10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430
This paper traces the diachronic development of comparison constructions crosslinguistically, highlighting a recurrent pattern of change with respect to standard markers: the comparative cycle. Using diachronic corpus data as well as data from descriptive grammars and handbooks, it is demonstrated that comparison particles and other standard markers in many languages undergo a syntactic-semantic distributional shift from marking equality to marking inequality. More specifically, we witness a stepwise and recurrent – i.e. cyclical – shift of standard markers from similatives to equatives and to comparatives. The comparative cycle is compared to other instances of cyclical change and linked to linguistic economy and the markedness hierarchy of comparison constructions.
application/pdf
2785-0943
13430
1
en
Agnes Jäger
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads
comparative
The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective
Text.Serial.Journal
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/
1
Research articles
2021-08-31
2021-08-07
2021-08-31
2021-10-11
124-178
LTC
Agnes Jäger
2021/08/31
10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430
124
Friedrich Schiller University Jena
2785-0943
1
comparative
en
178
<p>Zifonun, Gisela &amp; Hoffmann, Ludger &amp; Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. (= Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 7). Berlin: de Gruyter.</p>
The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective
https://typologyatcrossroads.unibo.it/article/download/13430/13066
1
             Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178   ISSN 2785-0943



     The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective

                                          AGNES JÄGER1
         1
             FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA/DEPARTMENT OF GERMAN LINGUISTICS




                      Submitted: 29/11/2020       Revised version: 06/05/2021
                        Accepted: 17/03/2021          Published: 31/08/2021




                                               Abstract
This paper traces the diachronic development of comparison constructions crosslinguistically,
highlighting a recurrent pattern of change with respect to standard markers: the comparative
cycle. Using diachronic corpus data as well as data from descriptive grammars and
handbooks, it is demonstrated that comparison particles and other standard markers in many
languages undergo a syntactic-semantic distributional shift from marking equality to marking
inequality. More specifically, we witness a stepwise and recurrent – i.e. cyclical – shift of
standard markers from similatives to equatives and to comparatives. The comparative cycle
is compared to other instances of cyclical change and linked to linguistic economy and the
markedness hierarchy of comparison constructions.


Keywords: comparative cycle; diachronic typology; similative; equative; comparative.



1. The comparative cycle: Aims and scope of the paper


Diachronic typological investigations may deepen our understanding of principles and
regularities of language change by uncovering systematic, recurrent patterns of
change that are not limited to a single language but constitute very basic, potentially
universal patterns of language change. One noteworthy case in point is the stepwise
and recurrent – i.e. cyclical – shift of linguistic expressions in comparison
constructions, notably standard markers (e.g. comparison particles) from comparisons
of equality/similarity to those of inequality/dissimilarity, more specifically from
similatives to equatives and to comparatives that is aptly referred to as the
comparative cycle (Jäger 2010; 2018; a terminology taken up e.g. by Reinarz et al.
2016). While previous literature only very occasionally and in passing mentions an



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                              124
Jäger                                                  The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


incidental similarity of two languages in this respect (cf. Zeilfelder 2001 for Sanskrit
and German, Heine & Kuteva 2002 for Chinese and German), this paper systematically
traces the comparative cycle in the history of about 20 languages and varieties on the
basis of corpus data as well as data from descriptive grammars and handbooks in a
diachronic typological perspective. Occasional developments in the opposite direction
are also discussed. The comparative cycle is compared to other instances of cyclical
change (Jespersen’s cycle, subject-agreement cycle etc.) and causes for this
development are explored.1
     After giving an overview of the central types of comparison constructions and
introducing the markedness hierarchy of comparisons as well as a typology of
standard marker systems in section 2, the crosslinguistic diachronic phenomenon
captured in the comparative cycle is investigated in various languages in section 3.
Section 4 puts the empirical findings in the language-change theoretical context
comparing the comparative cycle to other instances of cyclical language change and
discussing a number of potential causes for this change, arguing for an explanation
based on linguistic economy and markedness.


2. Comparison constructions – a taxonomy


Semantically, comparison constructions can roughly be characterised as expressing
linguistically the equality/similarity or inequality/dissimilarity of two entities
generally referred to as comparee and standard. This (dis-)similarity may or may not
relate to degrees of a specific gradable property, the so-called tertium comparationis or
parameter. The best-researched type of comparisons is the one in which dissimilarity
between two entities in relation to degrees of a specific property is expressed, the
comparative construction or simply comparative, as illustrated with English in (1)(a).
Comparatives have been at the centre of attention of linguistic research because cross-
linguistically they show the most grammaticalized and most specific markers. In
English and many other languages, it is only in this type of comparison construction
that the adjective or adverb that constitutes the parameter (faster in (1)(a)) may bear
a specific inflectional suffix marking the comparison while there is no equivalent
inflectional suffix marking the parameter in other types of comparison.2 In other


