This paper provides a first description of comparative constructions in Suansu, an unreported Tibeto-Burman language spoken in northeastern India, and frames the characteristics of Suansu comparative constructions from a typological perspective (following Stassen’s 1985 classification). To this purpose, comparative constructions from a sample of 28 Tibeto-Burman languages of the area are collected in an ad-hoc designed database and typologically discussed. Results reveal the presence of two main types that cluster geographically in the region, as well as high internal variation with respect to the subtypes. Based on the classification, Suansu is assigned to the Exceed comparative type, the only representative of this type in the sample.

2021-10-11 – Editor's Note
In agreement with the Author, the Editors have temporarily retracted the article “Comparative constructions in Suansu and the languages of northeastern India”. After publication of the article, well-founded concerns were brought to the attention of the Editors regarding the reliability of some of the cited published sources and, consequently, regarding the representation of some of the data presented. The Editors requested the author to correct these data accordingly. An amended version of the article will be published in a subsequent issue of the journal after a new round of revision. The temporarily retracted article must not be quoted.
2022-04-14 – Editor's Note
A revised version of this paper has been published in vol. 2, no. 1 (2022). It is available here: https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/14379
application/pdf
2785-0943
13429
1
en
Jessica Ivani
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
language documentation
Comparative constructions in Suansu and the languages of northeastern India [Not quotable]
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
1
Research articles
2021-08-31
2021-08-07
2021-08-31
2022-04-15
94-123
LTC
Jessica Ivani
2021/08/31
94
University of Zürich
2785-0943
1
language documentation
en
123
<p>Wright, Jonathan Michael. 2009. <em>Hkongso grammar sketch</em>. PhD dissertation, Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics.</p>
Comparative constructions in Suansu and the languages of northeastern India [Not quotable]
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/13429/13065
1
                 E
                          Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




               BL
      TA
        Comparative constructions in Suansu and the languages of
     O                                northeastern India
 U
 Q

                                             JESSICA K. IVANI1
T


                                         1
                                             UNIVERSITY OF ZÜRICH
 O
N




                         Submitted: 16/11/2020       Revised version: 05/05/2021
                           Accepted: 10/05/2021         Published: 31/08/2021




                                                  Abstract
     This paper provides a first description of comparative constructions in Suansu, an unreported
     Tibeto-Burman language spoken in northeastern India, and frames the characteristics of
     Suansu comparative constructions from a typological perspective (following Stassen’s 1985
     classification). To this purpose, comparative constructions from a sample of 28 Tibeto-
     Burman languages of the area are collected in an ad-hoc designed database and typologically
     discussed. Results reveal the presence of two main types that cluster geographically in the
     region, as well as high internal variation with respect to the subtypes. Based on the
     classification, Suansu is assigned to the Exceed comparative type, the only representative of
     this type in the sample.


     Keywords: Suansu; Tibeto-Burman; typology; comparative constructions; language
     documentation.



     1. Introduction


     Comparison can be defined as a “mental act where two elements occupy a symmetric
     or asymmetric position on a specific property predicative scale” (Treis 2018: I): this
     mental act is linguistically encoded by comparison constructions. Several types of
     comparison structures have been distinguished in the literature. Based on the
                                                                                                     E
                                                                                              BL



     subdivision proposed by Fuchs (2014) and implemented in Treis (2018), this study
     focusses on comparison of inequality, and specifically on comparison of relative
                                                                                        TA




     superiority. The default template for constructions of relative superiority (hence,
                                                                                     O
                                                                                     U
                                                                                     Q
                                                                               T




                                                                                               94
                                                                           O
                                                                       N
                 E
     Ivani                                                         Comparative constructions in Suansu




               BL
      TA
     comparative constructions) is exemplified by structures such as X is bigger than Y or X
     is more intelligent than Y.
     O  The linguistic literature has proposed several terms to define the elements of
 U
     prototypical comparative constructions. The terminology adopted in this study relies
 Q

     on Treis (2018: I), where the following elements are distinguished:            COMPAREE     (the
T
 O



     entity being compared: X);     STANDARD   (what the compared is being compared to: Y);
N




     standard marker (grammatical function of the standard: than);                PARAMETER      (the
     property of comparison: big, intelligent);   DEGREE   (the degree of presence of a property
     in the comparee: -er, more).
        This aim of the present study is two-fold. Firstly, to describe the comparative
     constructions in Suansu, an undescribed and unreported Tibeto-Burman language
     from northeastern India. The second objective is to explore the structural variation of
     comparative constructions of other 27 Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in the same
     area, to frame their typology, and outline the geographical distribution of the
     identified types.
        The paper is structured as follows. Section 1.1. summarizes and discusses the
     classification of comparative constructions outlined in Stassen (1985), that is the
     typology adopted in this study. In Section 2, I briefly introduce Suansu language, and
     report a first profile of Suansu comparative constructions (2.1.). The second part of
     the study (Section 3) is dedicated to the description of comparative constructions
     across 27 Tibeto-Burman languages spoken in northeastern India. In Section 3.1., the
     methodological approach used for the cross-linguistic data exploration and the
     database design are briefly illustrated. Section 3.2. describes the expression of
     comparative constructions in the Tibeto-Burman sample. Section 4 discusses the types
     attested in the area, and Suansu comparative constructions are included in the
     typology. The paper concludes (Section 5) with a summary of the typological findings
     and sets the ground for further typological research on the topic.


     1.1. Background

     There is broad and rich literature available on the expression of comparative
                                                                                                         E


     constructions, from theoretical approaches to language specific overviews, as well as
                                                                                                  BL




     typological research. Typological classifications of comparative constructions have a
                                                                                           TA




     long tradition and include the works of Ultan (1972), Heine (1997), Stassen (1985),
                                                                                       O




     and Dixon (2008), among others (see Stolz 2013 & Treis 2018 for a review).
                                                                                    U
                                                                                Q
                                                                           T




                                                                                                   95
                                                                        O
                                                                    N
                 E
                           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




               BL
      TA
       The present study follows the typology of comparative constructions outlined by
     Stassen (1985), with additional input from Stolz (2013). The types identified in
     O
     Stassen’s typology are summarized in Table 1.
 U
 Q

      Taxonomy                               Types
T
 O



      Fixed-case comparatives                a) Exceed
N




                                             b) Adverbial
                                                      •    Allative
                                                      •    Locational
                                                      •    Separative
      Derived-case comparatives              a) Conjoined
                                             b) Particle


                                  Table 1: Taxonomy of Stassen’s typology.


     Stassen’s typology (as well as several other classifications, e.g., Dixon 2008) is mostly
     grounded on the etymological and semantic properties of the constructions found on
     the standard of comparison. Based on these properties, Stassen distinguishes between
     two main types: derived-case and fixed-case comparatives, with the main criterion
     behind the partition being whether the case of the standard is dependent or
     independent from the comparee.
       Within the fixed-case comparatives, Stassen differentiates further in Exceed and
     Adverbial comparatives (the latter relabeled Locational in Stassen 2013). Derived-
     case comparatives include Conjoined and Particle comparatives subtypes.
       Exceed comparatives are characterized by the presence of a transitive verb with
     the meaning of ‘exceed’ and ‘surpass’, with the comparee and the standard of
     comparison being the subject and the object, respectively. Conjoined comparatives,
     on the other hand, are formed by two independent clauses, one containing the
     comparee and the other the standard, with the parameter present in both clauses; the
     clauses are in adversative relation.
       Most     of   the    languages      identified      in   this    study    fall   into   Stassen’s
     Adverbial/Locational (henceforth, Adverbial) and Particle types. The Adverbial
                                                                                                           E


     comparative type includes three subtypes: the Separative comparative (Stassen 1985:
                                                                                                    BL




     114–135), where the standard of comparison is marked through a morpheme of
                                                                                               TA




     source and origin. Stassen provides as examples of standard markers ablative forms
                                                                                           O
                                                                                        U
                                                                                      Q
                                                                                T




                                                                                                     96
                                                                             O
                                                                        N
                    E
     Ivani                                                              Comparative constructions in Suansu




                  BL
          TA
     such as ‘from’.1 Comparatives of this subtype are found in Kambaata (Afroasiatic,
     Cushitic, Treis 2018) and several Athabascan languages (Koyukon, Tanana and Athan
         O
     among others, Tuttle 2018).
 U
          The second subtype within the Adverbial type is the Allative comparative. In
 Q

