10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432
In this paper the comparative of inferiority (‘A is less tall than B’) is discussed in regards to its coding and functioning. The classification of the marking is based on the connection of the marking of inferiority to the marking of other constructions of comparison. Thus, two main types of the marking are distinguished: specific and derived.&nbsp; The discussion of some problematic issues connected to the comparative of inferiority accompanies the description of the marking. The findings in the marking are interpreted as signs of the markedness of the comparative of inferiority. The remaining part of the paper is devoted to the description of the functions of the comparative of inferiority and its aspects of use as suggested by the data from Russian.
application/pdf
2785-0943
13432
1
en
Valeria Modina
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
Russian
Comparative of inferiority: marking and aspects of use
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
1
Research articles
2021-08-31
2021-08-07
2021-08-31
2021-10-11
179-222
LTC
Valeria Modina
2021/08/31
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432
179
Saint Petersburg State University / Institute for Linguistic Studies Russian Academy of Sciences
2785-0943
1
Russian
en
222
<p>Wojtylak, Katarzyna I. 2018. Comparative Constructions in Murui (Witotoan, Northwest Amazonia). <em>Linguistic Discovery</em> 16(1). 162-182.</p>
Comparative of inferiority: marking and aspects of use
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/13432/13068
1
            Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222   ISSN 2785-0943



      Comparative of inferiority: marking and aspects of use

                                         VALERIA MODINA1, 2
                                1
                                    SAINT PETERSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY
                2
                    INSTITUTE FOR LINGUISTIC STUDIES, RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES


                         Submitted: 16/11/2020     Revised version: 6/6/2021
                          Accepted: 17/03/2021       Published: 31/08/2021




                                               Abstract
In this paper the comparative of inferiority (‘A is less tall than B’) is discussed in regards to
its coding and functioning. The classification of the marking is based on the connection of
the marking of inferiority to the marking of other constructions of comparison. Thus, two
main types of the marking are distinguished: specific and derived. The discussion of some
problematic issues connected to the comparative of inferiority accompanies the description
of the marking. The findings in the marking are interpreted as signs of the markedness of the
comparative of inferiority. The remaining part of the paper is devoted to the description of
the functions of the comparative of inferiority and its aspects of use as suggested by the data
from Russian.


Keywords: Comparison; comparative constructions; comparative of inferiority; language
typology; rivalry; Russian



1. Introduction


This paper examines comparative constructions of inferiority. Comparative
constructions of inferiority are used to describe the referent that has some property
to a lower degree through the comparison with the other referent.

(1)    Russian (Indo-European)
       Petja    meneje    vysokij                 čem Vanja
       Petja    less      tall                    than Vanja
       ‘Petja is less tall than Vanja’
Different aspects of comparison have attracted the attention of many linguists and
such topics as cross-linguistically attested types of constructions of comparison and



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                 179
Modina                                                               Comparative of Inferiority


the rivalry of different constructions of comparison in a specific language have been
explored in a number of papers. However, comparison of inferiority is only rarely
mentioned in those works and almost never gets discussed in depth.
  The notion of the comparative of inferiority is not particularly new as it appears in
grammars dating back at least to the end of the 19th century (see, for example, this
grammar of Somali, Larajasse & Sampont 1897: 64-65). This fact is probably
connected with the presence of markers of inferiority in a number of European
languages (e.g. English less or Spanish menos). Nevertheless, comparative
constructions of inferiority are rarely even mentioned in descriptive grammars and,
if mentioned, the information given is quite scarce and non-uniform most of the times.
Therefore, the task of constructing a typology of comparative of inferiority is fairly
difficult due to the lack of information on these constructions. In this paper, I present
a preliminary outline of the types of constructions that express the meaning of
inferiority. Despite the fact that this sketch is by no means comprehensive, I still hope
that this description can be of some value for the study of comparison.
  The other problem addressed here is the rivalry of the comparative of superiority
and the comparative of inferiority within one language. Though the issue of the
rivalry of several comparative constructions has been addressed previously (see, for
example, Hilpert (2008) and Kosheleva (2016) on the rivalry of synthetic and
analytical comparative constructions) it has never included the comparative of
inferiority. The conditions of the use of these constructions and their functions are of
particular interest since the comparative of inferiority may be seen as unnecessary
due to the possibility of using an antonym (i.e. ‘Petja is shorter than Vanja’ for (1)) or
switching the referents (i.e. ‘Vanja is taller than Petja’). This rivalry is analyzed in this
paper using the Russian data. Such analysis of distribution of the comparative
constructions in Russian potentially gives new perspectives on the issue that can be
addressed in the descriptions of other languages as well.
  The paper is organized as follows. I begin by introducing and clarifying some of
the terms used in the research (Section 2). Section 3 is devoted to the classification
of the attested marking of the inferiority. In Section 4 the opposition of superiority
and inferiority is discussed in terms of markedness. The analysis of the rivalry of
comparative constructions in Russian is presented in Section 5. Section 6 contains
conclusions.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                180
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


2. Terms and notions


Construction of comparison is defined here as a construction which is used when one
referent is described through the comparison of its degree on a gradable scale with
the degree of another referent.
   I adhere to the practice of identifying constitutive elements of the comparison
construction which is used consistently through the publications on the subject (Ultan
1972; Stolz 2013; Haspelmath et al. 2017; Treis 2018). Still, the terms used and
definitions given in the works on the comparison can be quite different, therefore it
is important to present the terminology as it is used throughout this paper. Consider
the following example.


(1’) Russian (Indo-European)
      Comparee                Parameter Marker Parameter Standard Marker Standard
      Petja                   meneje                   vysokij   čem        Vanja
      Petja                   less                     tall      than       Vanja
      ‘Petja is less tall than Vanja’


It is possible to identify five key components of the construction of comparison. Three
of those components are primary and constitute any comparison construction,
explicitly or implicitly:
Comparee – the referent which is described through the comparison.
Standard of comparison – the referent to which the comparee is being compared.
Parameter of comparison – the property of comparison. It is worth noting that the term
parameter is applied here to only one member of an antonymic pair rather than to
the common basis of the antonyms. For example, high and low are considered to
represent two parameters, not one parameter of height.
The other two components of the constructions of comparison are used to mark the
comparison.
Standard marker – marker of comparison closely associated with the standard of
comparison.
Parameter marker – marker of comparison closely associated with the parameter.
   Note that for the component called here parameter marker the terms degree marker
or degree are employed sometimes (Ultan 1972; Stolz 2013; Haspelmath 2017; Treis
2018). Definitions themselves also may contain the notion of degree. In fact, it seems



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                        181
Modina                                                                        Comparative of Inferiority


like the actual relation of degrees between comparee and standard (i.e. ‘more’ or
‘less’) does not have to be marked exclusively on the parameter. Conjoined
comparatives (formed by two juxtaposed clauses, Stassen 1985: 37-38), exceed
comparatives (comparative constructions where the comparee is the subject of an
‘exceed’ verb and the standard is the direct object, Stassen 1985: 42) 1                            and
comparative constructions with sole standard marker carry the semantics of the
relation of degrees as well, suggesting that the semantic notion of degree is useless
for defining any of the constituents of comparative construction. Consequently, I
argue here that the term parameter marker is a more appropriate one than degree
marker and that the definition of this element should not refer to the notion of degree.2
Therefore, the definitions used here are strictly structural (following Haspelmath et
al. 2017: 11).
     The act of comparison can result in two possible outcomes, namely in the assertion
of equality or in the assertion of inequality of the items regarding some parameter.
Inequality, in turn, can be encoded both in the comparative construction of
superiority and in the comparative construction of inferiority. Comparative of
superiority is defined here as a construction in which the referent that has the property
to a higher degree appears in the position of the comparee (e.g. Horses are bigger than
dogs). Comparative of inferiority is a construction in which the referent that has the
property to a lower degree appears in the position of the comparee (e.g. Dogs are less
big than horses).
     It needs to be mentioned here that the notion of inferiority is largely absent not
only from the descriptive grammars of particular languages but also from the very
basic terms used in the literature on the subject. In other words, the study of

1
    The case of exceed comparatives is a telling one as the ‘exceed’ verb has been analysed both as the
standard marker (in Ultan 1972: “In Sotho, a verb meaning ‘surpass, excel’ assumes the marking
function in the comparative (…) Here again, applying the criterion of immediate constituency, fēta
‘surpass’ must be regarded as a standard marker since it is in constituency with its object which is
equivalent to the standard of comparison in spite of the fact that it obviously contains a semantic
feature of degree”) and as the parameter marker (or index in Dixon 2012: 343-375). This kind of
comparative construction was also entirely excluded from the opposition of parameter marker and
standard marker in Haspelmath (2017): “Like equative constructions, comparative constructions
usually have a standard-marker, or otherwise they may have a verb (‘exceed’) expressing the
relationship between the comparee and the standard. (…) If the construction has a standard-marker
rather than using a verb, it may also have a degree-marker”.
2
    Though it seems to be true that if a construction contains both a parameter marker and a standard
marker the difference in degree (‘more’ or ‘less’) is reflected in the parameter marker.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                         182
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


comparison is skewed to the superior side of the issue. The terms comparative and
superlative 3 themselves are often defined as constructions that express superior
meaning (e.g. Shvedova 1980: 545; Mel’čuk 1998: 117; Cuzzolin & Lehmann 2004:
1213, Treis 2018: iii).4
     As long as such definitions are employed expressions parallel to English ‘less’ and
‘least’ cannot be included in the discussion of comparison. Therefore, I opt here for
less biased definitions following the ones given in Ultan (1972):
Comparative – the construction used to express the situation when the comparee
differs in the degree of the parameter from the standard, where the latter does not
contain all the members of the class to which the former belongs (i.e. John is taller
than the brothers – the referent set of NP brothers does not contain John).
Superlative – the construction used to express the situation when the comparee differs
in the degree of the parameter from the standard, where the latter contains all the
members of the class to which the former belongs (John is the tallest of the brothers –
the referent set on NP brothers does contain John).
     This bias is not random as it reflects the asymmetry of superiority and inferiority
that is discussed further in Section 4. It is important to mention that this bias in
terminology may have partially led to the scarcity of data on the comparative of
inferiority in descriptive grammars. Therefore, a more precise terminology that
incorporates both superiority and inferiority is a desideratum.