1
    This paper builds on and extends parts of ch. 7 of Jäger (2018), making the results available to an
English-speaking audience.
2
    Similarly, a language using comparison case may also only show case-marking on the standard in
comparatives and not in other comparisons.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                            125
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


words, comparatives are the most marked type of comparisons. This can be expressed
by using the two rough semantic features dissimilarity and degree for specifically
relating to degrees of a gradable property. Comparatives can be characterized by
[+ dissimilarity] and [+ degree].3

(1)      a. Anne walks faster than Mary.                                  comparative
         b. Anne walks as fast as Mary.                                   equative
         c. Anne walks like Mary.                                         similative

Somewhat less marked are comparisons expressing similarity in relation to degrees of
a gradable property, i.e. ones that can be characterized by [- dissimilarity] and
[+ degree], as illustrated in (1)(b). I will follow the usual terminology employed in
the typological literature here and refer to this type of comparison as equatives.4
While in English, the adjective/adverb constituting the parameter is never marked for
this type of comparison by an inflectional suffix, note that it is marked in a less
grammaticalized way by the free morpheme as in front, a type of expression that I
will refer to as the correlate in the following (in the literature it is also referred to as
the parameter marker).5
   The least marked type of comparisons, illustrated in (1)(c), are those referring to
similarity, i.e. [- dissimilarity], in a way that is not specifically restricted to degrees
of a property, thus [- degree], but holds in a more unspecific way that may include a
complex number of gradable or ungradable properties, referring for instance to what
one might call manner.6 In this type of comparison, there is accordingly typically no
linguistic expression representing a parameter.7 In line with the usual typological


3
    For a more detailed discussion of the markedness relations (incl. dissimilarity being marked as
opposed to similarity) see sect. 4.3 below.
4
    Alternatively, one may call them degree equatives, using equatives as a cover term for all comparisons
characterized by [- dissimilarity], cf. Jäger (2018; 2019); Hohaus (2015); see also Thurmair (2001:
“Gradvergleiche” ‘degree comparisons’).
5
    Parameter marking by a free morpheme also occurs with certain adjectives/adverbs in comparatives
in English in the form of more in front of the parameter. Note, however, that the most grammaticalized
form, an inflectional suffix, only ever appears in comparatives in English.
6
    Note, however, that it is not limited to manner. Thus even the mere truth/validity of two propositions
may be stated to be similar/the same, consider for example Peter is a farmer like/as his father was - a
use that comes very close semantically to mere coordination, which is why there is a well-established
crosslinguistic grammaticalization path from standard markers to coordinating conjunctions.
7
    If a parameter is expressed, one is not referring to specific degrees of this property. For instance in
comparisons such as He is tall like a bear (sometimes misleadingly referred to as ‘generic equatives’)
one does not refer to specific degrees of height in terms of concrete measure (in contrast to as tall as)


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                           126
Jäger                                                  The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


terminology (e.g. Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998), I will refer to these comparisons as
similatives.8 These comparisons, being the least-marked type and therefore also
displaying the least specific linguistic markers crosslinguistically, have attracted the
least attention by linguists so far. Yet, they play a central role in language change as
will become evident below. The features of the three main types of comparison
distinguished here and the resulting markedness hierarchy are summarized in (2).9


(2)      Markedness hierarchy of comparison constructions:
            similatives                <            equatives            <       comparatives
         [- dissimilarity, - degree]       [- dissimilarity, + degree]       [+dissimilarity,+degree]


Note that in the English examples in (1), a different standard marker (in English a
comparison particle, in other languages possibly also a case marker or equivalent
functional preposition)10 is used for each of the three types of comparison, viz. than,