     Stassen’s classification, Allative comparatives mark the standard of comparison as a
T
 O



     goal, benefactive or direct object (Stassen 1985: 136–145).
N




          The third subtype within the Adverbial type is the Locative comparative (Stassen
     1985: 146–152), and the standard is marked with an element that indicates contact
     or static location (‘on’, ‘at’, ‘beside’), usually derived from locational adverbs.
          Derived-case comparatives include the above-mentioned Conjoined comparatives
     and Particle comparatives. The Particle type, according to Stassen’s classification,
     includes a comparative marker that “does not influence the case marking of the
     standard” (Treis 2018: II). These heterogeneous particles include, among others,
     disjunctive forms, negators and coordinators.
          The above typology leaves some questions unresolved (c.f. Stassen 1985; Heine
     1997; Stolz 2013). One potential source of ambiguity pertains to the heterogeneity of
     the types identified in the typology: Stassen explicitly mentions “sources of
     indeterminacy” (Stassen 1985: 36) with respect to the Adverbial comparatives,
     stressing the semantic variation of the standard markers categorized under this type,
     and which further segmentation would lead to “a proliferation of other subclasses”
     (Stassen 1985: 36). The Particle type encounters similar limitations, being “not a
     homogeneous class” (Stassen 1985: 46), and often characterized by “etymologically
     nontransparent forms” (Heine 1997: 120), which at times “cannot be associated with
     any co-existing functional element of the language in which they occur” (Stolz 2013:
     21). The heterogeneous nature of the Particle type, combined with a general
     opaqueness of the constructions included to the type, prompted the introduction of
     further subclassifications. Additional subtypes have indeed been proposed, and only
     two types are relevant to this study. The first is the Pure comparative type introduced
     by Stolz (2013: 22), that includes the constructions in which the standard is marked
     by a dedicated comparative marker. The second subtype is the Companion Schema
     by Heine (1997: 93–94), that comprises constructions with comitative and
                                                                                                              E
                                                                                                       BL



     instrumental forms marked on the standard of comparison. Comitative marking on
     the standard, considered typologically rare, is tentatively included by Stassen (1985:
                                                                                                TA




     37) under the Separative comparatives, but it is not discussed further.
                                                                                            O
                                                                                         U




     1
         In Stassen’s terminology, marking is intended in broad morphological and non-morphological sense.
                                                                                     Q
                                                                                T




                                                                                                        97
                                                                             O
                                                                         N
                  E
                                Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




                BL
          TA
         Both Heine and Stassen, as well as most of the typological classifications, do not
     include in their respective typologies the forms found outside the standard (one
         O
     exception being Bobaljik 2012). Parameters such as the presence or the morphological
 U
     characteristics of the degree markers are often discarded (Treis 2018: IX). This study
 Q

     follows Stassen’s typology, and therefore the degree markers will not be discussed in
T
 O



     detail nor incorporated in the classification. However, in light of potential future
N




     updates in the typology of comparative constructions, the variables and properties
     related to the degree, comparee, and parameter have been collected in a detailed
     database (Section 3.1.1.).


     2. Suansu language


     Suansu is an endangered Tibeto-Burman language spoken in a small cluster of villages
     in Manipur, northeastern India. Suansu has approximately 22002 speakers, located in
     the Ukhrul district of Manipur, not far from the Myanmar border.
         Suansu is currently unreported in the literature. Suansu features comprise strict
     verb-final word order, a rich case marking system, and ergative - absolutive
     alignment. Ergative marking appears to be motivated by pragmatic and/or semantic
     factors, consistent with several other Tibeto-Burman languages (DeLancey 2011).
     Further features align Suansu to the scarce typology available on the languages of the
     eastern border area (Burling 2003b: 173). These include the presence of three lexical
     tones, noun compounding strategies and frequent “frozen prefixes” (Marrison 1967:
     108) attached to verbs, nouns and adjectives (with unclear semantic distribution).
     Other common traits within the languages of the area and attested in Suansu include
     a rich verb morphology, with several affixes (mostly suffixes), and the absence of verb
     agreement altogether.
         The linguistic data on Suansu used in this study has been collected between 2017
     and 2019, during several fieldwork trips to Pune, Maharashtra, where a
     heterogeneous Suansu speaking community works and lives. Part of the data has been
     time-aligned, transcribed and annotated; specific examples here reported are drawn
     from a corpus that includes narratives, folk tales and elicited examples from three
                                                                                                                  E
                                                                                                           BL



     different native speakers.
                                                                                                    TA
                                                                                                 O




     2
         According   to   the     most   recent   public   Census    available,   the   2011   Indian   Census:
                                                                                               U




     http://censusindia.gov.in.
                                                                                           Q
                                                                                        T




                                                                                                            98
                                                                                  O
                                                                             N
                     E
     Ivani                                                                Comparative constructions in Suansu




                   BL
      TA
     2.1. Comparative constructions in Suansu

     O
     The present Section outlines a first report on comparative constructions in Suansu.
 U
     Being a first report on the language, the description that follows should be treated as
 Q

     preliminary, and has no claim of exhaustivity.
T
 O



        The word order template for Suansu comparative constructions is structured as
N




     follows: COMPAREE - STANDARD - PARAMETER - DEGREE MARKER. An example is illustrated
     in (1).


     (1)     ha-ʃi-ne             nɔ-ʃi-di           tʰazu       mɛn-le
             1PL-house-ERG 2SG-house-ABS beautiful more-be.PRS
             ‘Our house is more beautiful than your house.’


     The comparee is morphologically marked by the suffix ne, which is used in Suansu to
     mark ergative case and A in general (2). The standard immediately follows the
     comparee and is suffixed by the absolutive marker di, which covers P (2), S (3), and
     experiencer (4).


     (2)     ba-ne          klui-di     kətərum-no     huamsuɛ
             3SG-ERG        rope-ABS tree-LOC          tie.PST
             ‘She/He tied the rope to the tree.’


     (3)     hai     həma-di      mari-də    samhai
             DET     pot-ABS      iron-INS   make.PST
             ‘This pot is made of iron.’


     (4)     gəpʰem-di miŋə-le
             ice-ABS        melt-PRS
             ‘Ice melts.’


     The word order template illustrated above is not strict, and the standard can be found
                                                                                                                E
                                                                                                         BL



     preceding the comparee, as illustrated in (5). Further research is needed for a better
     understanding of the word order distributions in Suansu.
                                                                                                  TA
                                                                                              O
                                                                                           U
                                                                                       Q
                                                                                  T




                                                                                                          99
                                                                               O
                                                                           N
                  E
                               Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




                BL
      TA
     (5)   pjəs-di       kaminta-ne         am:etokʰ       mɛn-le          ʔasə
           onion-ABS tomato-ERG expensive more-be.PRS today
     O     ‘Tomatoes are more expensive than onions today.’
 U
 Q

     Overt marking on the comparee is not obligatory in Suansu comparative constructions
T
 O



     (6), as ergative marking can be optional in general (7); more data is required to
N




     account for the distributional trends and occurrences of this marker, although first
     insights from the data available seem to suggest that the presence of agent marking
     is motivated by pragmatic contexts.


     (6)   ha-ʃi         nɔ-ʃi-di             tʃutʃu       mɛn-le
           1PL-house 2SG-house-ABS small                   more-be.PRS
           ‘Our house is smaller than yours.’


     (7)   ba      tatʃu-di      dukan-də          lu-le
           3SG rice-ABS          market-ABL        buy-PRS
           ‘She/He buys rice at (from) the market.’


     The parameter is followed by the particle mɛn: the meaning can be linked, based on
     the occurrences of the form found elsewhere in the grammar, to ‘more’ (8).


     (8)   ha      ɬo    tʃõ     mɛn        laŋe           dorgatʰe   le
           1PL field     CLF     more       cultivate need            be.PRS
           ‘We need to cultivate more land.’


     At the state of the art, the origin of mɛn is unclear: it is not linked to any spatial nor
     locational particle found in the data and it does not find correspondences in Tangkhul,
     the predominant linguistic neighbor. The particle mɛn, used in combination with the verb
     le, ‘to be’, acquires the meaning of ‘to be more’, ‘exceed’, as shown in the example (9).


     (9)   asserikom-va          taciu-di     assokom-va-ne                mɛn-le
                                                                                                    E
                                                                                              BL



           last.year-GEN         grain-ABS present.year-GEN-ERG more-be.PRS
           ‘This year’s harvest surpassed last year’s harvest.’
                                                                                          TA
                                                                                          O
                                                                                          U
                                                                                          Q
                                                                                    T




                                                                                              100
                                                                                    O
                                                                              N
                    E
     Ivani                                                                Comparative constructions in Suansu




                  BL
          TA
     Similar particles, possibly related, are attested in the neighboring languages spoken
     in the Ukhrul district. Examples include Huishu (kʰə-mu ‘more than’, Mortensen
         O
     2013), Kachai (kʰə-mi ‘more than’, Mortensen 2013), Tusom (cũ-kʰə-ma ‘more than’,
 U
     Mortensen 2013), Ukhrul (kʰə-mɐj ‘to be more’, Mortensen 2013). These forms suggest
 Q

     a hypothesized Proto-Tangkhulic *mej ‘more’ (Mortensen 2013: 402). Data on these
T
 O



     languages is limited to wordlists and does not contain grammatical information on
N




     these forms.
          In Suansu comparative constructions, the standard is constructed as the direct
     object, with the comparee as the subject. The transitive predicate suggests a meaning
     related to ‘exceed’, ‘surpass’, construed through the particle mɛn and the verb form le,
     ‘to be’.
          Thus, Suansu comparative constructions can be assigned to the Exceed comparative
     type defined in Stassen’s typology. This assignment confirms Stassen’s findings on the
     geographical distribution of this type, whose presence seems restricted to two
     geographical areas, sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia. In the following Section,
     I turn to other languages of the eastern border area and the respective comparative
     constructions.