3. Marking of the comparative of inferiority


In this section, I sketch out the types of markers of inferiority and give examples of
them. Other constructions of comparison have been studied in depth in regards to
their marking (Ultan 1972; Stassen 1985; Heine 1997; Dixon 2012; Gorshenin 2012;
Bobaljik 2012; Stolz 2013; Haspelmath et al. 2017). These typologies were based on
a variety of grounds such as the source of the marker and the morphosyntactical traits
of constructions. The basic distinction made here is whether the marker of inferiority

3
    An anonymous reviewer points out that while the term comparative is neutral with respect to the
direction of comparison, the term superlative is etymologically connected to the notion of superiority.
Therefore, it may be useful for the theory of comparison to come up with a neutral term that will
bracket superlative and “inferlative” (the least tall).
4
    It is still worth noting that at the same time at least in the last two papers mentioned above the
comparative of inferiority is described as a kind of comparative construction despite the given
definition.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                       183
Modina                                                                 Comparative of Inferiority


is derived from other constructions of comparison or not. The following is not a
classification per se but rather an outline of attested variation in marking
accompanied by the discussion of the issues connected to it.


3.1. Problematic points


Firstly, I would like to mention some problematic points regarding the description of
the comparative of inferiority. One of them is related to the fact that, apparently, in
some languages there are several markers of the comparative of superiority whose
distribution is based on the semantics of the parameter. The “negative” member of an
antonymic pair (e.g. small, light) in those cases is marked with a marker different from
the one applied to the “positive” member (e.g. big, heavy) in comparative
constructions. For example, this kind of opposition is present in Murui (2), where the
meaning of the standard marker refers to distance, interiority, and vertical position.


(2)   Murui (Witotoan; Wojtylak 2018: 175)


a.    Comparee                     Standard Standard Marker                   Parameter
      [kaɨ      jo-fo]vcs          [oo-ɨe      aa-fe-mo]np:perf               aarevcc
      1PL       house-CLF:CAVITY 2SG-GEN above-CLF:SIDE-LOC                   long
      ‘Our house is taller than yours (lit. our house, yours on the top side, long).’
b.    Comparee                                     Standard       Standard Marker
      pila-jɨ=dɨsubj                               [mechera       foo-fe-mo]np:perf
      battery.SP-CLF:SMALL.ROUND=SUBJ/A.TOP lighter.SP            inside-CLF:SIDE-LOC
      Parameter
      jano-re-d-epred
      small-ATT-LK-3
      ‘The battery is smaller than the lighter (lit. the battery, the lighter on the inside,
      is small).’


The author explicitly refers to foofemo as to the marker of inferiority (instead of the
marker of superiority for the “negative” antonym) and, at the same time, underlines
that the notion “inferiority” is not understood as expressing ‘less’ but rather ‘higher
degree of a “negative” adjective’. The same meaning of “inferiority” seems to be




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                  184
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


adopted by A. Aikhenvald for the analysis of one of the comparative strategies in
Yalaku (3).


(3)      Yalaku (Ndu; Aikhenvald 2018: 4)


a.       [semi=de-te]                    [wore-I     de-te]
         tall/long=3MASC.SG-stay go.up-go 3MASC.SG-be
         ‘He is tall, he goes up (in height)’ (lit. Go up go he is)
b.       [foi=de-t],                     [tada-d]
         short=3MASC.SG-be               go.down-3MASC.SG
         ‘He is short, he is shorter (than the other child)’ (lit. He goes down)


     Though this kind of opposition of the markers is definitely worth attention of the
researchers it must be distinguished from the opposition discussed here. Therefore, it
is suggested to investigate this phenomenon further and to develop alternative
terminology for the semantically induced opposition of the markers of superiority.
This kind of difference is not discussed here further.5
     The other problem is connected to the biclausal constructions of comparison which
come in a variety of flavours (see Dixon 2012: 358-360). One of them is conjoined
comparative (in terms of Stassen’s typology) formed by juxtaposition of two
independent clauses with antonyms (A is big, B is small) or two independent clauses,
one of which includes negation (A is big, B is not big) as in Samoan (4).


(4)      Samoan (Oceanic; Cuzzolin & Lehmann 2004: 1214)
         Ua         loa          lenei   va'a,      ua      puupuu       lena
         is         long         this    boat,      is      short        that
         ‘This boat is longer than that.’
As both clauses have the same grammatical structure, it is difficult to identify the
comparee and the standard of such comparative construction. As long as identification
of the components stays problematic, it is not possible to describe such constructions
as instances of comparative of superiority or comparative of inferiority.
Nevertheless, such comparatives are sometimes analysed in regards to superiority or
inferiority. As demonstrated in the description of the comparative constructions in


5
    This opposition is also relevant for Urarina (Olawsky 2006: 208-209), Afar (Bliese 1977: 90).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                        185
Modina                                                                     Comparative of Inferiority


Kanoê, the construction expresses inferiority in the case when the first clause
represents the assertion of the lower degree (5).


(5)    Kanoê (Kapixana; Bacelar 2004: 249, 269)


a.     n̄a       tyj         ej-turo-e-re          pja         tyj         ej-turo
       POSS1SG   house       big-place-DECL-AUX POSS2SG        house big-place
       k-e-re
       NEG-DECL-AUX

       ‘My house is bigger than yours’ (Lit.: ‘My house is big, your house is not big’)
b.     n̄a       vae-nake           ā-nake      k-e-re               [aj       ā-kȳj
       POSS1SG   cousin-FEM         tall-FEM    NEG-DECL-AUX         1SG       tall-MASC
       ō-e-re]
       1-DECL-AUX
        ‘My cousin is less tall than me’ (Lit.: ‘My cousin is not tall, I am tall’)


Therefore, the order of clauses is relevant and it is suggested that in Kanoê it is the
first clause where the comparee is located, but the reason for this analysis is not
specified. One may argue for some kind of iconicity in the ordering of the clauses in
a way that the subject of the first clause is considered to have a higher communicative
rank and should, therefore, be considered the comparee. However, it is not clear if
this interpretation is not arbitrary (i.e. if there is actual communicative inequality of
the referents and the ordering is truly iconic) and if this kind of ordering is systematic
within a single language and cross-linguistically.
     Another possibility is to assume the parallelism of the basic word order and order
of constituents in comparative constructions (where comparee corresponds to S, and
standard to O), as suggested by Romero-Figueroa (1986). Romeo-Figueroa argues that
in Warao, where the basic word order is OSV, the order of clauses in the comparative
construction follows the basic word order of the language, which means that the first
clause contains the standard of comparison, not the comparee (Romero-Figueroa
1986: 105-106). The examples (5a, 5b) from Kanoê corroborate this analysis as well,
because the basic word order in Kanoê is SOV (Bacelar 2004: 228). At the same time,
an opposite point of view is reflected in the grammar of Ayutla Mixe: since the
comparative construction is biclausal, it is not relevant for the word order correlations
(Romero-Méndez 2008: 443).



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                      186
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


     Considering that there is no universal rule to identify the comparee in biclausal
constructions and that the grammars largely remain silent on the basis of the
particular interpretation, it is unclear if the opposition of superiority and inferiority
is relevant for this type of constructions. Thus, biclausal constructions are not
discussed henceforth. The issue of the ordering of clauses in a biclausal comparative
construction requires further study.


3.2. Specific markers of inferiority


“Specific markers of inferiority” are defined here as ones that are not derived from
other constructions of comparison. This kind of markers can be found in comparative
constructions of structurally different types. The subdivision in this category is based
on the degree of parallelism of constructions of superiority and inferiority.


3.2.1 Parallel specific markers of inferiority


First of all, structurally specific markers of inferiority sometimes reflect the features
of the ones that express superiority, i.e. the constructions are identical except for
difference in the relation marker (i.e. the unit that expresses ‘more’ or ‘less’). For
example, in Amis the opposition of superiority and inferiority is possible only in one
type of comparative construction, in which the relation is expressed by a predicate
that is followed by the parameter of comparison. The only difference present is the
predicate itself (6).


(6)    Amis (East Formosan; Kuo & Sung 2010: 32-33)


a.     Ø-ikaka ku             su’su’ ni                  mama aku           tisuwanan
       AF-more NOM            fat      NCM.SG.GEN        father 1SG.GEN     2SG.OBL
       ‘My father is fatter than you.’



b.     Ø-isafa ku             takaraw             nira          takuwanan
       AF-less   NOM          tall                3SG.GEN       1SG.OBL
       ‘He is less tall than me.’




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                            187
Modina                                                                       Comparative of Inferiority


Specific parallel markers are also found in comparative constructions of other
morphosyntactical nature. In Lizu the comparative of superiority is formed with prefix
jæ- and the comparative of the inferiority is marked by the negator mɐ-, exemplifying
the case of parallel affixes (7).


(7)    Lizu (Tibeto-Burman; Chirkova 2019: 29-30)


a.     æ=î jênɐ le ne=î jênɐ pɐ jæ-mbɹə̂
       æ=î                      jênɐ                   le     ne=î           jênɐ
       1SG=GEN                  younger.brother        TOP    2SG=GEN        younger.brother
       pɐ         jæ-mbɹə̌
       like       more-be.tall
       ‘My brother is taller than your brother.’
b.     æ=î jênɐ le ne=î jênɐ pɐ mɐ-mbɹə̂
       æ=î                      jênɐ              le        ne=î           jênɐ
       1SG=GEN                  younger.brother TOP 2SG=GEN                younger.brother
       pɐ         mɐ-mbɹə̌
       like       NEG-be.tall
       ‘My brother is not as tall as your brother.’


This marker of inferiority is analysed here as a non-derived one because, firstly, the
comparative of inferiority does not contain the marker of superiority jæ-, and,
secondly, the marker jæ- is not described as optional (i.e. it is not the case that the
comparative of inferiority is formed by the negation of the comparative of superiority
with the omitted marker jæ-). The same analysis applies to the comparative
constructions of Xuwen (Li & Thompson 1983: 20-21).
     The relation between the referents may be realized in the standard marker (giving
us another example of the uselessness of the notion “degree” when defining elements
of the comparative construction). A special marker of inferiority appears as a marker
of standard in Teribe (8) and Navajo (9).


(8)    Teribe (Talamanca; Quesada 2000: 139, as cited in Dixon 2012: 362)


a.     [Bor                     u]     kégué      bopoya           kinmo
       1SG.POSS                 house old         2SG.POSS         above
       ‘My house is older than yours’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                        188
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


b.    Kwe                     kégué                 bop dorko
      DEM                     old                   2SG under
      ‘This one is less old than you’


(9)   Navajo (Athapaskan; Bogal-Allbritten & Coppock 2020: 127)


a.    Alice      (Ben)        yi-lááh               ’ áníłnééz.
      Alice      Ben          3OBJ-beyond           3SUBJ.tall
      ‘Alice is taller than Ben/him/her/it.’
b.    Alice      shi-’oh               ’áníłnééz.
      Alice      1OBJ-short.of         3SUBJ.tall
      ‘Alice is less tall than me.’