but to being tall in the way that bears are tall compared to salient other animals for instance. Note that
He is tall like a bear may also formally be identified as a similative rather than an equative by virtue of
the availability of the standard marker like in English (or comme in French etc.) which is ungrammatical
in equatives, cf. *as tall like.
8
    Heine & Kuteva (2002) use the term simile. Alternatively, one may call them non-degree equatives
(cf. Jäger 2018, 2019) or property equatives (cf. Hohaus 2015) contrasting with degree equatives.
Other terms used in the literature include 'pure comparisons' (Zifonun et al. 1997: “reine Vergleiche”),
'open comparisons' (Thurmair 2001: “offene Vergleiche”, with subtypes: “Modalvergleiche”/modal
comparisons and “Faktizitätsvergleiche”/facticity comparisons) or 'similarity comparatives' (Alrenga
2007).
9
    Note that a factorial typology of the two features predicts a fourth type of comparisons whose degree
of markedness would also lie inbetween that of comparatives and similatives as defined here, viz.
comparisons characterized by [+ dissimilarity] and [- degree]. To my knowledge, this fourth type
(which could be termed non-degree comparatives) has not been explicitly distinguished or addressed
in the literature on comparisons. Comparisons including expressions meaning ‘different(ly)’ or
‘(an)other’ constitute such cases, as they express dissimilarity without restricting it to specific degrees
of a gradable property, but also referring for instance more generally to manner etc. (thus for instance
German Anna läuft anders als Maria ‘Anne walks differently from/in another way than Mary’ is in fact
the also [- degree], but comparative, i.e. [+ dissimilarity] equivalent of Anna läuft so wie Maria ‘Anne
walks like Mary’), see also Jäger (2018: 35, fn. 35; 368, fn. 330). In this paper, however, I will
concentrate on the three types similatives, equatives and comparatives, leaving a more detailed
discussion of this fourth type of comparison (‘non-degree comparatives’) to future research.
10
   The main types of comparative constructions in the languages of the world (cf. Stassen 1985, 2005)
include languages with (i) a comparative particle, (ii) a verbal comparative construction ('exceed‘
construction), (iii) a ‘conjunctive comparative construction‘ (coordination of two clauses) or (iv)


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                            127
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


as and like, respectively.11 As stated in Table 1, crosslinguistically, but also over the
course of the diachronic development of one language, this may differ according to
whether both features, [± dissimilarity] and [± degree] are expressed, or just one,
leaving the other feature underspecified, as in the case of Spanish, which only
expresses [± dissimilarity] by different standard markers using como in similatives
and equatives but que in comparatives (type IIa in Table 1), or French, which only
expresses [± degree] using que in comparatives and equatives but comme in similatives
(type IIb in Table 1, see also sect. 3.7 on Romance languages). Some languages even
use one uniform standard marker in all three types of comparison, leaving both
features unexpressed by the standard marker. This is the case in Hungarian, which
uses the comparison particle mint in similatives, equatives and comparatives alike
(type I in Table 1, see also sect. 3.9 on Hungarian).


                                similatives          equatives          comparatives

         Language type                  [- dissimilarity]               [+ dissimilarity]

                                [- degree]                       [+ degree]

     Type I:
     1 standard marker,                                      mint
     e.g. Hungarian

     Type IIa:
     2 standard markers,                          como                          que
     e.g. Spanish

     Type IIb:
     2 standard markers,             comme                             que
     e.g. French

     Type III:
     3 standard markers,            like (/ as)             as                than
     e.g. English


                             Table 1: Typology of standard marker systems.




comparative case of the standard (or case-equivalent functional preposition) with separative, allative
or locative semantics.
11
   In similatives, as is also used, especially with clausal standards, in which like is not acceptable in the
standard language but is also used in colloquial English.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                            128
Jäger                                          The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


The hierarchy given in (2) is also reflected in the diachronic development of
comparisons in various languages as discussed in section 3, and will accordingly also
play a role in explaining the changes observed crosslinguistically and captured in the
comparative cycle in section 4. The selection of languages covered is largely
contingent upon the availability of data. It is highly likely that many more examples
of the comparative cycle in various languages will become apparent as more
diachronic typological data become available. As mentioned above, the discussion in
section 3 is partly based on diachronic corpus data and partly on descriptive
grammars and other handbooks. For the reasons discussed above, many handbooks
do not explicitly treat similatives or clearly differentiate them in their discussion of
comparison constructions. Thus, in many cases we can only demonstrate that the
development in the respective language follows the direction of the comparative cycle
from comparisons of equality/similarity to those of inequality/dissimilarity, notably
from equatives to comparatives leaving a detailed investigation of the individual steps
of the development including similatives to future research. However, where there is
sufficient information on all three types of comparison we can trace in detail the
individual steps of the comparative cycle, which concur with the markedness
hierarchy of comparison constructions.


