammatischer Phänomene mit niedriger Häufigkeit. In Marek Konopka &
   Jacqueline Kubczak & Christian Mair & František Štícha & Ulrich Hermann Waßner
   (eds.), Grammatik und Korpora. Dritte Internationale Konferenz. Mannheim, 22.-
   24.9.2009, 473-484. Tübingen: Narr.
Stolz, Thomas. 2013. Competing Comparative Constructions in Europe. Berlin:
   Akademie-Verlag.
SW = Antonietti, Federica (ed.). 2010. Scrivere tra i Walser. Borgomanero: Litopress.
SWB = Schmeller, Johann A. 1855. Cimbrisches Wörterbuch. Vienna: Hof- und
   Staatsdruckerei. [Ed. by Guus Kroonen. Copenhagen University, 2012]
Tiersma, Pieter. M. 1999. Frisian Reference Grammar. Ljouwert: Fryske Akademy.
Tosco, Mauro. 2001. The Dhaasanac language. Köln: Köppe.
Tyroller, Hans. 2003. Grammatische Beschreibung des Zimbrischen in Lusern. Stuttgart:
   Steiner.
Wiesinger, Peter. 1990. The Central and Southern Bavarian Dialects in Bavaria and
   Austria. In Charles V. J. Russ (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German, 438-519.
   London: Routledge.
WDS = Geyer, Ingeborg & Marco Angster & Marcella Benedetti. 2014. Wortschatz aus
   den deutschen Sprachinseln in Italien. Bozen: Athesia.
WL = Ronco Hantsch, Imelda. 1993. Willischt leesen? Kuntjini van Esopo gchierti in
   töitschu. Issime.
Zürrer, Peter. 1982. Wörterbuch der Mundart von Gressoney: Mit einer Einführung in die
   Sprachsituation und einem grammatischen Abriss. Frauenfeld: Huber.
Zürrer, Peter. 2009. Sprachkontakt in Walser Dialekten: Gressoney und Issime im
   Aostatal. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Zürrer, Peter. 2011. Conservazione e mutamento nei dialetti walser in Italia. In Walter
   Breu (ed.), L’influsso dell’italiano sul sistema del verbo nelle lingue minoritarie, 101-
   121. Bochum: Brockmeyer.



CONTACT
livio.gaeta@unito.it




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13416                                            332