Some languages demonstrate usage of non-derived markers of inferiority parallel to
the “exceed” comparatives of superiority. This type of coding can be found in Amharic
(Leslau 1995: 788) and Hausa (10).


(10) Hausa (Chadic; Newman 2000: 93-96)


a.    Kanṑ                    tā                    fi           Kàdūna     yawàn         mutāǹ ē
      Kano                    it                    exceeds Kaduna          quantity.of   people
      ‘Kano is bigger (i.e., more populous) than Kaduna’
b.    Gidānā                  yā       gazā ̀            nākà        girmā
      House.of.my             it       falls short       of yours    size
      ‘My house is not as large as yours’


3.2.2 Non-parallel specific markers of inferiority


Nevertheless, sometimes comparative of superiority and comparative of inferiority
are not quite parallel in structure. Consider an example from Arapaho (11). The
comparative of superiority is expressed by the use of /cebe’ei/ (‘more, beyond’) or
/wo’ow/ (‘farther, more’) with a verb while the comparative of inferiority is expressed
quite differently with the use of a negative verb and the particle wootíí ‘like’.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                  189
Modina                                                              Comparative of Inferiority


(11) Arapaho (Algonquian; Cowell & Moss 2008: 228-230)


a.   ceebe’eitéi’éíht
     cebe’ei-tei’eihi-t
     IC.beyond-strong(AI)-3S

     ‘S/he is stronger.’
b.   hoow(u)téi’éíh        wootíí nenééninoo
     ihoowu-tei’eihi       wootii              neeni-noo
     NEG-strong(AI)        like                IC.to   be(AI)-1SG
     ‘S/he is not as strong as me.’ (lit. ‘S/he is not strong like me.’)


Given that the particle wootíí does not occur in the comparative of superiority or the
comparative of equality, it, accompanied by a negator on the verb, is considered to
constitute a specific marker of inferiority that is structurally different from the marker
of superiority.
In Central Alaskan Yupik some roots can be expanded by verbalizing suffixes to
express inferiority. The marker of superiority is of different origin: note that the
structures of comparative are different and comparative of superiority is actually
attached to one of the verbalizing suffixes that are in opposition with the -kelli- (12).

(12) Central Alaskan Yupik (Eskimo; Miyaoka 2012: 278)
     qas-tu-uq ‘it is loud'
     qas-kit-uq ‘it is quiet, less loud’
     qas-kelli-uq ‘it is getting quieter, less loud’

(13) Central Alaskan Yupik (Eskimo; Miyaoka 2012: 1305)

a.   tuner-tu-nrurt-uq
     ‘it is getting more powerful’.
b.    tuner-kelli-uq
     ‘it is getting less powerful’


3.3. Derived markers of inferiority


At the same time, quite often languages employ markers of inferiority that are derived
from other constructions of comparison such as equative and comparative of
superiority.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                               190
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


3.3.1 Negated equative


One of the most frequently attested ways of expressing inferiority is a negated
equative construction. This kind of derived marking seems to be the only way to mark
inferiority in a number of languages of different origin (14)-(16).


(14) Fongbe (Kwa; Lefebvre & Brousseau 2002: 435)


a.    Kɔ̀kú      sù           ɖì                  / sɔ̀            Àsíbá.
      Koku       be.tall      resemble            / equal Asiba
      ‘Koku is as tall as Asiba.’
b.    Kɔ̀kú      sù           sɔ̀      Àsíbá      ǎ.
      Koku       be.tall      equal Asiba         NEG

      ‘Koku is not as tall as Asiba.’ (while the translation does not contain less, the
      construction is referred to as a way to express inferiority)


(15) Kadiwéu (Guaicuruan; Sandalo 1997: 74-75)


a.    Maria dawe alikyagi nGijo lyone:Ga.
      Maria      y-d:-awe                         alikyagi nGijo           lyone.Ga
      Mary       3SG.SUBJ-theme-be.fast           like           DEM       young.man
      ‘Mary is as fast as this boy.’ (Lit.: ‘Mary is fast like this boy.’)
b.    Maria adawe alikyagi nGijo lyonerGa
      Maria      aG-y-d:-awe                              alikyagi nGijo        lyone.Ga
      Mary       NEG-3SG.SUBJ-theme-be.fast               like           DEM    young.man
      ‘Mary is less fast then this boy.’ (Lit.: ‘Mary is not fast like this boy’)


(16) Nuosu (Burmese-Lolo; Gerner 2013: 447-449)


a.    vit gga    a hni        su       si nip     vit gga        a shy     su   ngex ngep nrat.
      clothes    red          NOM      with       clothes        yellow NOM similarly       nice
      ‘The red clothes are as beautiful as the yellow clothes.’
b.    zze ti     cyx          ma       li         a zzyx           ma      ngex ngep a-ap-du.
      table      DEM.PROX CL           TOP        DEM.DIST         CLF     similarly thick<NEG>
      ‘This table is less thick than that table.’



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                       191
Modina                                                                Comparative of Inferiority


The negation of the equeative is introduced by a special predicate jokodu ‘to be true'
in Bororo (17).


(17) Bororo (Bororoan; Nonato 2008: 101-102)


a.   ime erijore areme kori
     ime        e          rico                re       areme     Ø       kori
     men        3PL        (to be) tall        ASSERT   women     3SG comparison
     ‘Men are as tall as women’
b.   areme erijojokodukare ime ekori
     areme      e.rijo.jokodu.ka.re                         ime       e.kori
     women 3PL.(to be)tall.(to be)true.not.ASSERT           men       3PL.comparison
     ‘Women are less tall than men’ (lit. ‘it is not true that women are as tall as men’)


It is important to point out that this kind of construction is not actually compositional,
because the negation of equation is in fact ambiguous: inequality can be both of
superior and inferior nature. This non-compositionality gives us ground to consider
the negated equative construction a distinct type of derived marker of inferiority. The
crosslinguistic regularity of this interpretation of such constructions is of particular
interest (see also for Zaar, Caron 2017: 170, Kambaata, Treis 2018: 15-16, Somali,
Evangeliste & Cyprien 1897: 64-65).
    The issue that is important to note here is that the scope of negation may vary. In
the case of the negated equative the fact that it is not only the parameter that lies in
the scope of negation is sometimes underlined. For the example (18), the author
highlights: “Note that the infinitival VP is included in the scope of the negative,
otherwise the translation would be ‘I equal him in (extent of) not eating’”.

(18) Koyra Chiini (Songhay; Heath 1999: 318-319)
     ay                  si               gaa [ka too       ga]
     ISG.S               IMPF.NEG         eat [INF attain 3SG.O]
     ‘do not equal him in eating’.(= ‘I eat less than he [does].’)

3.3.2 Negation and the comparative of superiority


This difference in the interpretation induced by the scope of negation does not seem
to be problematic in the case of the negated equative. However, in some languages
comparative of inferiority is described as expressed by the presence of the negation


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                 192
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


in the environment typical not for equative, but for the comparative of superiority. In
these cases the role of the scope of negation can be a bit trickier, as the difference in
interpretation is not as straightforward as in the case of the negated equative. One of
the possible scope-induced differences is discussed on the data from Mbyá Guaraní in
Thomas (2017). In Mbyá Guarani “the order of suffixes on a predicate determines the
respective semantic scope of the operators that they denote” (Thomas 2017: 251).
Thus, the comparative of inferiority and the negated comparative of superiority are
comprised of the same components (parameter, marker of superiority, negation), but
these components are put together in different orders. In the case of negated
comparative        of    superiority       it    can        be   schematically   modelled    as
[[adjective]+‘more’]+negation]. The ordering specifies truth conditions: while
(19b) is true if Juan and Pedro have the same height, (19a) is not.


(19) Mbyá Guaraní (Tupian; Thomas 2017: 251)


a.    Juan       Pedro        gui      nda-i-jyvate-i-ve.
      Juan       Pedro        from NEG-B3-tall-NEG-ve
      ‘Juan is less tall than Pedro.’


b.    Juan       Pedro        gu       nda-i-jyvate-ve-i.
      Juan       Pedro        from NEG-B3-tall-ve-NEG
      ‘Juan is not taller than Pedro.’


Therefore, the comparative of inferiority should be distinguished from the negation
of the comparative of superiority.
   The other problem worth consideration in this regard is the issue of the
comparative constructions with morphological antonyms such as unhappier.
Morphological antonym is analyzed here as a separate lexeme, as the negation forms
an opposite parameter rather than functions as a part of the mark of inferiority. An
argument in favour of this analysis is that the negation is already present in the
positive degree of an adjective (unhappy), making it a lexeme feature, not a feature of
the comparative construction. Thus, constructions like more unhappy are
schematically organized as [[adjective]LEXEME + negation]NEW LEXEME+ ‘more’] and not
analyzed as instances of comparative of inferiority but rather as instances of
comparative of superiority with antonymic parameter. Strictly speaking, the Mbyá
Guaraní example (19a) could be an example of this scheme, but the circumfix n-...-i



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                193
Modina                                                             Comparative of Inferiority


is used exclusively on predicates (while in attributive position the negation is marked
by the suffix -(e)’ỹ, Thomas 2017: 249), making the antonymic analysis unlikely.
   This kind of distinction is not always made in the descriptions of comparative
constructions. An example that was described as an instance of comparative of
inferiority comes from Sonora Yaqui (20).

(20) Sonora Yaqui (Cahita; Dedrick & Casad 1999: 111)

a.     če'a       huni'i     tu'ii
       more       even       good
       ‘it is even better’
b.     če'a       huni'i     kaa-tu'ii
       more       even       not-good
       ‘it is even worse’

In this case the authors explicitly state that “the negative is used to derive an
antonym” (note the translation as well), therefore this example is not qualified
here as a comparative of inferiority. Other examples of the appearance of negation
on the marker can be found in Guajiro (Álvarez 2005: 25), Eastern Geshiza
(Honkasalo 2019: 525-526).
     An actual “inferior” interpretation of constructions with negation and marker of
superiority is possible in three cases.
     The first one is when the negation is not utilized for the formation of morphological
antonym and the scope of negation in the comparative construction does not include
‘more’ (the case of (19a)).
     The second possibility can be represented as [adjective+[‘more’ + negation]]
(“not-more happy”). This kind of construction can be identified as a comparative of
inferiority only if it gets non-compositional interpretation of inferiority, otherwise it
is ambiguous. Apparently, an example of this construction may be found in Komi (21)
(for discussion see also Bobaljik 2012: 217-218).