3. The comparative cycle crosslinguistically


3.1. Germanic languages


3.1.1.   German


One language in which the comparative cycle may be observed very clearly and even
with several rounds of the cycle during the attested history of the language is German,
cf. Jäger (2018). The stepwise syntactic-semantic shift of markers of comparison - in
German as in many other languages the standard marker (comparison particle) - from
similatives to equatives to comparatives that constitutes the comparative cycle, first
occurred with the comparison particle also/als. While in classical Old High German
(OHG), thanne ‘than’ constitutes the most common standard marker in comparatives,
cf. (3), and so ‘as/like’ both in similatives and equatives, cf. (4) and (5), a strengthened
form of the latter, also, cf. (6), built by univerbation with the originally adverbial




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                    129
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


element al ‘all, fully’, starts to occur in similatives in (Late) OHG.12 In similatives, no
adjective/adverb expressing the parameter occurs between the superordinate clause
originally containing the adverbial al on the one hand and the standard marker so on
the other hand. Accordingly, similatives but not equatives constitute a possible
bridging context for the relevant univerbation and grammaticalization of new
standard markers formed according to this pattern. Univerbation of the comparison
particle with a frequently adjacent expression in the preceding clause constitutes a
crosslinguistically common grammaticalization path for new standard markers and
occurs with different types of expressions that precede the original standard marker.13


(3)      OHG (Tatian 70, 17)
         Eno             ni            birut             ir            furirun             thanne
         Q               NEG           be:PRS;2PL        you:NOM;PL    far:CPD;NOM;PL than
         sie                           sín
         they: NOM                     be:SBJV;PRS;3PL
         ‘Aren’t you worth more than they are?’




12
     Throughout the paper, comparison particles in the examples are glossed with the semantically
corresponding particle in the metalanguage English for the respective type of comparison, even if the
same particle is used for several types of comparison in the object language. Thus the same lexical
item, e.g. French que etc., is glossed for instance as ‘than’ in a comparative, but as ‘as’ in an equative.
13
     Grammaticalization of new comparison particles by ‘strengthening’ (reanalysis of matrix-clause
internal elements and adjacent comparison particle as a new comparison particle) frequently takes
place with the following kinds of elements (cf. Jäger 2018: 370f.):
(i) correlate (parameter marker): e.g. OHG soso, ENHG/NHG als wie, Latin sicut, tamquam, Gothic
     svasve, Old English swa swa, Middle English so as, Swedish såsom, Dutch zoals, French ainsi
     comme/ainsi que, autant que, Jiddish azoy vi, Romani kade sar
(ii) item with identity semantics (‘same’, 'equal' etc.): e.g. OHG (so) selb so, sama so > MHG
     same/(al)sam, ENHG gleichwie, Dutch gelijk, English like, Norwegian like, Swedish lika, som, Danish
     lige så, som, Icelandic eins og
(iii) intensifier (‘fully’, ’completely’, ‘exactly’ etc.): e.g. OHG/MHG also > als, Dutch als, Old English
     eallswā > as, Provencal tot aissi/atressi
(iv) noun (possibly within PP; ‘(in) the way/manner/look/degree’ etc.): e.g. ENHG inmassen, gestalt,
     (ce)gleicherweis,    Italian/French/Spanish/Portuguese/Romanian    com(o)/com(m)e/cum       <    Latin
     quomodo (< quo modo ‘in which way’), Irish cosúil (< chomh/comh ‘as’ + samhail
     ‘picture/appearance’).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                           130
Jäger                                              The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


(4)     OHG (Tatian 40, 3)
        inti      gibit                imo       só manag              so      her       bitharf.
        and       give:PRS;3SG         he:DAT    as much               as      he:NOM need:PRS;3SG
        ‘and gives him as much as he needs’


(5)     OHG (Tatian 44, 16)
        thaz      só          sí                  só      sín                  meistar
        that      so          be:SBJV;PRS;3SG     as      his:NOM              master:NOM
        ‘that he is like his master’


(6)     OHG (Notker Ps. 35, 7)
        Din            reht            trûhten    ist             also bérga.
        your:NOM justice:NOM           Lord:NOM be:PRS;3SG as               mountain:NOM;PL
        ‘Your justice, Lord, is like the mountains.’


In Middle High German (MHG) also (> alse > als) constitutes the main pattern
already in similatives, as in (7), while so continues to be the main pattern in equatives,
such as (8), and dann(e) (< thanne) in comparatives, cf. (9). However, during this
period, also already starts to occur occasionally in equatives, cf. (10), and very
exceptionally even in comparatives, cf. (11).


(7)     MHG (TrHL 10r,21f.)
        diu       tvost       uns                alse           diu            uil       gvote
        you       do:PRS;2SG we:DAT              like           the:NOM;F very           good:NOM;F
        muotir.
        mother:NOM
        ‘You do unto us like the very good mother.’