     3. Comparative constructions in the languages of northeastern India


     3.1. Methodology


     In what follows, I present data on comparative constructions from 27 Tibeto-Burman
     languages (28 including Suansu). With a few exceptions, the languages are spoken in
     northeastern India: the sample includes languages spoken in the fringes of this region,
     such as Myanmar and the Himalayan range.
          The languages of the sample belong to different branches within the Tibeto-Burman
     sub-family.3 Kuki-Chin-Naga and Brahmaputran are the most represented subgroups
     in the sample, followed by Mruic, Digarish, and Macro-Tani. Other genealogical
     subgroups, such as Bodic, Himalayish, Burmo-Qiangic, Karenic and Raji, are also
     represented, although with fewer languages. The main criteria for language selection
                                                                                                                E
                                                                                                         BL



     include their location (northeastern India) and the availability of the sources. The
     detailed sample, grouped by linguistic subgroup, is illustrated in Table 2.
                                                                                                   TA
                                                                                               O
                                                                                           U




     3
         Genealogical affiliations follow the classification reported on Glottolog (Hammarström et al. 2020).
                                                                                        Q
                                                                                   T




                                                                                                         101
                                                                               O
                                                                            N
                       E
                              Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




                     BL
          TA
         Subgroup                               Languages
         Bodic (1)                              Bunan (gahr1239)
         O
         Brahmaputran (7)                       Atong (aton1241), Chothe (chot1239), Garo (garo1247),
 U
                                                Kadu (kado1242), Konyak (kony1248), Turung (sing1264),
 Q

                                                Rabha (rabh1238)
T


         Digarish (1)                           Mishmi (diga1241)
 O



         Himalayish (2)                         Chintang (chhi1245), Yakkha (yakk1236)
N




         Karenic (2)                            Geba Karen (geba1237), Kayah Monu (kaya1316)
         Kuki-Chin-Naga (6)                     Karbi (karb1241), Mao Naga (maon1238), Mongsen Ao
                                                (aona1235), Moyon (moyo1238), Suansu (suan1234),
                                                Tangkhul (tang1336)
         Macro-Tani (5)                         Adi (bori1243), Apatani (apat1240), Galo (galo1242),
                                                Mising (misi1242), Tangam (tang1377)
         Mruic (2)                              Hkongso (anuu1241), Mru (mruu1242)
         Burmo-Qiangic (1)                      Burmese (nucl1310)
         Raji-Raute (1)                         Raji (rawa1264)


                               Table 2: Language sample by genealogical subgroup.


     The linguistic data is collected in a multivariate typological database. The primary
     goal of the database is to collect information on comparative constructions at the
     most refined level of detail. 4 The methodology adopted in designing the database
     relies on the autotypologizing method and the late aggregation principles. The
     autotypologizing method (Bickel & Nichols 2002) describes a bottom-up, data-driven
     approach that starts at the earliest stages of data collection. Instead of “fitting” the
     structures found in the languages of the sample in a “conceptual grid” of traits
     established a priori, the constructions are collected dynamically, along with the data
     collection process (in a multivariate approach fashion, cf. Bickel 2010a; Bickel
     2010b). Results from the data are eventually framed within the types identified in the
     literature at a later phase (following the principle of late aggregation, see Bickel et al.
     2016). These methods have shown their potential in several typological databases
     (Bickel et al. 2017; Ivani & Zakharko 2019); in addition, the granularity of the data
     collected enables its reusability for further research.
                                                                                                              E


           The data collection procedure is structured as follows. For each language, I describe
                                                                                                       BL



     in detail the structures that characterize the respective comparative construction. The
                                                                                                TA




     4
         The database is stored and freely accessible on GitHub (https://github.com/jkivani/coi-neils). The
                                                                                             O




     dataset version for the present study is available on the public access Zenodo repository
                                                                                         U




     (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4274488).
                                                                                         Q
                                                                                   T




                                                                                                       102
                                                                               O
                                                                           N
                    E
     Ivani                                                                   Comparative constructions in Suansu




                  BL
          TA
     forms and types illustrated in the database encompass both morphological and non-
     morphological means used to define the relations among the comparee, the standard
         O
     and the parameter.
 U
          Each construction is stored with a set of metadata information: these include an
 Q

     identifier, the respective language name (with the related Glottocode), and the
T
 O



     language genealogical subgroup. The identifier is unique, but it can be shared by
N




     several constructions in different languages in cases of attested cognacy relationships.
     Linguistic information includes the language specific form, the type of marker, the
     locus, and the function or meaning (when available), associated to the form in the
     grammar. Table 3 exemplifies the coding sheet for Atong language. The forms
     individuated during the data collection process are then assigned to the pre-existing
     typology described in Section 1.1. and then discussed further.


         ID     Glottocode    Language      Subgroup        Form Type         Locus        Function Source

         ID003 aton1241       Atong         Brahmaputran    -na     suffix    standard     goal        Van
                                                                                                       Breugel
                                                                                                       2014

         ID004 aton1241       Atong         Brahmaputran    -khal   suffix    parameter    more        Van
                                                                                                       Breugel
                                                                                                       2014


                                      Table 3: Coding sheet for Atong language.


     3.2. Data overview


     The data available on comparative constructions in the languages of the sample
     reveals interesting structural variation. In what follows, I present cases from
     individual languages by genealogical subgroup, and describe the strategies used to
     express the respective comparative constructions.5
          The Tani languages of the sample, spoken mostly in Arunachal Pradesh, are Adi,
     Apatani, Tangam, Galo and Mising. All the Macro-Tani languages included in the
                                                                                                                   E
                                                                                                             BL



     sample share a degree marker, found as a verbal prefix ya in Adi e Apatani, and as a
     suffix on the parameter in Tangam (yaŋ), Galo (jaa) and Mising (ya). The related suffix
                                                                                                     TA
                                                                                                  O




     5
         The examples from the individual languages are reported verbatim, with the original glosses described
                                                                                              U




     in the respective sources, without any relabeling, except for minor normalization adjustments.
                                                                                          Q
                                                                                      T




                                                                                                             103
                                                                                  O
                                                                              N
                    E
                              Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




                  BL
          TA
     yõ is found in the Digarish language Mishmi. The meaning of this form seems to be
     ‘more’, as reported in the linguistic sources, and it is linked to the Proto Tani form
         O
     *jaŋ (Sun 1993: 122). In addition to the degree marker, Adi and Apatani use a similar
 U
     template in building the respective comparative constructions: Adi (10) suffixes the
 Q

     dative form me on the standard of comparison, whose function is linked to beneficiary
T


     role. The case marking system of Adi also comprises locative (fixed location), genitive,
 O



     associative and instrumental/ablative forms (Lalrempuii 2005: 55–57). Similarly, the
N




     standard marker in Apatani comparative constructions is mi (11), and it is linked to
     functions such as experiencer, human patient and benefactive (Abraham 1985: 41).


     (10) Adi (Macro-Tani; Abraham 1985: 136)
             otem      bi    oken-me      bodong ya-do
             otem      3SG oken-EXP tall           COMP-PRS
             ‘Otem is taller than Oken.’


     (11) Apatani (Macro-Tani; Lalrempuii 2005: 86)
             mado      rinyo-mi     kap-yo      ya-do
             mado      rynio-EXP see-good       COMP-exist
             ‘Mado is more beautiful than Rynio.’


     The standard of comparison in both Tangam and Galo comparative constructions, on
     the other hand, is marked by a non-agentive relational marker: the form corresponds
     to the postposition me in Tangam and the clitic nè in Galo. In both languages, the
     distribution of the non-agentive and the accusative is semantically controlled by the
     definiteness and the animacy of the referent (Post 2017: 102).6 This restriction is
     reflected in the respective comparative constructions. In example (12), the only
     sentence available from Galo sources, the accusative clitic ә́әm is used on the standard,
     being the standard of comparison a non-human noun. The non-agentive postposition
     is found on the human referent in the example from Tangam (13).