(21) Komi (Permic; Lytkin 1955: 168-169)


a.     mičja-dʒik
       beautiful-cmpr
       ‘more beautiful’
b.     abu-dʒik              mičja
       neg-cmpr              beautiful


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                              194
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


      ‘less beautiful’


The third possibility is when the negated comparative of superiority (“not happier”)
discussed earlier regularly gets the same unambiguous (i.e. non-compositional)
interpretation of inferiority. It seems like this kind of marking might be present in
Mongsen Ao: “An alternative strategy (to express inferiority – V.M.) is for a
comparative proposition ‘X is bigger than Y’ to be globally negated by a clause final
negative particle nuŋ” (Coupe 2007: 261). Also see the literal translation of an
example from Purépecha (22).


(22) Purépecha (Tarascan; Chamoreau 2007: 478)
      Maria      sani=taru                        no        wiŋapi-ʃ-ti                  eski thu.
      Maria      few=more                         NEG       be strong-AOR-ASSERT3 SUB 2
      ‘Maria is weaker (less strong) than you are.’ (Maria is not stronger than you are)


The negation is found on the standard of comparison in the case of Kashibo-Kakataibo,
but it seems to negate the whole predication. The non-literal translation suggests
unambiguous interpretation of this construction:


(23) Kashibo-Kakataibo (Panoan; Biondi 2011: 343)


a.    Roberto ka mas xuá ki Emilio ‘iken
      Roberto                 ka                  mas       xuá ki        Emilio ‘iken
      Roberto.ABS             NAR.3PL             more fat        than Emilio be.3PL.NON.PAST
      ‘Roberto is fatter than Emilio.’
b.    Emilio ka mas xua ki Robertoma ‘iken
      Emilio                  ka                  mas       xua ki          Roberto=ma
      Emilio.ABS              NAR.3PL             more fat        than      Roberto=NEG
      ‘iken
      be.3PL.NON.PAST
      ‘Emilio is not fatter than Roberto (i.e. is less fat).’


Thus, the data suggests that the comparative of inferiority in theory can be based on
the negation of comparative of superiority. Nevertheless, the description of these
constructions needs more attention in regards to the scope of negation and regularity



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                         195
Modina                                                               Comparative of Inferiority


of non-compositional interpretation. Given the lack of the uniform terminology in the
subject field and the scarcity of information on the scope of negation, it might well
be that some of examples actually do not fall into the comparative of inferiority as it
is defined here. These issues require further investigation.


3.3.3 Other derived means


The type of marking of inferiority that is present in the vast amount of the Indo-
European languages – that is a marker like English less, Russian meneje, Spanish menos
– is also seen as a kind of derived marking here, though this point may seem
debatable. The reasoning behind this analysis lies in the fact that these markers seem
to contain the meaning of superiority in them (but no negation involved). This may
not be obvious due to the suppletion as in the case of little-less in English, but in some
languages the parts ‘more’ and ‘few, little’ are overt. Some examples like German
wenig-er ‘less’ = wenig ‘little, few’+ -er ‘more’ were discussed in Bobaljik (2012: 215-
217). Other examples may be found in Romanian (24), Albanian and several other
Indo-European languages.


(24) Romanian (Indo-European; Dobrovie-Sorin & Giurgea 2013: 444-457)


a.   Ion        e           mai     înalt      decât George.
     Ion        is          more tall          than George
     ‘Ion is taller than George.’
b.   Maria      e           mai     puţin      înaltă decât    Andreea.
     Maria      is          more little        tall   than     Andreea
     ‘Maria is less tall than Andreea.’


Another example or the marking of inferiority that involves marker of superiority and
no negation is found in Paraguayan Guarani, where the marking of inferiority involves
diminutive suffix -i- and the marker of superiority -ve (25).


(25) Paraguayan Guarani (Tupian; Estigarribia 2020: 249)

a.   Che amba'apove ndehegui.
     che     a-mba'apo-ve                      ndehegui
     I       1SG.ACT-work-more                 from.you
     ‘I work more than you.’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                196
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


b.     omba'apo'ive ñande hígado ha pitikiri'i kuéra
       o-mba'apo-'i-ve                 ñande-hígado         ha   pitikiri'i=kuéra
       3.ACT-work-DIM-more             1PL.INCL.ACT-liver and kidney=PL
       ‘our liver and kidneys work less’


It is possible for a language to make use of several types of the comparative of
inferiority. In that case it seems very likely that the language that has a non-derived
construction will also have a derived one. It is also possible that some of the derived
types are employed in those languages for which there is no information on the
comparative of inferiority in the grammars (perhaps, derived markers were seen as
simply compositional). The classification presented here is rather coarse but still may
be of value to the theory of comparison.


4. The asymmetry of superiority and inferiority


The connection of marking of inferiority to other constructions of comparison was
chosen as a basis for classification of the types of comparatives of inferiority for one
rather simple reason: this distinction clearly demonstrates that in some cases the
marking of the comparative of inferiority is derived from other constructions of
comparison. This may seem trivial, but at the same time no languages were found to
form other constructions of comparison on the base of comparative of inferiority.
These facts suggest that the comparative of inferiority is the marked member in the
opposition of superiority and inferiority. Though the notion of markedness itself may
be problematic, I will still use this term in the sense of multidimensional correlation
of different properties pointing to the complexity, difficulty or abnormality of one of
the members of opposition (Haspelmath 2006: 37-38).
     The direction of the derivation is not the only sign of the markedness of the
comparative of inferiority. Some languages appear to have no way to express ‘less’
other than switching the referents or using an antonym (e.g. in Mualang, Tjia 2007:
120, Mazatec and Chiquihuitlán, Jamieson 1988: 167-168). The fact that some
languages have no markers of inferiority while having the comparative of superiority
(and never the other way around) suggests that the comparative of inferiority is
simply unnecessary for expressing the meaning of inequality.
     Another indicator of the asymmetry is connected to the optionality of the
parameter marker in some languages. It seems that, in those languages, this



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                        197
Modina                                                             Comparative of Inferiority


optionality is only applied to the comparative of superiority, and for expression of
inferiority the parameter marker is obligatory. An example is found in Turkish (26).


(26) Turkish (Turkic; Lewis 1967: 54)


a.     kurşun-dan            (daha)            ağir
       lead-ABL              (more)            heavy
       ‘heavier than lead’
b.     kurşun-dan            (daha)            az       ağir
       lead-ABL              (more)            little   heavy
       ‘less heavy than lead’


The opposite situation, when the construction with no parameter marker is
interpreted as comparative of inferiority and the marker of inferiority is optional was
not attested.
     The phenomenon of “lesslessness” – the cross-linguistic absence of synthetic
markers of inferiority – indicates the markedness of inferiority as well. This fact was
pointed out without thorough discussion numerous times (Mel’čuk 1998: 119;
Cuzzolin & Lehmann 2004: 1213; Treis 2018: ix), but in Bobaljik (2012) it got
attention as an argument for the proposed Complexity Condition which states that
“certain types of meanings are complex in ways that the resources of UG cannot pack
into a single morpheme” (Bobaljik 2012: 212). It is suggested that inferiority in fact
consists of superiority plus reversing operator and, therefore, the meaning of
inferiority is considered to be too complex to be expressed by a single morpheme.
This theory is reinforced by the aforementioned fact that in some languages the item
in which the relation is expressed (e.g. English less) in fact contains the comparative
of superiority thus indicating the derivation of the comparative of inferiority. Still, it
has to be mentioned that, as discussed above, some languages do have non-derived
markers of inferiority, some of which are even described as morphemes (see examples
for Lizu (7) and Navajo (9)). Nevertheless, the absence of the synthetic marker of
inferiority in the presence of the synthetic marker of superiority (even if relevant only
for some languages) still may be considered as a sign of the markedness of the
comparative of inferiority.
     It has been argued that the marked member of the opposition is cognitively more
complex: it requires more mental effort, attention and time to be processed (Givón



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                              198
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


1991: 337). Psycholinguistic studies have shown that the asymmetry of superiority
and inferiority in terms of usage, interpretation and judgement is validated
experimentally: “People therefore use ‘more than’ statements more frequently, agree
with them more, more readily believe them, and like them better” (Hoorens &
Bruckmüller 2015: 765). The effects of this cognitive asymmetry are described in
terms of saliency: perceptually it is easier to perceive the presence of an attribute
rather than its absence (Hoorens & Bruckmüller 2015: 754).
     One of the most prominent properties of comparatives of inferiority is their low
frequency. It sometimes gets underlined in grammars (for example, for Arapaho in
Cowell & Moss, 2008: 230) and definitely shows up in Russian. 6 The data from
Russian National Corpus demonstrates that the comparative of inferiority constitutes
only about 4.7% of all the cases of comparatives with adjectives (both synthetic and
analytic). Considering that the structural markedness is, arguably, a result of
frequency asymmetries, this distinction may be considered the most important one
(Haspelmath 2006: 48-49).
     Therefore, a number of features make comparative of inferiority the marked
member in the opposition of superiority and inferiority. The conditions of use of the
marked member in a pair of interchangeable items are of special interest. These
conditions are of even higher interest in the case of comparative constructions since
there is a possibility of using non-marked comparative of superiority through the
switching of referents or using an antonym (i.e. A horse is taller than a dog and A dog
is shorter than a horse instead of A dog is less tall than a horse), which seems to be
enough to express comparison for some languages.                      The investigation of the
distribution of the constructions of inequality will make it possible to describe the
functions of the comparative of inferiority in those languages that have a way to
express it.


5. Aspects of the use of the comparative of inferiority in Russian


In this section, I provide a discursive, semantic, lexical and pragmatic account for the
usage of the comparative of inferiority in Modern Russian language. Here I present
only some of the findings based on the data from the Russian National Corpus (RNC)

6
    One example of an alleged preference of the comparative of inferiority is found in Bura (Chadic):
“Bura adjectives and adverbs are compared ‘down’ rather than ‘up’. Instead of having ‘black, blacker’,
they speak of ‘black, less black’” (Blench 2009: 12).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                      199
Modina                                                                  Comparative of Inferiority


and data collected in the acceptability judgement experiment, for the in-depth
discussion see Modina (2020).
Russian has both comparatives of superiority and inferiority. Superiority may be
marked both synthetically and analytically and inferiority is marked only analytically,
therefore illustrating the common phenomenon of “lesslessness”. The negation of
equative construction is regularly interpreted as expressing ‘less’. Consequently, in
this paper equatives under negation in Russian are considered to express inferiority.
Therefore, there are four possible constructions to express inequality in Russian in
terms of marking the relations of degrees: synthetic comparative of superiority (27.a),
analytical comparative of superiority (27.b), comparative of inferiority with meneje
‘less’ (27.c) and negation of equality (27.d).