(8)     MHG (Phys 151r, 18f.)
        unt       izzit                danne     so lange         so        got          wil
        and       eat:PRS;3SG          then      as long          as        God:NOM want:PRS;3SG
        ‘and then eats as long as God wants’


(9)     MHG (Phys 133r, 4-6)
        Trehtin, diniu                 wort             diu                 sint
        Lord      your: NOM;PL         word:NOM;PL they:NOM;PL be:PRS;3PL


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                          131
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


      suozzere                in       minem        munde.      danne daz            honich
      sweet:CPD;NOM;PL        in       my:DAT;M mouth:DAT than            the:NOM;N honey:NOM
      unt        der                   flade
      and        the:NOM;M             cake:NOM
      ‘Lord, your words, they are sweeter in my mouth than honey and cake’


(10) MHG (Lil 8, 15-16)
      Disen                   zuiuel              muzen             wir       hauen.           alse
      this:ACC;M              doubt:ACC           must:PRS;1PL we:NOM         have:INF         as
      lange      alse         de                  sumer             dis       leuenes
      long       as           the:NOM             summer:NOM this:GEN         life:GEN
      weret.
      last:PRS;3SG
      ‘This doubt we must have as long as the summer of this life lasts.’


(11) MHG (SalH 097, 05-08)
      daz        dv           nie      von        dinge         in-wordes          svzer
      that       you:NOM never by                 thing:DAT     NEG-AUX:PST;2SG    sweet:CPD
      geminit. alse           von      gode.
      love:PTCP than          by       God:DAT
      ‘…that you were never loved more dearly by anything than by God.’


During 15th century Early New High German (ENHG), als becomes the main standard
marker in equatives, too. In the 16th century, also its use in comparatives, as in (13),
increases, which, however, still show dann/denn as the main standard marker
employed, as illustrated in (12). Only since 17th century New High German (NHG)
does als also constitute the main pattern in comparatives, superseding dann/denn.


(12) ENHG (JBang 17r, 5f.)
      Da         nun          die                 Sachssen          sahen/       das der
      since      now          the: NOM;PL         Saxon:NOM;PL see:PST;3PL that the:GEN;PL
      Thueringer              Acker               besser      war         dann    jhrer
      Thuringian:GEN;PL field:NOM                 good:CPD be:PST;3SG than        theirs:NOM;M
      ‘Since the Saxons now saw that the field of the Thuringians was better than
      theirs’



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                    132
Jäger                                                        The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective




(13) ENHG (JMath 44r, 22-24)
        Denn      er         ist             grewlicher           vnd heßlicher/ als          jrgend
        because he:NOM be:PRS;3SG. ghastly:CPD                    and ugly:CPD         than any
        der                        aller   geringsten             oder      ergsten                    vnd
        the:GEN;PL                 very    low:SPD;GEN;PL or                wicked:SPD,GEN;PL and
        Gottlosesten               einer                 zugerichtet.
        ungodly:SPD;GEN;PL one:NOM;SG;M                  injure:PTCP
        ‘because he is injured in a ghastlier and uglier way than any of the lowest, most
        wicked and ungodly ones’


The same kind of shift as observed for als(o) also occurs with the standard marker
wie:     this    comparison          particle,    which           was     grammaticalized           from      the
interrogative/relative adverb ‘how’, is first very occasionally used in similatives in
MHG, cf. (14), in which also constitutes the main pattern, as discussed above. In
similatives, such as (15), wie becomes the main pattern superceding als(o) in 16th
century ENHG, during which period it also starts to occur in equatives, such as (16),
for the first time, which however most frequently still contain als at that time, as
described above. During 17th century ENHG, the first attestations of wie in
comparatives occur as illustrated in (17). In equatives, wie becomes the main pattern
only in 19th century NHG and since that time is also increasingly used in
comparatives, in which it represents the main pattern in most present-day High
German dialects, as illustrated in (18), whereas the standard language has preserved
als.


(14) MHG (Walter 48, 7 (after Paul 2007))
        swie      si               sint,                sô        wil               ich          sîn
        how/as they:NOM be:PRS;3PL                      so        want:PRS;1SG I:NOM             be:INF
        ‘However/as they are, so do I want do be’


(15) ENHG (WRal 2, 7f)
        es        zergehet                 vnd          schmeltzet          nicht      von der
        it:NOM    dissolve:PRS;3SG and                  melt:PRS;3SG        NEG        by     the:DAT
        Sonnen/ wie                das                  Hartz            vnd Pech             auß
        sun:DAT like               the:NOM;N            resin:NOM        and pitch:NOM from



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                                  133
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


        Norwegen
        Norway
        ‘It does not dissolve and melt from the sun like the resin and pitch from Norway’


(16) ENHG (JMath 51v, 16-20)
        Darumb sie               auch also         schmehlich         vnd      Gotteslesterlich/
        therefore they:NOM also        as          disgracefully and           blasphemously
        wie         die          Mahometisten vom                     Abendmal        des
        as          the:NOM;PL muslim:NOM;PL of.the:DAT               supper:DAT      the:GEN
        HERRN [...]              gedencken          vnd        reden.
        Lord:GEN                 think:PRS;3PL      and        talk:PRS;3PL
        ‘Therefore, they think and talk as disgracefully and blasphemously as the
        muslims about the Lord’s supper’