     (12) Galo (Macro-Tani; Post 2007: 548)
             ...takk=ә́әm           dór-tə̀-jàa-dó(o)-nà=әә=na
                                                                                                               E


             …squirrel=ACC          CLF:HIGH.ANIMAL-big-COMP-STAT-NZR:SUB=COP.IPFV=DECL
                                                                                                        BL



             ‘...you know, they’re bigger than squirrels.’
                                                                                                 TA
                                                                                             O




     6
         Both languages include dative and locational forms in their respective referential marking systems.
                                                                                          U




     See Post (2007: 58) for Galo and Post (2017: 108) for Tangam language.
                                                                                         Q
                                                                                   T




                                                                                                        104
                                                                               O
                                                                           N
                    E
     Ivani                                                    Comparative constructions in Suansu




                  BL
      TA
     (13) Tangam (Macro-Tani; Post 2017: 128)
             nodɨ ŋo=me         abəŋ-yaŋ-du(ŋ)
     O       3SG 1SG=NAGT       mature-COMP-IPFV
 U
             ‘He is elder to me.’
 Q
T
 O



     In the Macro-Tani language Mising, the standard of comparison does not seem to be
N




     morphologically marked. Mising comparative constructions show the post standard
     particle penam (Prasad 1991: 73), of unknown meaning and origin. Comparative
     constructions in Mishmi, in addition to the degree marker yõ illustrated above, take
     a standard marker li (14). The suffix li does not correspond in its form to any of the
     case markers attested in Mishmi and is homophonous – but most likely unrelated – to
     the future tense marker li (Sastry 1984: 162). The form li is translated with ‘than’ and
     “it is used to stress a qualitative difference between two entities” (Sastry 1984: 101).
     The comparee is marked by the nominative suffix wè.


     (14) Mishmi (Digarish; Sastry 1984:101)
             taméyìn-wè       macyù-li   dran-yõ
             elephant-NOM     deer-COMP big-COMP
             ‘An elephant is bigger than a deer.’


     The Brahmaputran languages Atong, Garo and Rabha employ the dative marker na
     (cliticized in Atong) which covers, in the three languages, goal, indirect object, and
     beneficiary role. In addition, the languages show variation with respect to the
     marking combination in the respective comparative constructions. In Atong, the
     dative form is suffixed to the standard (15). The dative suffix in Garo is used in
     combination with bate (16), whose meaning is glossed ‘as compared to’. This marker
     operates as a dedicated form used in Garo comparative constructions (Burling 1961:
     46). Furthermore, Atong presents the suffix khal, that occurs on the parameter. The
     form, used for generic intensification and meaning ‘more’, is a degree marker (Van
     Bruegel 2014: 90).
                                                                                                    E
                                                                                             BL



     (15) Atong (Brahmaputran; Van Breugel 2014: 278)
             aŋ   naŋʔ=na       cuŋ-khal=a
                                                                                      TA




             1SG 2SG=GOAL       big-COMP=CUST
                                                                                  O




             ‘I am bigger than you.’
                                                                               U
                                                                           Q
                                                                      T




                                                                                             105
                                                                   O
                                                               N
                E
                         Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




              BL
      TA
     (16) Garo (Brahmaputran; Burling 1961: 19)
          acak-na-bate     moiyr        da’r-bate
     O    dog-GOAL-COMP elephant big-COMP
 U
          ‘An elephant is bigger than a dog.’
 Q
T
 O



     A suffixal compounding strategy analogous to the one illustrated for Garo, is found in
N




     Rabha (17). Rabha comprises affixal particles and postpositions that are used in
     combination with case markers to accomplish a more specific meaning or function.
     In Rabha comparative constructions, the dative na on the standard is followed by the
     particle kára, ‘above, over’, which appears to be partially grammaticalized (Joseph
     2007: 762).


     (17) Rabha (Brahmaputran; Joseph 2007: 360)
          e-kai      pan o-kai          pan-na       kára      cuh-a
          this-ATTR tree that-ATTR tree-DAT          more      big-PRS
          ‘This tree is bigger than that tree.’


     The other Brahmaputran languages of the sample, Kadu and Konyak, show a range of
     strategies in the respective comparative constructions that differ from the cases
     illustrated above. In Kadu, the clitic athá follows obligatorily the standard and is of
     unclear origin: its use seems to be restricted to the marking of comparison. A topic
     marker, ká, is optionally found on the comparee (Sangdong 2012: 331).
       Konyak (18) uses the form phәy (Nagaraja 2010: 59) suffixed to the standard; phәy
     is used elsewhere in the grammar to signal the “inanimate force or object casually
     involved in the action or state identified by the verb” (Nagaraja 2010: 62). In
     addition, phәy covers sociative and instrumental marking (excluding causal, goal and
     source functions, Nagaraja 2010: 69). The marker phәy is homophonous with the
     adverb phәy, ‘behind’, used also in combination with the locative marker me such as
     in nòkphәyme, ‘behind the house’ (Nagaraja 2010: 68), for which I assume that it is
     the etymological source of the standard marker in Konyak. In addition, the form si,
     possibly a degree marker, is prefixed to the parameter.
                                                                                               E
                                                                                        BL



     (18) Konyak (Brahmaputran; Nagaraja 2010:155)
                                                                                    TA




          kùy-ә      әmi-phәy si-yòŋ
          dog-NOM cat-with       COMP-big
                                                                                    O




          ‘The dog is bigger than the cat’
                                                                                    U
                                                                                    Q
                                                                              T




                                                                                        106
                                                                          O
                                                                       N
                   E
     Ivani                                                        Comparative constructions in Suansu




                 BL
      TA
     In Turung, the standard is followed by the particle ngga (or nloh), that corresponds to
     ‘more’. The comparee is marked by the agentive/ergative marker î (19).
     O
 U
     (19) Turung (Brahmaputran; Morey 2010:296)
 Q

             Kon Kham     î       Kon Seng ngga    coh
T
 O



             Kon Kham     AG      Kon Seng COMP    tall
N




             ‘Kon Kham is taller than Kon Seng.’


     No further information nor additional occurrences are available on the form tre, the
     standard marker in Chothe (Singh 2000: 271). The suffix he on the parameter is
     reported with the meaning of ‘excessive’ (Singh 2000: 215). The comparee carries the
     nominative marker na.
        In Bunan (20), the standard is marked by both the dative clitic tok and the ablative
     tɕi. The two forms combined indicate “a motion away from a generic location”
     (Widmer 2014: 237). A similar strategy is found in Chintang (Himalayish). Chintang
     (21) has an extensive case marking system (Paudyal 2015: 42), and the standard in
     the comparative constructions is suffixed by ʔ, that is the marker of focussed, specific
     location, followed by ya, that expresses instrumental force (Paudyal 2015: 44). In
     Yakkha, the other Hymalayish language of the sample, comparative constructions are
     expressed through the particles haʔniŋ and haksaŋ (in free distribution). Schackow
     (2015: 145) discusses possible meanings of the form, the most likely candidate being
     the verbal stem haks ‘send, send up’, but also ‘weigh’.


     (20) Bunan (Bodic; Widmer 2014: 328)
             tedzi=tsuk   tete          gi=tok=tɕi        tedzi jen
             big=REL      grandfather 1SG=DAT=ABL big           EQ.CJ

             ‘The older grandfather (of yours) is older than me.’


     (21) Chintang (Hymalayish; Paudyal 2015: 49)
             hani-ʔ-yã    the=kha
             2SG-LOC-ABL big=NZR
                                                                                                        E
                                                                                                 BL



             ‘Bigger than you.’
                                                                                          TA




     The Mruic languages Hkongso (22) and Mru (23), closely related to each other,
                                                                                      O




     employ the particles luki and lake, that follow the standard in their respective
                                                                                   U
                                                                               Q
                                                                          T




                                                                                                 107
                                                                        O
                                                                      N
                   E
                            Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




                 BL
      TA
     comparative constructions. These forms have been linked to luk (Wright 2009: 66),
     that has the temporal and locative meaning of ‘side’. The particle has the additional
     O
     meaning ‘more’, as attested in expressions such as la luk lit. month more, ‘next month’
 U
     (Wright 2009: 34). Besides, Mru uses the particle lang meaning ‘different’ (Ebersole
 Q

     1996: 9).
T
 O
N




     (22) Hkongso (Mruic; Wright 2009: 119)
          dɑi˥ cəʔ˦˨ koko˧       luk˦˨       r̥ʰau˧
          dai    TOP   koko      COMP        tall
          ‘Dai is taller than Koko.’


     (23) Mru (Mruic; Ebersole 1996: 17)
          enning kim          lake       anging kim          lang          iuk
          2PL       house     COMP       1PL          house difference big
          ‘Our house is bigger than yours.’


     Plural markers can be involved in comparative constructions: Raji-Raute language
     Raji, spoken in Uttarkand, uses the plural particle jәmma (Krishan 2001: 84), followed
     by the parameter (24).