(27) Russian (Indo-European)


a.     Vanja     vyš-e                 čem     Petja
       Vanja     tall-‘more’           than    Petja
       ‘Vanja is taller than Petja’
b.     Vanja     boleje      vysokij           čem     Petja
       Vanja     more        tall              than Petja
       ‘Vanja is taller than Petja’
c.     Petja     meneje      vysokij           čem     Vanja
       Petja     less        tall              than Vanja
       ‘Petja is less tall than Vanja’
d.     Petja     ne          takoj vysokij       kak      Vanja
       Petja     NEG         so        tall      as       Vanja
       ‘Petja is less tall than Vanja’ (lit. ‘Petja is not as tall as Vanja’)


Taking into account that either of compared items can, theoretically, appear in the
position of comparee (e.g. Horses are bigger than dogs vs. Dogs are less big than horses)
and the possibility of usage of any of the antonyms as the parameter (“bigness” or
“smallness”) there is a rivalry of eight expressions with the same assertion of
inequality.
     In the light of the markedness of comparative of inferiority described in the
previous section the comparative constructions of superiority are considered to be the
default comparative constructions. Comparative of inferiority is seen as a “last resort”



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                   200
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


that is used when the usage of comparative of superiority is impeded (or “blocked”)
by factors of diverse nature. There are two types of blocking: “blocking of the
conversive” (the need for the appearance of the particular referent in the position of
comparee) and “blocking of the antonym” (the need for the usage of a particular
member of an antonymic pair as the parameter of comparison). Essentially, it means
that the comparative of inferiority is used when a particular referent needs to be
described through a particular parameter. Blocking of a conversive is mostly related
to the factors of a discursive nature and blocking of an antonym is mostly induced by
the semantic features of an antonymic pair.


5.1. Discursive functions

Comparative may be seen as a type of valency-increasing operation because a new
participant, namely, the standard of comparison, is added to the situation expressed
by a positive (Plungyan 2011: 208). Comparative, then, is a source of the regular
conversive formation. Jurij D. Apresyan distinguishes two kinds of conversives:
lexical and grammatical ones. Both of them represent a shared category that reflects
differences in the “logical accentuation” (Apresyan 1995: 257), i.e. reflects the
distribution of the communicative ranks of the participants without changing the
event structure (similar to the notion of function-changing operations in terms of
Haspelmath, 2010: 236-237, but also includes non-grammatical oppositions). After
the addition of a new participant the redistribution of communicative ranks becomes
available. It can be employed either lexically with an antonym (28.b) or
grammatically, with the same lexeme, through the comparative of inferiority (28.c).

(28) Russian (Indo-European)

a.    Vanja      vyš-e             čem            Petja
      Vanja      tall-‘more’       than           Petja
      ‘Vanja is taller than Petja’
b.    Petja      niž-e             čem            Vanja
      Petja      short-‘more’      than           Vanja
      ‘Petja is shorter than Vanja’
c.    Vanja      meneje vysokij                   čem Petja
      Vanja      less       tall                  than Petja
      ‘Vanja is less tall than Petja’




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                      201
Modina                                                                            Comparative of Inferiority


In this sense, the opposition of superiority and inferiority resembles the voice
oppositions. Semantic, syntactic and communicative linking for the voice opposition
in Russian can be conveniently demonstrated with the following tables (Table 1 and
Table 2).


(29) Russian (Indo-European)


a.   Raboč-ije                 strojat                 škol-u
     worker-NOM.PL             build                   school-ACC.SG
     ‘The workers build the school’


                                                Table 1
                   Semantic role            Agent                  Patient
                   Syntactic                Subject                (Nondirect)
                   function                                        object
                   Communicative            Higher                 Lower
                   rank

                               Table 1: ‘The workers build the school’.


b.    Škol-a                   stroit-sja              raboč-imi
     school-NOM.SG             build-REFL              worker-INS.PL
     ‘The school is built by workers’


                                                 Table 2
                    Semantic role            Patient                Agent
                    Syntactic                Subject                (Nondirect)
                    function                                        object
                    Communicative            Higher                 Lower
                    rank

                               Table 2: ‘The school is built by workers’.


However, it is rather difficult to describe the arguments of a comparative construction
in terms of either semantic roles or syntactic functions. For example, in Russian an
adjective in comparative construction may appear both in an attributive and in a
predicative function, and in the latter case both the comparee and the standard appear
in the nominative case (30). In the attributive function an adjective can modify a


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                             202
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


noun that is not the subject of the sentence. In this case the comparee is not the subject
and is not marked by nominative (the comparee is marked by dative in (31)), while
the standard still appears in nominative.


(30) Russian (Indo-European)
      Vmeste     s            tem      taktičeskije raznoglasija           na   etot sčet
      Together with           this     tactic       disagreements          on   this issue
      gorazdo meneje          važny               dlja      nas čem obščnost’        strategičeskix
      far        less         important           for       us     than community strategic
      interesov Rossii        i        SŠA.
      Interests Russia        and      USA
      ‘At the same time the tactic disagreement on this issue is far less important for
      us than common strategic interests of Russia and the USA’ [RNC]


(31) Russian (Indo-European)
      Noxo       rešyl        čto      prežnije ugodja           volki   ostavili komu-to boleje
      Noxo       decided      that     old        land           wolves left    someone more
      sil’nomu, čem           golod.
      strong     than         hunger
      ‘Noxo decided that wolves left the old land for someone who is stronger than
      hunger’ [RNC]


Therefore, the notions of semantic roles and syntactic functions are not particularly
helpful in the case of the comparative constructions. What is important here is the
redistribution of communicative ranks behind the redistribution of syntactic functions
(Plungyan 2011: 185–191) – a procedure that is applicable to the comparative
constructions, given that the comparee and the standard are defined in
communicative terms. The comparee (defined here as the referent which is described
through the comparison) has the highest communicative rank in a comparative
construction, while the standard has the lowest. Parallel to the agent-backgrounding
operations, comparative of inferiority may be defined as a “comparee-backgrounding”
operation. It can be illustrated by the tables parallel to the ones for the voice
alternations (Table 3 and Table 4).




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                   203
Modina                                                                        Comparative of Inferiority




(32) Russian (Indo-European)


a.   Vanja      boleje        vysokij             čem     Petja
     Vanja      more          tall                than Petja
     ‘Vanja is more tall than Petja’


                                             Table 3
                   Referent             Has the property      Has the property
                                        to    a     higher    to a lower degree
                                        degree
                   Component of         Comparee              Standard
                   the comparative
                   construction
                   Communicative        Higher                Lower
                   rank


                              Table 3: ‘Vanja is more tall than Petja’.


b.   Petja      meneje        vysokij             čem     Vanja
     Petja      less          tall                than Vanja
     ‘Petja is less tall than Vanja’


                                               Table 4
                   Referent              Has the property      Has the property
                                         to a lower degree     to     a    higher
                                                               degree
                   Component of          Comparee              Standard
                   the comparative
                   construction
                   Communicative         Higher                Lower
                   rank

                               Table 4: ‘Petja is less tall than Vanja’.


Consequently, the comparative of inferiority may serve functions similar to that of a
derived voice. For example, the comparative of inferiority may be used for the change
of topic (topic understood here as the referent that is “intended to persist in the



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                         204
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


subsequent discourse” Givón 2020: 113), as in examples (33) (previous topic – other
kinds of Lagomorphs) and (34) (previous topic – another type of transport).


(33) Russian (Indo-European)
      Meneje      izvestnyje predstaviteli         zajtseobraznyx            piščuxi Oni mel’č-e
      Less        known       specimen             Lagomorphs                pikas     they small-‘more’


      zajtsev     ushki       i        lapki       u     nix      koroč-e.
      hares       ears        and      legs        at they short-‘more’
      ‘Pikas are a less known kind of Lagomorphs. They are smaller than hares and
      their ears and legs are shorter’ [RNC]


(34) Russian (Indo-European)
      Vozdušnyj               že       transport            v etom smysle meneje privlekatelen.
      Air                     PTCL     transportation in this sence                  less   appealing
      ‘Air transportation is less appealing in that regard’ [RNC]


At the same time, the comparative of inferiority may serve an opposite function, i.e.
it may be used for keeping the topic. This is the “blocking of the conversive”
mentioned before: the comparative of inferiority is used to keep the particular
participant in the position of the comparee because of the participant’s high topicality.
The following examples are retrieved from encyclopedias: in an encyclopedia the
topic of a particular article is identified clearly and should not be changed (example
(35) is from an article about anaerobiosis, (36) from an article on rheas, (37) from an
article about Germany).


(35) Russian (Indo-European)
      poetomu                 anaerobioz           kak      tip        obmena          veščestv
      therefore               anaerobios           as       type       exchange substances
      meneje effectiven čem            aerobioz
      less        effective than aerobiosis
      ‘[…] this is why anaerobiosis as a type of metabolism is less effective than
      aerobiosis’ [RNC]




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                         205
Modina                                                                          Comparative of Inferiority


(36) Russian (Indo-European)
        Nandu       ptitsy      vneshne             poxožie na        strausov      no    sostavlajuščie
        Rheas       birds       externally         similar     on     ostriches but constituting
        samostojatel’nyj        otrad. Oni         meneje jarkije           i       pomen’š-e
        separate                order they         less        colorfull    and small-‘more’
        strausov
        ostriches
        ‘rheas look like ostriches, but are considered to be a separate order. They are
        less colorful and smaller than ostriches’ [RNC]


(37) Russian (Indo-European)
        Torgovlya               aktsijami          kompanij gorazdo             meneje razvita
        Trading                 stock              companies far                less      developed
        čem         v           anslosaksonskix             stranax
        than        in          Anglo-Saxon                 countries
        ‘The stock trading (in Germany) is far less developed than in the Anglo-Saxon
        countries’ [RNC]


For example, it would be quite questionable to make Anglo-Saxon countries the
comparee and to use the comparative of superiority in (37) (‘The stock trading in the
Anglo-Saxon countries is more developed than in Germany’) when the topic of the
article is Germany.7
     The usage of the comparative of inferiority in coreferential comparison (defined as
comparative construction where “the comparee and the standard are the same object
described at different stages” (Knjazev 2007: 208) can be motivated by topicality as
well, as there may be a need for accentuating the earlier or the later state of affairs.
The topic in (38), the condition after drinking alcohol, not before, while in (39) it is
the state of affairs earlier in history.