(17) ENHG (H.U. Krafft, Reisen 248, Lit. Verein (after DWB 29: 1483f.))
        mer          daran       verbrechen        wie      gutt      machen
        much:CPD. there.at break:INF               than good          make:INF
        ‘destroy it rather than making amends’


(18) NHG (Central Hessian dialect (after Jäger 2018: 316))
        Dr                       Thomas            ess             grieser     wej      sei
        the:NOM;M                Thomas:NOM        be:PRS;3SG tall:CPD         than     his:NOM
        Brourer.
        brother:NOM
        ‘Thomas is taller than his brother.’


The development in German can be summarized as given in Table 2,14 highlighting
the      repeated     stepwise     shift    of   standard     markers        from   comparisons     of

14
     The same development as in High German, yet at a much slower pace, can also be observed in Low
German, cf. Jäger & Walkden (2021: 316). The original comparative particle than represents the main
pattern in Old and Middle Low German and is perserved in some Low German dialects in the form of
denn even today. On the other hand, the standard marker also, which – as in OHG - first occurred in
similatives in Old Low German became the main comparison particle used in equatives in Middle Low
German. In most Low German varieties it has subsequently also become the main particle used in
comparatives so that a uniform comparison particle as (< also) in all types of comparison is typical of
most Modern Low German dialects. Only recently, wie and its Low German equivalent wu/wo (‘how’)


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                       134
Jäger                                                   The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


equality/similarity to those of inequality/dissimilarity, more specifically from
similatives to equatives to comparatives that is typical of the comparative cycle.15
While German represents a very clear instance of the comparative cycle, evidence for
the same kind of change can be found in many related and unrelated languages.


                                              similative                equative               comparative
                                                        [- dissimilarity]                    [+ dissimilarity]
                                              [- degree]                           [+ degree]
 OHG                                                           so                                 danne
 MHG                                             also                       so                  dann/denn
 ENHG 15th cent.                                               als                                denn
 ENHG 16th cent.                                  wie                       als                   denn
 NHG 17/18th cent.                                wie                                  als
 NHG 19th cent., Mod. Standard                                wie                                   als
 Dialects/Colloquial German                                                 wie


                   Table 2: The comparative cycle in German (after Jäger 2018: 364).


3.1.2.      English


The diachronic development of comparison particles in English shows several
parallels to that in German although, with as in equatives and partly in similatives
and than in comparatives in present-day English, the language has, on the whole,
preserved a pattern corresponding to that observed for MHG and 15th century ENHG.
While in Old English similatives and equatives the standard marker swa, cognate of
OHG so, was prevalent as in OHG, cf. (19), in Late Old English in the same way as in
Late OHG a new strengthened standard marker arose in similatives from univerbation


are used in similatives and equatives, occasionally even already in comparatives in some Low German
dialects, again repeating the shift observed for also/as.
15
     Another comparison particle that never constituted the main pattern, however, in historical German
and therefore is not included in Table 2, but also survives in some present-day dialects is als wie. It was
grammaticalized on the basis of the correlate (parameter marker) als and the frequently adjacent
comparison particle wie (= pattern (i) in fn. 13) and first occurs in similatives in the 17th century. It
is then extended to equatives and since the 18th century also occurs in comparatives, cf. Jäger (2018:
255-259). (In contrast to the statement by Dückert (1961: 216) als wie does not constitute an
intermediate stage in the development from als to wie, but only occurs after wie has been firmly
established as a comparison particle.) Accordingly, there is in fact evidence for three rounds of the
comparative cycle in the history of German – with als(o), wie and als wie.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                              135
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


with an item meaning ‘all, fully’, viz. eall swa > alswa/ also/alse/as (CHEL II: 357;
Jäger & Walkden 2021: 317-322), cf. (20). Since then, this comparison particle has
mostly been restricted to comparisons of equality, while þonne > than has been the
prevalent standard marker in comparatives since Old English (Jäger & Walkden 2021:
325-327), cf. (21), for Modern Standard English see also (1) above.


(19) Old English (cobede,Bede_3:16.226.26.2325 (after Jäger & Walkden 2021: 322))
      swa        swiðe        swa      þa                neowan          Cristnan
      as         much         as       the:NOM;PL        new:NOM;PL Christian:NOM;PL
      þa         get          hit      neoman meahton
      then       yet          it:ACC take:INF may:PST;PL
      ‘as much as the new Christians were capable of it’


(20) Old English (cowulf,WHom_3:7.52 (after Jäger & Walkden 2021: 318))
      And        witodlice    ealswa              flod             com              hwilum ær
      and        truly        as                  flood:NOM come:PST;3SG            at.time before
      for        synnum,      swa      cymð                 eac for        synnum     fyr
      for        sin:DAT;PL so         come:PRS;3SG         also for       sin:DAT;PL fire:NOM
      ‘And truly, just as the flood came before (to punish us) for our sins, now the fire
      is coming (to punish us) for our sins.’