     (24) Raji (Raji-Raute; Krishan 2001: 84)
          pәhare         ti          gәdde      ti        jәmma thәnda hwā
          mountain       water       river      water     COMP      cold     COP

          ‘Mountain water is colder than river water.’


     The languages belonging to the Kuki-Chin-Naga subgroup show higher internal
     diversity, but scarce information is available on the respective comparative
     constructions in general. In Moyon, the particle hak is postponed to the parameter
     (e.g., irun hək, ‘bigger’, Devi 2010: 174). The particle can be also suffixed to the verbal
     root, where it covers an associative/collective function (enno ensaʔhəkne 3PL 3PL-eat-
     ASC-SMP-ASP   ‘they eat together’, Devi 2010: 84). The data available does not provide
                                                                                                   E
                                                                                            BL



     further information regarding the presence of additional markers in comparative
     constructions.
                                                                                       TA




       In Mao Naga, comparative constructions show the presence of the marker zhü, with
                                                                                       O




     the meaning of ‘rather’ (Giridhar 1994: 206). Mao Naga uses different particles to
                                                                                       U
                                                                                       Q
                                                                                   T




                                                                                            108
                                                                                 O
                                                                           N
                     E
     Ivani                                                          Comparative constructions in Suansu




                   BL
      TA
     express an increasing level of intensity (Giridhar 1994: 373). The comparee is marked
     by ko; no further information is available on the structure of comparative
     O
     constructions in Mao Naga.
 U
        Mongsen Ao (25) uses the comitative marker thәn on the standard of comparison
 Q

     (Coupe 2007: 183). The marker phān found on the standard in Karbi (see example 26)
T
 O



     is glossed as ‘non subject’: it is mainly used to mark O arguments, recipients and
N




     oblique participants (Konnerth 2014: 480).


     (25) Mongsen Ao (Kuki-Chin-Naga; Coupe 2007: 293)
             nì    sәnti-pàʔ    thәn la      tә-hláŋ-pàʔ
             1SG   PN-M         COM TOP      NZP-be.long-NR

             ‘I am taller than Sentiba.’


     (26) Karbi (Kuki-Chin-Naga; Konnerth 2014: 454)
             methān a-phān-te                ingnàr        thè-mū
             dog     POSS-NSUBJ-COND?        elephant be.big-COMP
             ‘Elephants are bigger than dogs.’


     Tangkhul (27) marks the standard NP of comparative constructions with the suffix ki,
     which corresponds to the locative form meaning ‘on’ (Stassen 1985: 147).


     (27) Tangkhul Naga (Kuki-Chin-Naga; Stassen 1985: 147)
             Themma        hau lu-ki      vi-we
             man           this that-on good-COP
             ‘This man is better than that man’


     Data on Karenic languages is limited. In Kayah Monu, comparative constructions
     display the particle khlu after the verb and before the standard (Wai 2013: 23). The
     particle is attested in Kayan Pekon with an adverbial function and translated with the
     meaning ‘more’ (Wai 2013: 35). No other means seem to be used in the expression of
     comparison of inequality, as shown in (28).
                                                                                                          E
                                                                                                   BL



     (28) Kayah Monu (Karenic; Wai 2013: 23)
                                                                                            TA




             hè    sáplá        khlù phàlú
             1SG dejected       ADV    phalu
                                                                                        O




             ‘I am more dejected than Phalu.’
                                                                                     U
                                                                                 Q
                                                                            T




                                                                                                   109
                                                                         O
                                                                     N
                  E
                            Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




                BL
      TA
     In Burmese, the only Burmo-Qiangic language of the sample, the standard is suffixed
     by the marker hteʔ, meaning ‘over’ (29).
     O
 U
     (29) Burmese (Burmo-Qiangic; Stassen 1985: 126)
 Q

           Thu-hteʔ     pein-te
T
 O



           him-over be.thin-NONFUT
N




           ‘She is thinner than him.’


     4. Data discussion


     Following Stassen’s classification, the languages discussed in Section 3.2 can be
     assigned to the Adverbial and to the Particle types. Suansu is the only language among
     the ones described in this study that can be linked to the Exceed type. Table 4
     illustrates the types and the related subtypes individuated for the languages of the
     sample.


      Type (No. of languages)             Languages
      Exceed (1)                          Suansu
      Adverbial: Allative (7)             Adi, Apatani, Atong, Galo, Garo, Karbi, Tangam
      Adverbial: Locative (5)             Burmese, Hkongso, Mru, Rabha, Tangkhul
      Adverbial: Separative (6)           Bunan, Chintang, Konyak, Mongsen Ao, Moyon, Yakkha
      Particle (9)                        Chothe, Geba Karen, Kayah Monu, Kadu, Mishmi, Mising, Mao
                                          Naga, Raji, Turung


                                  Table 4: Typology and respective languages.


     The most common type identified in the sample corresponds to the Adverbial type,
     which can be further distinguished in Allative, Separative and Locative subtypes.
        Seven languages belong to the Allative subtype, such as the Tani languages Adi
     and Apatani, and the Brahmaputran languages Atong and Garo. All these languages
     are characterized by goal and benefactive forms marked on the standard of
     comparison. According to Stassen’s typology, direct object markers are also classified
                                                                                                      E


     within the Allative subtype, adding Tangam, Galo and Karbi (Kuki-Chin-Naga) to the
                                                                                                BL




     subtype.
                                                                                           TA




        Six languages from the sample belong to the Separative subtype within the
                                                                                           O




     Adverbial type. The Separative subtype comprises standard markers of source and
                                                                                       U
                                                                                       Q
                                                                                 T




                                                                                                110
                                                                             O
                                                                         N
                    E
     Ivani                                                               Comparative constructions in Suansu




                  BL
          TA
     origin. The Hymalayish languages Yakkha and Chintang, as well as Konyak and Bunan
     belong to the Separative subtype. Comitative markers are also included within the
         O
     Separative subtype in Stassen’s typology, and they are attested in Mongsen Ao and
 U
     Moyon through the forms thәn and hak respectively. The marker phәy in Konyak has
 Q

     also a comitative meaning, and it is included in the Separative subtype. However,
T
 O



     phәy somehow challenges the typology, since its original meaning is ‘behind’, opening
N




     the interpretation of the marker as a locative particle and thus linking the form to the
     Locative subtype. Comitative markers used as standard markers in comparative
     constructions are found cross-linguistically, for example in Nuer (Nilotic, Ultan 1972),
     and Muna (Austronesian, Van Den Berg 2018), and they are considered rare.
          Five languages are assigned to the Locative subtype. These include Rabha
     (Brahmaputran), Tangkhul (Kuki-Chin-Naga), Burmese, 7 and the Mruic languages
     Hkgonso and Mru. Within the Locative subtype, the markers on the standard have the
     function of a static spatial location such as ‘on’, ‘over’ (ki in Tangkhul, kára in Rabha
     and hteʔ in Burmese), and ‘side’ (lake in Mruic).
          The distribution of the types (and the related subtypes) reveals interesting aspects.
     Comparatives of the Allative subtype are found in 7 languages of the sample. This
     subtype is claimed to be rare in typological investigations (Stolz 2013: 19; Ultan 1972:
     140). Stassen (1985: 40) reports the presence of the Allative comparative subtype in
     7 languages out of the 110 that compose his sample. None of the languages listed by
     Stassen under the subtype is a Tibeto-Burman variety.8 Based on his results, Stassen
     hypothesizes that the Allative subtype occurs in languages with basic verb-initial
     word order (Stassen 1985: 41). The cases illustrated above, from verb-final Tibeto-
     Burman languages, suggests that word order in general does not constrain the
     assignment to a specific comparative subtype, such as Allative.
          Nine of the Tibeto-Burman languages explored in this study are assigned to the
     Particle comparative type. The Particle type is characterized by broad definitory
     criteria in Stassen’s classification. The formal heterogeneity of the Particle type,
     combined with the scarce data available on the functions and meanings of the
                                                                                                                 E


     7
         Stassen (1985:40) includes Burmese comparative constructions under the Separative type. Since the
                                                                                                         BL



     form hteʔ indicates a spatial location (‘over’), rather than “a motion away from a location” prototypical
                                                                                                   TA




     of the Separative subtype, I have reinterpreted Burmese comparative constructions under the Locative
     subtype.
                                                                                               O




     8
         The languages that are listed by Stassen under the Allative subtype are Breton, Jacaltec, Kanuri,
                                                                                           U




     Maasai, Nuer, Siuslawan, and Tarascan.
                                                                                       Q
                                                                                   T




                                                                                                          111
                                                                               O
                                                                           N
                E
                         Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