7
    The comparative of superiority would be appropriate if there were no need to maintain the topicality
of Germany (for example, if the article were about stock trading and the author would like to move on
to description of the stock trading in other countries). In this case the comparative of superiority would
serve to change the topic – the function, discussed earlier for the comparative of inferiority. An
anonymous reviewer points out that these functions of keeping and changing the topic, therefore, are
not exclusive for the comparative of inferiority, which is absolutely correct. Nevertheless, the goal of
this Section is to explore the distribution of the comparative of inferiority rather than to pinpoint its
unique features.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                           206
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222




(38) Russian (Indo-European)
      Nemedlennoe             dejstvije           alkogola       na      organizm čeloveka
      Immediate               effect              alcohol        on      organism human
      xorošo      izvestno.   Posle prinatii 2-3       portsyi        alkogola    zrenije
      well        known       after taking             portions       alcohol     vision
      stanovitsja             menee               četkim i            jasnym      a     reč
      becomes                 less                precise and clear               and speech
      nevnatnoj               uxudšaetsja         koordinatsija       dviženij
      unintelligible          worsens             coordination actions
      ‘The immediate effect of the alcohol on the human body is well-known. After 2-
      3 drinks the vision becomes less clear, the speech becomes unintelligible and the
      coordination worsens’ [essilor.ru]


(39) Russian (Indo-European)
      Narod       prosveščalsja        imenno     sozertsaja     steny     knižnaja miniatura
      People      educated             exactly looking           walls     book         miniature
      takže       kak         i        sama       kniga byla gorazdo meneje dostupnoj
      as.well     as          and      itself     book was far             less       accessible
      ‘People educated themselves by looking at the walls because book miniatures,
      just like books, were far less accessible (than nowadays)’ [RNC]


Thus, on one hand, comparatives of superiority and inferiority reflect different
communicative ranks of the participants, and, therefore, the comparative of
inferiority may be used for changing the topic. On the other hand, the comparative
of inferiority may function as a way to keep the topic. Either way, the discursive
factors play a crucial role in the use of comparative constructions.


5.2. Semantic reasons


Here and further, I present some results of the statistical analysis performed on a
sample of texts from Russian National Corpus (all texts were written after 1945).
The usage of comparative of superiority may be impeded by the features of the
antonymic pair. Firstly, the most obvious reason for the blocking of the use of an
antonym is the absence of a readily available antonym (40).



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                       207
Modina                                                                          Comparative of Inferiority




(40) Russian (Indo-European)
       Mne      kažetsja     v         otličije      ot     kotov       koški                 meneje
       To.me    seems        in        difference from male.cats female.cats                  less
       svobodolubivyje bol’še strematsja k                  domašnemu ujutu
       freedom-loving        more seeks              to     indoor            coziness
       ‘I feel like female cats, unlike male cats, are less freedom-loving, they seek the
       home coziness’ [RNC]
(40’) Russian (Indo-European)
       Koški                 ?-ее                   / boleje ?
       Female.cats           ?-‘more’               / more ?
       ‘female cats are ?-er/ more ?’


Therefore, the absence of an antonym is analyzed as a possible condition in which the
usage of the comparative of inferiority rises. As shown in Table 5, corpus data showed
that this prediction is supported in the case of the negation of equative (χ2,
p=0.028), but not in the case of the comparative of inferiority with meneje.8


                                                  Table 5
                                          Comparative            Negated equative
                                          of superiority
                     Adjectives with      318 (95.50%)           15 (4.50%)
                     no antonym
                     Adjectives with      1766 (97.62%)          43 (2.38%)
                     an antonym
                     Sum                  2084 (97.29%)          58 (2.71%)


                                 Table 5: Adjectives with no antonym.


Secondly, pairs of morphological antonyms were analysed using the same data. These
kind of pairs are quite heterogeneous in respect to their semantic features (Joshi
2012).    While some antonyms seem to be quite interchangeable in comparative
constructions (41), others do not (42).


8
    A readily available antonym was considered absent if there were no antonym in the
AntonymsDictionary (database comprised of four Russian antonyms dictionary): http://web-
corpora.net/wsgi/antonyms.wsgi/antonyms.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                           208
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222




(41) Russian (Indo-European)
        Osnovnaja                zadača           sdelat’      vstavki      vozmožno         meneje
        Main                     goal             make         insertions possible           less
        zametnymi
        visible
        ‘the main goal is to make the insertions as less visible as possible’ [RNC]


(41’) Russian (Indo-European)
        sdelat’     vstavki           vozmožno boleje nezametnymi
        make        insertions        possible   more        invisible
        ‘to make the insertions as more invisible as possible’


(42) Russian (Indo-European)
        vozmožno iz-za                  meneje kačestvennogo snaraženija
        possible because.of             less      high-quality            equipment
        nam         prixoditsja ispytyvat’        bol’šije        fizičeskije nagruzki            čem
        we          have.to      undergo          big.more        physical      excertion         than
        našim       kollegam     na     Zapade
        our         colleagues on       East
        ‘it is possible that, because the quality of our equipment is lower (lit. because of
        less high-quality equipment) we undergo more physical exertion than our
        western colleagues’ [RNC]


    (42’)     Russian (Indo-European)
        ? iz-za                  boleje nekačestvennogo snaraženija
              because.of         more not-high-quality            equipment
        Lit. ‘because of more not-high-quality equipment’9




9
      There    is   no   equivalent   morphological   antonymic    pair    in   English     for   Russian
kačestvennyj/nekačestvennyj ‘high-quality’/’not-high-quality’, but consider the difference between less
pleasant music and more unpleasant music.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                            209
Modina                                                                       Comparative of Inferiority


Meanwhile, corpus data shows that in pairs of morphological antonyms the
proportion of comparative of inferiority is higher than in other cases (χ2, p=0.002;
cf. Table 6).10


                                                  Table 6
                                             Comparative       Comparative
                                             of superiority    with meneje and
                                                               negated equative
                        Adjectives with      830 (90.41%)      88 (9.59%)
                        morphological
                        antonym
                        Other adjectives     1254 (93.93%)     81 (6.07%)
                        Sum                  2084 (92.50%)     169 (7.50%)


                  Table 6: Adjectives with morphological antonym (number of lexemes)


This fact is interesting in the light of the derivation of the comparative of inferiority
proposed in Bobaljik (2012): the author suggests that the comparative of inferiority
is formed when the reversing operator (or negator) fails to merge with the adjective.
If it were the case, the pair of antonyms like pleasant and unpleasant would not be
expected to appear in the comparative of inferiority: the operator is overtly merged
with the adjective. The analysis shows that Russian data does not support this
derivation as these kinds of pairs, on the opposite, appear to be one of the conditions
for the higher rate on the comparative of inferiority.
    Thirdly, the influence of the class of adjective pair in terms of the classification
proposed in Bierwisch (1989) on the choice of the construction was analysed. The
author makes a distinction between dimensional (tall, narrow) and evaluative (smart,
lazy) adjectives. Pairs of evaluative adjectives cannot be used for describing the same
situation because they localize their referents on different scales. The pair in (43)
seems to be more interchangeable than the pair in (44).


(43) Russian (Indo-European)


a.       Vanja      vyš-e                  čem      Petja
         Vanja      tall-‘more’            than     Petja

10
     The adjective was defined as only having a morphological antonym if, firstly, no lexical antonyms
were found in the AntonymDictionary database and, secondly, a morphological antonym was found in
more than five texts in the main corpus of RNC (so as to filter the cases of occasional word formation).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                        210
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


         ‘Vanja is taller than Petja’
b.       Petja      niž-e                čem        Vanja
         Petja      short-‘more’         than       Vanja
         ‘Petja is shorter than Vanja’


(44) Russian (Indo-European)
a.       Vanja     umn-eje             čem Petja
         Vanja     smart-‘more’        than Petja
         ‘Vanja is smarter than Petja’
b.       Petja     glup-eje            čem Vanja
         Petja     stupid-‘more’       than Vanja
         ‘Petja is stupidier than Vanja’11


These limitations are considered to be the cases of potential blocking of an antonym.
Therefore, it is predicted that pairs of evaluative adjectives appear in the comparative
constructions of inferiority more frequently than pairs of parametric adjectives (Table
7).12 Corpus data support this prediction (Fisher’s exact test, p=0.01252).13


                                                  Table 7
                                             Comparative         Comparative
                                             of superiority      with meneje and
                                                                 negated equative
                         Dimensional         1176 (99.32%)       8 (0.68%)
                         adjectives
                         Evaluative          315 (95.74%)        14 (4.26%)
                         adjectives
                         Sum                 1491 (98.54%)       22 (1.46%)



11
     Note a similar comment in a grammar of Basque when discussing the comparative of inferiority and
the possibility of the use of the comparative of superiority with an antonym: “I will close this subsection
with the important observation that Basque possesses no comparatives denoting inferiority in quality.
In particular, there is no straightforward way of rendering the English sentence Mary is less pretty than
Eve. Since Miren Eba baino itsusiagoa da ‘Mary is uglier than Eve’ won’t do, the only possibility is to
resort to a negated equative: Miren ez da Eba bezain polita ‘Mary is not as pretty as Eve’” (de Rijk 2008:
713-714).
12
     This prediction in other terms is also formulated in Apresyan (1995: 266).
13
     The evaluation of the pair of adjectives regarding the opposition of evaluative and dimensional
adjectives is rather convoluted. The details of this process can be found in Modina (2020).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                          211
Modina                                                                      Comparative of Inferiority




                    Table 7: Parametric and evaluative adjectives (number of tokens)


To sum up, it can be said that the semantic features of a pair of antonyms (availability
of an antonym, its morphological structure, its semantic class) influence the choice of
a comparative construction.