(21) Old English (cobeowul,16.465.391 (after Jäger & Walkden 2021: 326))
      se         wæs          betera              ðonne       ic
      this:NOM be:PST;3SG good:CPD                than        I:NOM
      ‘He was better than me’


Despite of this basic continuity, there has also been some change concerning standard
markers in English comparisons. On the basis of strengthening with a regularly
adjacent expression meaning ‘same’, viz. gelice > like, another common
grammaticalization path for new standard markers arising in similatives (cf. (ii) in
fn.13), the standard marker Old English gelice swa (Jäger & Walkden 2021: 319f.),
Middle English lyk as / like as (CHEL II. 358), arose as illustrated in (22) and (23). It
became more frequent during the 15th and 16th century. Eventually, the second part
of this combination began to be dropped giving way to simple like in similatives since
the early 16th century (CHEL III: 316), see (24). Note that this standard marker, which



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                     136
Jäger                                                    The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


originated in similatives, is still restricted to this type of comparison today, in which
as, however, also still occurs.


(22) Old English (coverhom,HomS_40.3 (after Jäger & Walkden 2021: 320))
         Emne       hit          bið                gelice swa man                  mid wætere,
         even       it:NOM       be:PRS;3SG         same as          man:NOM with water:DAT
         þone       weallendan                      wylm             agiote
         the:ACC surging:ACC                        flame:ACC        quench:PRS;SBJV;SG
         ‘It is just like putting out a surging flame with water’


(23) Middle English ([HC] Vicary 69 (after CHEL III: 316))
         the        lyuer […] should                be           plycable      to        the         stomacke,
         the        liver        should             be:INF       pliant        to        the         stomach
         like                    as       a         hande        dothe              to     an        apple
         like/same               as       a         hand         do:PRS;3SG         to     an        apple
         ‘The liver should be pliant to the stomach like a hand is to an apple’


(24) Middle English (1530 Berners Arth. Lyt. Bryt. 520 (after CHEL III: 316))
         Ye         have                  said      lyke a noble            lady ought          to     say
         you        have:PRS;2SG          say:PTCP like       a noble       lady ought to              say:INF
         ‘You have spoken as a noble lady should speak’


Besides this rise of a new standard marker in similatives, there is crucially also
evidence for a distributional shift in line with the comparative cycle in diachronic
and dialectal English data. According to Small (1924: 43), since early Middle English
up to Modern dialectal varieties, as has repeatedly ‘threatened’ to take over the
function of a comparative particle. This is of course reminiscent of the development
of als in German. The Historical Thesaurus of English (s.v. as)16 states that as was used
as a standard marker in comparatives in English from the mid 15th to the mid 17th
century, and in archaic use even until the beginning of the 19th century. The OED
(s.v. as, B.I.5)17 lists examples for as in comparatives from 1300 up to the 20th
century, cf. (25) and (26).18

16
     http://historicalthesaurus.arts.gla.ac.uk/category-selection/?qsearch=as.
17
     http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/11307?rskey=jq3qkq&result=6&isAdvanced=false#eid.
18
     Most of these contain a negation. On negated comparisons as potential bridging contexts see section
4.3.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                                 137
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178




(25) Middle English (c 1300 St. Edward Elder (Laud) l. 38 (after OED s.v. as))
        Fellere               þing     n-is                 non     ase   wumman ȝware
        wicked:CPD            thing NEG-be:PRS;3SG none than              woman        when
        heo                   wole                  to      vuele    wende.
        she:NOM               will:SBJV;PRS;3SG to          evil     turn:INF
        ‘There is nothing more wicked than a woman if she turns to evil’


(26) Middle English (a 1425 J. Lelamour tr. Macer Herbal f. 67v (after OED s.v. as))
        Also         this     erbe     haviþ             mo          vertues      as      endyue
        also         this     herb have:PRS;3SG many:CPD virtue:PL than                   endive
        haþe.
        have:PRS;3SG
        ‘Also, this herb has more virtues than endive has.’


(27) Scottish English (Brian Holton: The Mossflow)
        A wad-na              think               you       ’d       be         onie   better
        I would-NEG           think:INF           you       would be:INF any           good:CPD
        as           them!
        than         they
        ‘I wouldn’t think you were any better than them.’