              BL
      TA
     particles, makes this classification and the assignment of comparative constructions
     to this type blurred and tentative at times. Only a few languages of the Particle type
     O
     provide detailed information on the respective comparative constructions. In some
 U
     cases, the markers found in the languages assigned to this type do not seem to appear
 Q

     elsewhere in the grammar, suggesting the presence of dedicated comparative markers.
T
 O



     Dedicated markers are referred to as Pure comparatives in Stolz’s terms (see Section
N




     1.1.). Examples of Pure comparatives include Mishmi and its standard marker suffix
     li, whose meaning is generically glossed as ‘than’. The particle zhü, glossed as ‘rather’,
     found in Mao Naga comparative constructions, is also a dedicated comparative
     marker. A similar specific comparative function can be hypothesized for the standard
     markers tre in Chothe and the particle penam in Mising. Finally, the standard clitic
     atha found in Kadu comparative constructions, appears to be a dedicated comparative
     marker (Sangdong 2012: 331).
       Degree markers do not constitute a parameter in Stassen’s classification, and they
     are in general neglected from comparative constructions typologies (e.g., Dixon
     2008). Degree markers are often hard to identify in linguistic sources. This aspect has
     been pointed out in the literature by Ultan (1972: 127), who has stressed the
     difficulties in distinguishing between standard and degree markers within languages.
       Raji comparative constructions offer an example of this ambiguity. The form jәmma
     identified in Raji corresponds to the plural marker and is the only instance attested
     in the sample of a synchronic fully functional plural marker used in comparative
     constructions. This form is assigned to the Particle comparative type. Based on the
     shared meaning of ‘moreness’ and increased quantity in general that is conveyed both
     in plurality and asymmetric relations of comparison, I hypothesize a developing
     multipurpose function of this marker. From this perspective, the form jәmma acquires
     the meaning and functional properties of a degree marker rather than a standard
     marker, making its assignment to the Particle type more ambiguous.
       Other markers from the languages assigned to the Particle type have a dubious
     status. In Turung, the post standard particle is glossed as ‘more’, and thus interpreted
     as a degree marker. Both Karenic languages of the sample, Geba Karen and Kayah
     Monu, appear to express comparison exclusively through a degree marker, doli and
                                                                                                  E
                                                                                           BL



     khlù respectively. These languages are tentatively assigned to the Particle type.
       Degree markers are widespread across the sample and they often co-occur with
                                                                                     TA




     other markers in comparative constructions. It is outside the scope of this study to
                                                                                    O




     propose a novel typology that would comprise the presence and the properties of
                                                                                    U
                                                                                    Q
                                                                              T




                                                                                           112
                                                                          O
                                                                      N
                  E
     Ivani                                                             Comparative constructions in Suansu




                BL
      TA
     degree markers, and this enterprise is left to future research. However, I report for
     exhaustivity the distribution of degree markers in the sample. Table 5 shows the
     O
     number of languages with degree markers distributed over the identified types.
 U
 Q

      Type (No. of languages)            No. of languages with degree markers
T
 O



      Exceed (1)                         0
N




      Adverbial: Allative (7)            7
      Adverbial: Locative (5)            0
      Adverbial: Separative (6)          0
      Particle (9)                       9


                                Table 5: Typology and presence of degree markers.


     Degree markers are found in half of the languages of the sample and appear to be
     absent in comparative constructions of the Locative and Separative subtypes. In these
     subtypes, the asymmetry between the comparee and the standard is made explicit by
     ‘separative’ and ablative morphemes in general. The Allative type, on the other hand,
     marks the standard through goal, direct object and comitative forms, ‘allowing’ the
     presence of markers that overtly express the degree of comparison. The locus of
     degree markers is usually on the parameter. Degree markers are also present in the
     languages assigned to the Particle type, either as standalone forms or in addition to
     other markers.
        The presence of overt marking on the comparee is another parameter usually left
     unexplored in typological classifications of comparative constructions. Markers on the
     comparee are found on a small subset of 8 languages of the sample. Half of these
     languages belong to the Brahmaputran subgroup: the forms include topic markers,
     such as ká in Kadu (Sangdong 2012: 315) and cəʔ in Hkgonso (Wright 2009: 119).
     Other languages include Mishmi (Digarish; Sastry 1984: 101), Konyak, Chothe (Singh
     2000: 271), and Suansu.
        As shown in Section 2.1., Suansu comparative constructions (of the Exceed type)
     consist of a transitive predicate that takes the comparee as its subject and the standard
     as object. Ergative marking on the comparee outside a transitive predicative unit in a
                                                                                                             E
                                                                                                      BL



     comparative construction is considered a typological oddity. It is found in Turung,
                                                                                               TA




     where the ergative/agentive marker î is suffixed to the comparee, while the respective
     standard of comparison is followed by a particle meaning ‘more’. A similar use of the
                                                                                           O




     ergative marker in a comparative construction has been reported by Jacques (2016)
                                                                                        U
                                                                                    Q
                                                                                T




                                                                                                      113
                                                                            O
                                                                        N
                   E
                         Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




                 BL
      TA
     in Japhug (a Qiangic language spoken in Sichuan), where the functions and the
     possible diachronic pathways of evolution of this marker are presented and discussed
     O
     extensively.
 U
       Given the types, it is possible to explore their genealogical and geographic
 Q

     distribution. Table 6 illustrates the breakdown of the types for each linguistic
T
 O



     subgroup in the sample.
N




      Subgroup            Allative       Locative      Separative      Particle     Exceed   Total
      Bodic                                                 1                                 1
      Brahmaputran              2            1              1                 3               7
      Burmo-Qiangic                          1                                                1
      Digarish                                                                1               1
      Hymalayish                                            2                                 2
      Karenic                                                                 2               2
      Kuki-Chin-Naga            1            1              2                 1       1       6
      Macro-Tani                4                                             1               5
      Mruic                                  2                                                2
      Raji-Raute                                                              1               1
                                                                                              28


                                    Table 6: Types per linguistic subgroup.


     The sample is not genealogically balanced and is not fully representative of each
     linguistic subgroup; however, it allows for some qualitative considerations. Data from
     the Brahmaputran stock suggests high heterogeneity in the types (and subtypes) found
     within a genealogical stock. In the Brahmaputran stock, both the Adverbial and the
     Particle types are found, and the Adverbial type is represented by each of the
     respective subtypes. The same scenario is observed in Kuki-Chin-Naga, where all the
     main types – and subtypes – are found. The number of languages from the Macro-
     Tani and Mruic stocks might offer more representative information. The Mruic
     linguistic subgroup consists of 2 languages, Mru and Hkgonso, both included in the
     sample: they follow the Locative subtype. The Macro-Tani stock includes 12 languages
     (according to Glottolog, Hammarström et al. 2020), and roughly half are included in
                                                                                                        E
                                                                                                  BL



     the sample. These languages follow mostly the Allative type, with the Particle type
     attested in one variety.
                                                                                             TA
                                                                                          O
                                                                                     U
                                                                                    Q
                                                                                  T




                                                                                                  114
                                                                          O
                                                                       N
                    E
     Ivani                                                                 Comparative constructions in Suansu




                  BL
          TA
          Comparative structures tend to spread areally (Stassen 1985; Dixon 2008: 813).
     The three main types, Adverbial, Particle and Exceed comparatives are plotted in
         O
     Figure 2 to illustrate their geographical distribution.
 U
 Q
T
 O
N




                                  Figure 2: Geographical distribution of the types.


     At a visual inspection, the geographical distribution of the main types suggests the
     presence of two clusters for the Adverbial and Particle types.9 To assess the presence
     of the clusters, I test the plot through a specific visual statistical inference inspection
     process (Wickham et al. 2010), followed by a “Line Up” protocol (Kerman et al. 2008).
          Visual statistical inference has the main purpose of bringing statistical support in
     quantifying the significance of structure in plots of data. It relies on the human
     capacity to spot visual trends in data, avoiding at the same time the risks of over-
     interpreting the patterns. Through this procedure, the plot representing the true data
     is placed among a set of randomly generated decoy data plots that support the null
                                                                                                                 E


     hypothesis (in the present case, no clustering). If the true data plot stands out from
                                                                                                          BL



     the rest in terms of representativity of the current hypothesis (here, the presence of
                                                                                                       TA




     two areal clusters), based on the judgment of a group of impartial and unbiased
                                                                                                O
                                                                                            U




     9
         No significant clustering can be observed in the geographical distribution of the subtypes.
                                                                                        Q
                                                                                      T




                                                                                                          115
                                                                                O
                                                                            N
                E
                         Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




              BL
      TA
     observers, one could consider this result as a rejection of the null hypothesis. This
     procedure is known as “Line-up", and the generated plot is found in the Appendix.
     O
     The plot is generated using the R package nullabor (Buja et al. 2009). The true data
 U
     plot is 5, and it passed the “Line-up” protocol test.
 Q