5.3. Lexical factors


At the same time, it is possible that the factors that cannot be described in terms of
blocking have an impact on the choice of the comparative construction as well. In
particular, the high frequency of constructions of superiority may partially stem from
the connection of those constructions to the high-frequency lexemes.
     Firstly, the analysis of the corpus data showed that the distribution of constructions
by lexemes is not homogeneous, i.e. different constructions are used with different
lexemes. Though this finding may seem trivial, in fact it is not: if the low frequency
was just a feature of the comparative of inferiority, it would mean that every adjective
appears in the comparative on inferiority in about 5% of the cases (as the whole
proportion of the comparative of inferiority is about 4.7%). Non-homogeneity shows
that the lexeme itself is a factor that affects the distribution of the constructions.
     Secondly, the comparative of superiority establishes closer links with lexemes than
comparative of inferiority because even the lexemes with the highest proportions of
appearance as the part of the comparative of inferiority (such as zametnyj ‘notable’
that has the highest rates for the construction of inferiority and the negated
construction of equality) are used in those constructions in less than 50% of the cases.
At the same time, the lexemes with the highest rates for the comparative of superiority
are used in them almost exclusively, having the percentage of appearance close to
100%. The results, of course, are limited by the data analysed, but even these
preliminary results demonstrate the differences between the constructions in
question.
     The distribution of constructions is connected to the frequency of the lexeme in
such a way that the most frequent adjectives14 tend to appear in the constructions of
superiority (χ2, p<0.001, Table 8).


14
     Top 100 adjective lexemes by frequency based on the frequency dictionary Lyashevskaya & Sharoff
(2009).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                       212
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222




                                               Table 8
                      Table                Comparative      of   Comparative   of
                                           superiority           inferiority
                      Top 100 adjective    2363 (97.93%)         50 (2.07%)
                      lexemes by
                      frequency
                      Other lexemes        2086 (92.51%)         169 (7.49%)
                      Sum                  4449 (95.31%)         219 (4.69%)


                     Table 8: Top 100 lexemes by frequency (number of tokens).


This connection of the comparative of superiority to the high frequency of a lexeme
partially explains why comparison of superiority appears in texts more often than the
comparison of inferiority. Nevertheless, even without high-frequency lexemes the
proportion of the comparative of inferiority is still much smaller than the proportion
of the comparative of superiority (7.49% vs 92.51%).


5.4. Pragmatic features


In a number of researches on the comparative in Russian it has been argued that the
analytical comparative of superiority has a positive degree in the presupposition in
contrast to the synthetic comparative of superiority (e.g. Mel’čuk 1998: 123;
Grashchenkov & Lyutikova 2017: 124-125). That is ‘Vanja is more tall than Petja’
have the presuppostition ‘Petja is tall’.
Those investigations do not specify any pragmatic features of the comparative of
inferiority (only a brief comment on the comparative with meneje is given in
Grashchenkov & Lyutikova 2017: 125). It is worth noting that in the literature on the
presuppositions equative is mentioned as one of the triggers of the presupposition
(Levinson 1983: 183), i.e. ‘Vanja is as tall as Petja’ has the presupposition ‘Petja is
tall’. If it is true, the presupposition should hold for the negated equative which is
considered here as an instance of the comparative of inferiority. The presence of a
presupposition can influence the relative frequency of the usage of different
comparative constructions, because presupposition naturally narrows down the
amount of the contexts in which the utterance is possible.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                        213
Modina                                                                Comparative of Inferiority


     Aforementioned suggestions have not been tested on any experimental data. To
test the hypothesis of pragmatic opposition of comparative constructions in Russian
an acceptability judgment experiment was carried out. The hypothesis behind the
test was that if a construction has a presupposition then an utterance with such a
construction will have significantly lower acceptability rates in the case that the
context does not support this presupposition. E.g. if the negated equative has
presupposition of the positive degree for the standard, than the utterance (45a) should
get lower rates than the utterance (45b).


(45) Russian (Indo-European)


a.     Pervoje   zdanije    ne      vysokoje. Vtoroe     zdanije    ne    takoje    vysokoje
       first     buildiing NEG      tall       second    building   NEG   so        tall
       kak       pervoje
       as        first
       ‘The first building is not tall. The second building is not as tall as the first one’
b.     Pervoje   zdanije    vysokoje.          Vtoroje   zdanije    ne    takoje    vysokoje
       first     buiding    tall               second    building   NEG   so        tall
       kak       pervoje
       as        first
       ‘The first building is tall. The second building is not as tall as the first one’


The details of the experiment and thorough discussion can be found in Modina (2020).
Here I report only the results relevant to the topic of the current paper (see Fig. 1).
146 respondents completed the survey, where they were asked to rate the
acceptability of the utterances (32 target sentences and 32 fillers) on a Likert scale
(from 1 to 5).
     The analysis showed that synthetic and analytical comparative of superiority do
not have a positive degree for the standard of comparison in presupposition: the rates
of the utterances in the verifying and falsifying context do not differ significantly
(Student’s t-test, p=0.781 and Mann-Whitney U-test, p=0.052). Nevertheless, the p-
value in the case of analytical comparative of superiority is pretty close to the
threshold of 0.05, reflecting the mixed intuitions found in the literature.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                 214
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222




        Figure 1: Mean rates of the target sentences. The rates are z-transformed. ACS – analytical
     comparative of superiority (boleje vysokij ‘more tall’), CI – comparative of inferiority with meneje
(meneje vysokij ‘less tall’), NE – negated equative (ne takoj vysokij kak ‘not as tall as’), SCS – synthetic
        comparative of superiority (vyše ‘taller’); nsup – falcifying context, sup – verifying context.


     Since the rates of utterances in verifying and falsifying context differ significantly
in the case of comparative of inferiority (Mann-Whitney U-test, p<0.001) it can be
said that the comparative of inferiority has the positive degree for the standard of
comparison in presupposition. Consequently, the comparative of inferiority can be
used in a smaller amount of contexts. This fact can partially account for the rarity of
the comparative of inferiority in Russian.
     In the situation of rivalry, members of the opposition can develop additional
aspects of differentiation (Andersen 1983: 119). Marked members can start to serve
additional functions that will keep them used in certain situations. From this
perspective, the existence of the presupposition in the case of comparative of
inferiority may motivate speakers to use these constructions. By using them, a speaker
can give additional information about the standard of comparison.15



15
     Note a similar observation on the pragmatic features of one type of the comparative constructions
in Amis: “Another intriguing observation on ikaka/isafa comparatives is their pragmatic implication.
The usage of ikaka/isafa comparatives not only asserts the truth condition of the comparison, but also
provides the speaker’s judgment regarding the degree of the property of comparison for the compared
entities” (Kuo & Sung 2010: 35).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                              215
Modina                                                                       Comparative of Inferiority


  In the following example the information “two previous lines were wide” is
conveyed by the usage of the comparative of inferiority ne takije širokije 'less wide'
instead of the comparison of superiority such as boleje uzkije ‘more narrow’.


(46) Russian (Indo-European)
     Neskol’ko raz         doroga peresekala ešče         polosy černoj Gobi soveršenno
     Several times         road crossed         again     lines        black     Gobi completely
     besplodnoj            no      ne          takije     širokije          kak dve uže
     barren                but     NEG         so       wide           as      two already
     projdennyje           tak     čto         my proxodili       ix           v odin nočnoj
     crossed               so      that        we crossed         them         in one night
     perexod
     crossing
     ‘The road crossed the lines of black and totally barren Gobi Desert several more
     times, but these lines were not as wide as the two previous ones, so we passed
     through them in one night’ [RNC]


Apparently, pragmatic characteristics of comparative construction come from an
interaction of different factors. The pragmatic opposition can be a feature of
constructions, types of adjectives or classes of antonym pairs and the overlap of these
aspects needs to be investigated further. Nevertheless, it may be argued that the
pragmatic features of the comparative of inferiority are different from those of the
comparative of superiority and can both limit and provoke the usage of the former.


6. Conclusion


To conclude, it is important to underline that the description of the comparative of
inferiority is a challenge even within one language due to the low frequency of the
phenomenon. Most of the issues connected with the comparative of inferiority are not
exhaustively discussed even on the data of well-known languages.
It is no wonder that this type of comparison hardly gets described in grammars, as
the low frequency makes the elicitation difficult even in the case of the specific
markers of inferiority. The markers that are derived are naturally quite often analysed
as compositional, and the subtlety of semantic differences between the comparative
of inferiority and other units (other constructions of comparison with negation,



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                        216
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


morphological antonyms) do not serve the description of comparison well.
Nevertheless, the relations between the comparative of inferiority and other
phenomena allow us to ask a great amount of questions about the comparative of
inferiority and comparison in general, so the researchers are encouraged to devote
more attention to it.
      The aspects of use of comparative constructions, even when examined thoroughly,
do not seem to be easily identifiable and clear-cut. Still, it is precisely the rarity of
the comparative of inferiority that makes it interesting and important: if so rare and
seemingly redundant, why at all present? This is the question that was partially
examined in this paper and that seeks further investigation.



Acknowledgements


I am grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback. I am also
greatly indebted to Dmitry Gerasimov and Artemii Kuznetsov for their valuable
comments.


Abbreviations


1 = first person                     DECL   = declarative          NAR    = narrative register
2 = second person                    DEM    = demonstrative        NCM    = non-common name
3 = third person                     DEM.DIST   = distal           marker
A   = subject of transitive          demonstrative                 NEG    = negation
verb                                 DEM.PROX    = proximal        NOM=     nominative
ABL   = ablative                     demonstrative                 NP   = noun phrase
ACT   = active                       DIM    = diminutive           OBJ   = object
AF   = actor focus                   FEM    = feminine             OBL   = oblique
AI = animate     subject,            GEN    = genitive             PAST   = past
intransitive verb stem               IC   = initial change         PERF   = peripheral
AOR   = aorist                       IMP   = imperfective aspect   (argument)
AUX   = auxiliary                    INCL   = inclusive of the     PL   = plural
ASSERT   = assertive                 addressee(s)                  POSS   = possesive
ATT   = attributive                  INF   = infinitive            PRED   = predicate
B   = cross-referenced               INS   = intrumental           PTCL   = particle
argument, class b                    LK   = linker                 REFL   = reflexive
CLF   = classifier                   LOC   = locative              SUB   = subordinating
CMPR   = comparative                 MASC    = masculine           conjunction



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                     217
Modina                                                                Comparative of Inferiority


SUBJ   = subject of               SP = Spanish loanword          VCC   = verbless clause
intransitive verb                 TOP   = topic                  complement
SG   = singular                                                  VSC   = verbless copula