       The Adverbial type clusters in the western part of the region. Comparative
T
 O



     constructions of the Adverbial type are also widespread in the languages and language
N




     families of the Indian subcontinent (Stassen 2013). They are found, for example, in
     Hindi, Marathi and Bagri (Indo-Aryan), in the Dravidian languages Tamil and Telugu,
     and in Mundari and Santali (both belonging to the Munda branch of Austroasiatic).
     The languages of the sample located in the western part of the area contribute to this
     Adverbial comparative constructions continuum.
       The Particle type clusters in the eastern part of the region and is assigned mainly
     to the Tibeto-Burman languages geographically contiguous to the Myanmar border,
     except for Raji, spoken in the western fringes of the targeted area and whose
     assignment to the Particle type is dubious. There is no detailed cross-linguistic
     information on the comparative types found in the linguistic stocks contiguous to the
     languages belonging to the Particle type.
       Suansu is the only representative of the Exceed comparative in the sample. Outside
     the sample, comparatives of the Exceed type seem to be restricted to two geographical
     areas: South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa (Stassen 2013). Within South-East
     Asia, the Exceed type is attested in Mandarin, Thai, Khmer, and Vietnamese, among
     others. Further studies on lesser-known languages are required to assess the presence
     of this type in contiguous geographical areas such as southern China or northern
     Myanmar.


     5. Concluding remarks


     The main contributions of this paper are summarized in the following. Suansu
     comparative constructions, described for the first time in this study, can be
     typologically assigned to the Exceed comparative type in the classification proposed
     by Stassen.
                                                                                              E
                                                                                        BL



       Comparatives of the Exceed type are not found in Suansu genealogical and
     geographical linguistic neighbors. The cross-linguistic exploration of comparative
                                                                                    TA




     constructions from a sample of Tibeto-Burman languages of northeastern India rather
                                                                                    O




     shows the presence of two main types: Adverbial and Particle types.
                                                                                    U
                                                                                    Q
                                                                              T




                                                                                        116
                                                                          O
                                                                      N
                E
     Ivani                                                     Comparative constructions in Suansu




              BL
      TA
        These types cluster geographically. The Adverbial type is found in the languages
     spoken in the western part of the region. This distribution is consistent with the
     O
     extensive presence of comparative constructions of the Adverbial type found in the
 U
     genealogically diverse languages spoken in South Asia (Indo-Aryan, Dravidian,
 Q

     Munda) and attested in the literature.
T
 O



        Comparative constructions of the Particle type are rather found in the eastern part
N




     of the region, and specifically in the languages spoken on the geographical and
     cultural border between South Asia and South-East Asia.
        Comparative constructions of the Exceed type are not found outside Suansu;
     however, the presence of this type aligns with the assumptions in the cross-linguistic
     literature that describe the distribution of this type as geographically restricted to
     South-East Asia (and sub-Saharan Africa). The presence of the Exceed type
     comparative in Suansu might suggest a larger spread of this type, not limited to the
     ‘core’ South-East Asia, but also extended to the western fringes of the region.
        A more general contribution to the typology of comparative constructions pertains
     to the presence of comparative constructions of the Allative subtype. This type is
     described as rare in many typologies and linked to verb-initial word order. The
     relative high occurrences of the Allative type found in several verb-final Tibeto-
     Burman languages seem to suggest that the Allative subtype is not constrained by any
     specific word order frame.
        Several aspects that surfaced in the data discussion call for an updated approach
     in the typology of comparative constructions. These aspects include the high internal
     diversity attested within the linguistic subgroups, the blurred boundaries among the
     types (for example, the double interpretation of the marker phәy in Konyak), and the
     tentative assignment of several comparative constructions to the Particle type. A
     typology of comparative constructions based exclusively on the marking on the
     standard of comparison may suffice to outline broad characteristics of comparative
     constructions, but fails in describing the full linguistic diversity of these structures.
     As a result, different comparative structures are lumped together in broad types, such
     as the Particle type, or several subtypes proliferate with arbitrary definitory criteria.
        A proposed typology, whose implementation is left for future research, supports a
                                                                                                     E
                                                                                              BL



     multivariate approach to comparative constructions. In this framework, each
     structural variable is considered: all the structures found in a comparative
                                                                                       TA




     construction are captured, such as degree markers, parameters markers, word order,
                                                                                   O




     and so on. The premature labelling of the variables should be also avoided, in order
                                                                                U
                                                                            Q
                                                                       T




                                                                                              117
                                                                    O
                                                                N
                        E
                                 Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




                      BL
          TA
     to prevent potential ambiguities. No variable is discarded a priori, and the set of
     potential variables is defined during the data collection process. These variables
         O
     should then be described in a granular and systematic way, to ensure a detailed
 U
     overview of their diversity. The definition of the types can then be outlined in a latter
 Q

     phase, in order to capture the systematic similarity of the constructions that are
T
 O



     assigned to a specific type and, at the same time, to facilitate the cross-linguistic
N




     viability of the types.



     Acknowledgements


     My thanks go to the Suansu speaking community and especially to J. V. for their
     constant support in explaining and clarifying several aspects of Suansu grammar to
     me. I am also grateful to Taras Zakharko for his helpful comments, and to the two
     anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback on an earlier draft of this paper.


     Abbreviations*


         1 = 1st person                       DAT    = dative                     NSUBJ = non-subject

         2 = 2 person
                 nd
                                              DECL   = declarative                NZP   = nominalizing prefix
         3 = 3 person
                 rd
                                              DET    = determiner                 NZR   = nominalizer
         ABS   = absolutive                   EQ    = equative copula             PL   = plural
         ABL   = ablative                     ERG    = ergative                   PN   = personal name
         ACC   = accusative                   EXP    = experiencer                POSS   = possessive
         ADV    = adverb                      GEN    = genitive                   PRS   = present
         AG    = agentive                     GOAL    = goal                      PST   = past
         ATTR   = attributive                 INS   = instrumental                PL   = plural
         CJ   = conjunct                      IPFV   = imperfective               REL   = relativizing subject
         CLF   = classifier                   LOC    = locative                   SG   = singular
         COM    = comitative                  M   = masculine gender              STAT   = stative
         COMP    = comparative                NOM    = nominative                 SUB   = subject
         COND    = conditional                NAGT    = non-agentive              TOP   = topic
         COP   = copula                       NONFUT    = non-future tense
                                                                                                                       E


         CUST   = customary aspect            NR    = general nominalizer
                                                                                                                 BL
                                                                                                        TA




     *
       The abbreviations used in the Suansu examples found in Section 2 follows the Leipzig Glossing Rules. The
                                                                                                     O




     examples from the other Tibeto-Burman languages described in this study are reported with the original glosses
                                                                                                  U




     found in the respective sources, with some minor adjustments for normalization purposes.
                                                                                            Q
                                                                                        T




                                                                                                                 118
                                                                                  O
                                                                              N
                E
     Ivani                                                    Comparative constructions in Suansu




              BL
      TA
     References

     O
     Abraham, P. T. 1985. Apatani grammar. Vol. 12. Central Institute of Indian Languages:
 U
        Grammar Series. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
 Q

     Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna. 2002. Autotypologizing databases and their use
T
 O



        in fieldwork. In Peter Austin & Helen Dry & Peter Wittenburg (eds.), Proceedings of
N




        the International LREC Workshop on Resources and Tools in Field Linguistics.
        Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
     Bickel, Balthasar. 2010a. Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage.
        Isabelle Bril (ed.), Clause-Hierarchy and Clause-Linking: The Syntax and Pragmatics
        Interface, 51–101. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     Bickel Balthasar. 2010b. Towards a multivariate typology of reference tracking.
        Presentation given at the Meeting of the Research Group 742, Leipzig, 21 April.
     Bickel, Balthasar & Zakharko, Taras & Nichols, Johanna. 2016. Better data with late
        aggregation: Autotyp and beyond. Paper presented at Poznan Linguistics Meeting,
        Poznań, 15-17 September.
     Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna & Zakharko, Taras & Witzlack-Makarevich,
        Alena & Hildebrandt, Kristine & Rießler, Michael & Bierkandt, Lennart & Zúñiga,
        Fernando & Lowe, John B. 2017. The AUTOTYP typological databases. Version
        0.1.0. (Available online at https://github.com/autotyp/autotyp-data/tree/0.1.0,
        Accessed on 10-11-2020).
     Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2012. Universals in comparative morphology: suppletion,
        superlatives, and the structure of words. Vol. 50. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     Buja, Andreas & Cook, Dianne & Hofmann, Heike & Lawrence, Michael & Lee, Eun-
        kyung & Swayne, Deborah F. & Wickham, Hadley. 2009. Statistical inference for
        exploratory data analysis and model diagnostics. Royal Society Philosophical
        Transactions. 367(1906). 4361–4383.
     Burling, Robbins. 1961. A Garo grammar. Vol. 25. Deccan College Monograph Series.
        Poona: Deccan College.
     Burling, Robbins. 2003a. The language of the Modhupur Mandi, Garo: Vol. II: The
        Lexicon. New Delhi: Bibliophile South Asia.
                                                                                                    E
                                                                                             BL



     Burling, Robbins. 2003b. The Tibeto-Burman Languages of Northeastern India. In
        Graham Thurgood & Randy J. LaPolla (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 169-192.
                                                                                      TA




        London/New York: Routledge.
                                                                                  O
                                                                               U
                                                                           Q
                                                                      T




                                                                                             119
                                                                   O
                                                                N
                  E
                           Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




                BL
      TA
     Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
       Gruyter.
     O
     DeLancey, Scott. 2011. ‘Optional’ ‘ergativity’ in Tibeto-Burman languages. Linguistics
 U
       of the Tibeto-Burman Area 34(2). 9-20.
 Q

     Devi, Kongkham Hemabati. 2010. A descriptive grammar of Moyon. PhD Dissertation,
T
 O



       Manipur University.
N




     Dixon, Robert. 2008. Comparative constructions: a cross-linguistic typology. Studies
       in Language. 32(4). 787–817.
     Ebersole, Harold. 1996. The Mru language: a preliminary grammatical sketch.
       Unpublished manuscript.
     Fuchs, Catherine. 2014. La comparaison et son expression en Français. Paris: Éditions
       Ophrys.
     Giridhar, P. P. 1994. Mao Naga grammar. Central Institute of Indian Languages:
       Grammar Series. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
     Hammarström, Harald & Forkel, Robert & Haspelmath, Martin & Bank, Sebastian.
       2020. Glottolog 4.2.1. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
       (Available online at https://glottolog.org/, Accessed on 10-11-2020)
     Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University
       Press.
     Ivani, Jessica K., & Zakharko, Taras. 2019. Tymber. Database on nominal number
       marking          constructions.       Version        0.1.0.      (Available    online    at
       https://github.com/jkivani/tymber/, Accessed on 10-10-2020)
     Jacques, Guillaume. 2016. From ergative to comparee marker: multiple reanalyses
       and polyfunctionality. Diachronica 33(1). 1–30.
     Joseph, U. V. 2007. Rabha. Vol. 1. Languages of the Greater Himalayan Region.
       Leiden: Brill.
     Kerman, Jouni & Gelman, Andrew & Zheng, Tian & Ding, Yuejing. 2008. Visualization
       in Bayesian data analysis. In Chun-houh Chen & Wolfgang Hardle & Antony Unwin
       (eds.), Handbook of Data Visualization, 709–24. Berlin: Springer.
     Konnerth, Linda. 2014. A grammar of Karbi. PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.
     Krishan, Shree. 2001. A sketch of Raji grammar. In Yasuhiko Nagano and Randy J.
                                                                                                     E
                                                                                               BL



       Lapolla (eds.), New Research on Zhangzhung and Related Himalayan Languages, 449–
       497. Bon Studies. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.
                                                                                         TA




     Lalrempuii, C. 2005. Morphology of the Adi language of Arunachal Pradesh. PhD
                                                                                       O




       dissertation, North-Eastern Hill University.
                                                                                      U
                                                                                      Q
                                                                                T




                                                                                               120
                                                                            O
                                                                        N
                E
     Ivani                                                      Comparative constructions in Suansu




              BL
      TA
     Marrison, Geoffrey Edward. 1967. The classification of the Naga languages of North-East
        India. PhD dissertation, University of London.
     O
     Morey, Stephen. 2010. Turung: A variety of Singpho language spoken in Assam. Vol. 614.
 U
        Pacific Linguistics. Canberra: Research School of Pacific; Asian Studies, Australian
 Q

        National University.
T
 O



     Mortensen, David. 2013. Database of Tangkhulic Languages. Unpublished
N




        manuscript. Accessed via the STEDT Database (https://stedt.berkeley.edu/) on 10-
        11-2020.
     Nagaraja, K. S. 2010. Konyak grammar. Vol. 594. Central Institute of Indian
        Languages: Publication. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
     Paudyal, Netra Prasad. 2015. Aspects of Chintang syntax. PhD dissertation, Universität
        Zürich.
     Post, Mark W. 2007. A grammar of Galo. PhD dissertation, LaTrobe University.
     Post, Mark W. 2017. The Tangam language: grammar, dictionary and texts. Leiden: Brill.
     Prasad, Bal Ram. 1991. Mising grammar. Mysore, India: Central Institute of Indian
        Languages.
     Sangdong, David. 2012. A grammar of the Kadu (Asak) language. PhD dissertation, La
        Trobe University.
     Sastry, G. Devi Prasada. 1984. Mishmi grammar. Mysore, India: Central Institute of
        Indian Languages.
     Schackow, Diana. 2015. A grammar of Yakkha. Studies in Diversity Linguistics 7.
        Berlin: Language Science Press.
     Singh, Hidam Brojen. 2000. A descriptive grammar of Chothe. PhD dissertation,
        Manipur University.
     Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
     Stassen, Leon. 2013. Comparative constructions. In Matthew S. Dryer & Martin
        Haspelmath (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max
        Planck     Institute   for   Evolutionary   Anthropology.     (Available      online    at
        https://wals.info/chapter/121, Accessed on 10-11-2020).
     Stolz, Thomas. 2013. Competing comparative constructions in Europe. Berlin/New York:
        Mouton de Gruyter.
                                                                                                      E
                                                                                               BL



     Sun, Tianshin. 1993. A historical-comparative study of the Tani (Mirish) branch in Tibeto-
        Burman. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area. 16. Ann Arbor: UMI.
                                                                                        TA




     Treis, Yvonne. 2018. Comparative constructions: An Introduction. Linguistic
                                                                                    O




        Discovery 16(1). i-xxvi.
                                                                                 U
                                                                             Q
                                                                        T




                                                                                               121
                                                                     O
                                                                 N
                 E
                        Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 94-123




               BL
      TA
     Tuttle, Siri G. 2018. Comparative and superlative constructions in Alaskan
       Athabascan languages. Linguistic Discovery 16(1). 100-116.
     O
     Ultan, Russell. 1972. Some features of basic comparative constructions. Working
 U
       Papers on Language Universals (Stanford) 9. 117–162.
 Q

     Van Breugel, Seino. 2014. A grammar of Atong. Leiden: Brill.
T
 O



     Van Den Berg, René. 2018. More than most: comparative constructions in Muna.
N




       Linguistic Discovery 16(1). 117-140.
     Wai, Lin Aung. 2013. A descriptive grammar of Kayah Monu. Master’s thesis, Payap
       University.
     Wickham, Hadley & Cook, Dianne & Hofmann, Heike & Buja, Andreas. 2010.
       Graphical inference for infovis. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer
       Graphics 16(6). 973–979.
     Widmer, Manuel. 2014. A descriptive grammar of Bunan. PhD dissertation, Universität
       Bern.
     Wright, Jonathan Michael. 2009. Hkongso grammar sketch. PhD dissertation, Graduate
       Institute of Applied Linguistics.


     CONTACT
     jessica.ivani@uzh.ch




                                                                                             E
                                                                                       BL
                                                                                   TA
                                                                                   O
                                                                                   U
                                                                                   Q
                                                                             T




                                                                                       122
                                                                         O
                                                                     N
                            E
     Ivani                                                                                                            Comparative constructions in Suansu




                          BL
      TA
     Appendix

     O
     Plot generated through the “Line-up" procedure (see Section 4).
 U
 Q
T
 O



                          1                             2                                    3                                        4                             5
N



     40°N

     35°N

     30°N

     25°N

     20°N

     15°N

     10°N

                          6                             7                                    8                                        9                             10


     40°N

     35°N

     30°N

     25°N

     20°N

     15°N

     10°N

                          11                            12                                  13                                        14                            15


     40°N

     35°N

     30°N

     25°N

     20°N

     15°N

     10°N

                          16                            17                                  18                                        19                            20


     40°N

     35°N

     30°N

     25°N

     20°N

     15°N

     10°N

            70°E   80°E    90°E   100°E   70°E   80°E    90°E   100°E        70°E   80°E         90°E      100°E        70°E   80°E    90°E   100°E   70°E   80°E    90°E   100°E


                                                                        main_type    Adverbial          Exceed     Particle
                                                                                                                                                                            E
                                                                                                                                                                    BL
                                                                                                                                                             TA
                                                                                                                                                      O
                                                                                                                                                 U
                                                                                                                                              Q
                                                                                                                                      T




                                                                                                                                                                    123
                                                                                                                               O
                                                                                                                         N