References


Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2018. Comparison, Contrast and Similarity in Yalaku.
     Linguistic Discovery 16(1). 162-182.
Álvarez, José. 2005. Comparative constructions in Guajiro/Wayuunaiki. Opción
     21(47). 9–36.
Andersen, Paul K. 1983. Word Order Typology and Comparative Constructions.
     Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Apresjan, Jurij D. (Апресян, Юрий Д.) 1995. Izbrannye trudy, tom I. Leksicheskaja
     semantika (Избранные труды. Том 1. Лексическая семантика. Синонимические
     средства языка) [Selected papers, Vol. 1, Lexical Semantics]. Moscow: Jazyki
     Russkoj Kul’tury.
Bacelar, Laércio Nora. 2004. Gramática da língua Kanoê. PhD dissertation, Katholieke
     Universiteit Nijmegen.
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Manfred Bierwisch & Ewald
     Lang (eds.), Dimensional Adjectives, 71-261. Berlin: Springer.
Biondi, Roberto Zariquiey. 2011. A grammar of Kashibo-Kakataibo. PhD Dissertation,
     LaTrobe University.
Blench, Roger. 2009. Bura grammar for a beginner. Bura Language and Bible
     Translation Project.
Bliese, Loren F. 1977. A generative grammar study of Afar. PhD Dissertation, University
     of Texas at Arlington.
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology Suppletion,
     Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
Bogal-Allbritten, Elizabeth & Coppock, Elizabeth. 2020. Quantification, Degrees, and
     Beyond in Navajo. In Peter Hallman (ed.). Interactions of Degree and Quantification,
     121–162. Leiden: Brill.
Caron, Bernard. 2017. Comparison, similarity and simulation in Zaar. In Yvonne Treis
     & Martine Vanhove (eds.), Similative and Equative Constructions: A Cross-linguistic
     Perspective,     169–188.   Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John         Benjamins Publishing
     Company.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                                 218
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


Chamoreau, Claudine. 2007. Grammatical borrowing in Purepecha. In Yaron Matras
   & Jeanette Sakel (eds.), Grammatical borrowing in cross-linguistic perspective, 465–
   480. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Chirkova, Katia. 2019. Comparison constructions in Lizu (Tibeto-Burman). Faits de
   Langues - Les Cahiers. Paris: Ophrys.
Coupe, Alexander R. 2007. A Grammar of Mongsen Ao. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cowell, Andrew & Moss, Sr. Alonzo. 2008. The Arapaho language. Boulder: University
   Press of Colorado.
Cuzzolin, Pierluigi & Lehmann, Christian. 2004. Comparison and gradation. In Geert
   Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.).
   Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, 1857-1882.
   Berlin, New York: W. de Gruyter.
Dedric, John M. & Casad, Eugene H. 1999. Sonora Yaqui language structures. Tucson:
   University of Arizona Press.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2012. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume 3. Further Grammatical Topics.
   Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Giurgea, Ion. 2013. A Reference Grammar of Romanian.
   Volume 1: The noun phrase. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
   Company.
Estigarribia, Bruno. 2020. A Grammar of Paraguayan Guarani. London: ULC Press.
Gawron, Jean Mark. 1995. Comparatives, Superlatives and Resolution. Linguistics and
   Philosophy 18. 333-380.
Gerner, Matthias. 2013. A Grammar of Nuosu. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Markedness in grammar: Distributional, communicative and
   cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language 15(2). 335-370.
Givón,         Talmy.          2020.         Coherence.     Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
   Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gorshenin, Maksym. 2012. The crosslinguistics of the superlative. In Cornelia Stroh
   (ed.), Neues aus der Bremer Linguistikwerkstatt: Aktuelle Themen und Projekte 31, 55-
   160. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Grashchenkov, Pavel V. & Lyutikova Ekaterina A. (Гращенков, Павел В., Лютикова,
   Екатерина А.) 2017. O sintaksise comparativa v russkom yazyke (О синтаксисе
   компаратива в русском языке) [Syntax of the comparative in Russian]. Русский
   язык в научном освещении (Russian Language and Linguistic Theory) 1(33). 116–
   141.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                          219
Modina                                                              Comparative of Inferiority


Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal
  of Linguistics 42. 25–70.
Haspelmath, Martin & Sims, Andrea D. 2010. Understanding Morphology. 2nd edn.
  London: Hodder Education.
Haspelmath, Martin and the Leipzig Equative Constructions Team. 2017. Equative
  constructions in world-wide perspective. In Yvonne Treis & Martine Vanhove
  (eds.), Similative and Equative Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Perspective, 9-32.
  Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Heath, Jeffrey. 1999. A Grammar of Koyra Chiini, the Songhay of Timbuktu. Berlin:
  Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive Foundations of Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University
  Press.
Hilpert, Martin. The English comparative – language structure and language use.
  English Language and Linguistics 12(3). 395-417.
Honkasalo, Sami. 2019. A Grammar of Eastern Geshiza: A Culturally Anchored
  Description. PhD Dissertation, University of Helsinki.
Hoorens, Vera & Bruckmüller, Susanne. 2015. Less is more? Think again! A cognitive
  fluency-based more–less asymmetry in comparative communication. Journal of
  Personality and Social Psychology 109(5). 753-766.
Jamieson, Carole. 1988. Gramática Mazateca: Mazateco de Chiquihuitlán de Juarez.
  México: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
Joshi, Shrikant. 2012. Affixal Negation – Direct, Indirect and their Subtypes. Syntaxe
  & Sémantique 13. 49-63.
Knjazev,   Jurij   P.   (Князев,    Юрий       П.)   2007.   Grammaticheskaja     semantika
  (Грамматическая семантика) [Grammar Semantics]. Moscow: Jazyki Russkoj
  Kul’tury.
Kosheleva, Daria. 2016. Rival Forms of Comparatives in Russian. Poljarnyj vestnik,
  Norwegian Journal of Slavic Studies 19. 42–50.
Kritka, Manfred. 2007. Negated Antonyms: Creating and Filling the Gap. In Uli
  Sauerland & Penka Stateva (eds.) Presupposition and Implicature in Compositional
  Semantics, 163–177. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Kuo, Cheng-Chuen and Sung, Li-May. 2010. On the syntax of Amis comparative
  constructions. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 36. 25–57.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                               220
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 179-222


Larajasse, Evangeliste de & Sampont, Cyprien de. 1897. Practical grammar of the
   Somali language, with a manual of sentences. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner
   & Co.
Lefebvre, Claire & Brousseau, Anne-Marie. 2002. A Grammar of Fongbe. Berlin:
   Mouton de Gruyter.
Leslau, Wolf. 1995. Reference Grammar of Amharic. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles & Thompson, Sandra. 1983. A Grammatical description of Xuwen: A
   colloquial dialect of Lei-zhou Peninsula (Part I). Cahiers de Linguistique Asie
   Orientale 13(1). 3–21.
Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Lyashevskaya, Olga N. & Sharoff, Sergej A. (Ляшевская, Ольга Н. & Шаров, Сергей
   А.) 2009. Novyj častotnyj slovar’ russkoj leksiki (Новый частотный словарь русской
  лексики) [New frequency dictionary of Russian lexicon]. Available online at:
  http://dict.ruslang.ru/freq.php.
Lytkin, Vasily I. (Лыткин, Василий И.) (ed.) 1955. Sovremennyj komi jazyk
   (Современный         коми      язык)    [Modern      Komi].   Syktyvkar:   Komi   knizhnoe
   izdatel’stvo.
Mel’čuk, Igor A. (Мельчук, Игорь А.) 1998. Kurs obščej morfologii. T. II (Курс общей
   морфологии, Т. II) [General morphology course of. Vol. II]. Moscow–Vienna:
   Yazyki russkoj kul’tury–Wiener Slawistischer Almanach.
Miyaoka, Osahito. 2012. A grammar of Central Alaskan Yupik: An Eskimo Language.
   Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Modina, Valeria V. (Модина, Валерия В.) 2020. Inferiornye konstruktsii v kontekste
   konkurentsii komparativnyh konstruktsij s prilagatel’nymi v sovremennom russkom
   yazyke (Инфериорные конструкции в контексте конкуренции компаративных
   конструкций с прилагательными в современном русском языке) [Comparative
   of inferiority in the context of the rivalry of comparative constructions with
   adjectives in Modern Russian]. Master's Thesis, St. Petersburg State University.
Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New
   Haven: Yale University Press.
Nonato, Rafael B. 2008. Ainore Boe egore: um estudo descritivo da língua bororo. Master’s
   thesis, Universidade Estadual de Campinas
Olawsky, Knut. 2006. A Grammar of Urarina [Mouton Grammar Library 37]. Berlin:
   Mouton de Gruyter.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                              221
Modina                                                           Comparative of Inferiority


Plungian, Vladimir A. (Плунгян, Владимир А.) 2011. Vvedenie v grammatičeskuju
  semantiku (Общая морфология: Введение в проблематику) [Introduction to the
  grammar sematics]. Moscow: Russian State University for the Humanities.
Quesada, J. Diego. 2000. A grammar of Teribe. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Rijk, Rudolf P. G., de. 2008. Standard Basque: A Progressive Grammar. Cambridge,
  Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Romero-Figueroa, Andrés. 1986. Warao* Comparatives. Studies in Language 10. 97-
  108.
Romero-Mendez, Rodrigo. 2008. A reference grammar of Ayutla Mixe. PhD
  Dissertation, University at Buffalo.
Sandalo, Maria Filomena. 1995. A Grammar of Kadiweu. PhD Dissertation, University
  of Pittsburgh.
Shvedova, Natalia Yu. (Шведова, Наталия Ю.) (ed.) 1980. Russkaja grammatika. T. I
  (Русская грамматика. Т.I) [Russian Grammar. Vol. I]. Moscow: Nauka.
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stolz, Thomas. 2013. Competing Comparative Constructions in Europe. Berlin: Akademie
  Verlag.
Thomas, Guillaume. 2017. Comparison and the expression of degree in Mbyá Guaraní.
  In: Bruno Estigarribia & Justin Pinta (eds.). Guarani Linguistics in the 21st Century,
  231–258. Leiden: Brill.
Tjia, Johnny. 2007. A Grammar of Mualang. Utrecht: LOT.
Treis, Yvonne. 2018. Comparative Constructions: An Introduction. Linguistic Discovery
  16(1). i-xxvi.
Treis, Yvonne. 2018. Comparison in Kambaata: Superiority, equality and similarity.
  Linguistic Discovery 16(1). 64–99.
Ultan, Russell. 1972. Some features of basic comparative constructions. Working
  Papers on Language Universals (Stanford) 9. 117–162.
Wojtylak, Katarzyna I. 2018. Comparative Constructions in Murui (Witotoan,
  Northwest Amazonia). Linguistic Discovery 16(1). 162-182.



CONTACT
st072157@student.spbu.ru




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13432                                            222