While this use of as in comparatives has never become the prevalent pattern in
English, it is preserved in regional varieties such as Scottish English, cf. (27), Irish
English, Yorkshire English and certain American-English varieties (Small 1929: 22;
OED s.v. as, B.I.5).19


3.1.3.       Dutch


In Dutch, a distributional shift of standard markers (comparison particles) according
to the comparative cycle can also be observed. Like OHG and Old English, Old Dutch
(Old Low Franconian) mostly used than in comparatives and so in similatives and
equatives, in which, occasionally the strengthened form also occurs instead (cf. Jäger
& Walkden 2021: 300-311, 316). Phonologically reduced to als, it became the main
particle used in similatives and equatives in Middle Dutch, while in comparatives the

19
     http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/11307?rskey=jq3qkq&result=6&isAdvanced=false#eid.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                       138
Jäger                                                The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


typical comparison particle was still dan (cf. Postma 2006: 3). During the 14th and
15th century, however, als begins to appear in comparatives, replacing dan since the
second half of the 16th century (van der Horst 2008: 728, Postma 2006: 20 with
reference to Klooster 2001: 352), cf. (28). As a result, als was widely used as a uniform
comparison particle in equatives and comparatives in Dutch during the second half
of the 16th and especially the 17th century.


(28) Dutch (early 17th c., Bredero (after van der Horst 2008: 1272))
         Een        Vrouw       brenght             meer     te     weegh, als           dysent
         one        woman       bring:PRS;3SG       more     to     way        than      thousand
         mannen souwen
         man:PL     would:3PL
         ‘One woman achieves more than a thousand men.’


However, since the 18th century, this change was partly turned back – according to
van der Horst (2008: 1442) and Hubers & de Hoop (2013: 90) due to normative
pressure by prescriptive grammarians demanding the use of dan in comparatives (e.g.
Balthazar Huydecoper at the beginning of the 18th century). As a consequence, dan
is used in comparatives in Standard Dutch until today, whereas als is generally used
in comparisons expressing similarity, both similatives and equatives. According to
SAND (2005: 13), dan is the only acceptable comparison particle in Standard Dutch
comparatives; according to ANS,20 however, als is acceptable instead of dan in the
spoken standard language, too, but in the written language, dan is mostly used. In
fact, as this paper is written, over 20 years after the latest edition, a new, revised
edition of ANS is being prepared in which als is now treated as equally acceptable in
Standard Dutch comparatives.21 For many native speakers, however, als is generally
not acceptable in comparatives and dan represents a kind of shibboleth for good
Dutch. Hubers & de Hoop’s (2013) investigation of the corpus of spoken Dutch shows
that in comparatives indeed mostly dan is used. However, in the southern Netherlands
(Limburg, Noord-Brabant, Zeeland) als appears almost as often as dan in
comparatives. Besides, sociolinguistic factors play a role insofar as speakers with a
lower educational background use als slightly more often than dan in comparatives,
while those with a higher educational background almost only use dan. Hubers & de

20
     http://ans.ruhosting.nl/e-ans/index.html
21
     Cf. https://taalunie.org/actueel/120/hoe-de-e-ans-grondig-wordt-herwerkt-en-verbeterd


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                          139
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


Hoop conclude that the dominance of dan in comparatives is due to normative
pressure against als taught at school and that, without this pressure, als would be the
usual comparative particle in Dutch today. This impression is corroborated by
dialectal research: according to SAND (2005: 13, map 15b) the historically wide-
spread use of als in comparatives is preserved in Dutch dialects until today, in fact,
als/as constitutes the main pattern in dialectal comparatives in the entire Dutch-
speaking area except for West and East Flanders.
     In Belgian Standard Dutch (BSD), which is used in the Belgian Media and formal
situations, the comparison particle used in similatives is zoals, a particle formed by
univerbation of the correlate zo, originally part of the superordinate clause, and the
adjacent comparison particle als (= (i) in fn. 13). Due to this rise of a new comparison
particle in similatives, Belgian Standard Dutch has developed a system with three
comparison particles for the three types of comparisons: zoals in similatives, cf.
(31)(b), als in equatives, cf. (30)(a), and dan in comparatives, cf. (29)(a) (= type III
in Table 1; compare also MHG also – so – dann). In most Flemish dialects, as in most
Dutch dialects in general, als/as has, however, replaced dan in comparatives so that
als/as is uniformly used in comparatives and equatives while zoals (zoas, zuas etc.) or
another more recent comparison particle, viz. (ge)lijk/gelak, appears in similatives, for
instance in the dialect of the city of Antwerp, cf. (29)(b), (30)(b) and (31)(c). The
comparison particle (ge)lijk/gelak was presumably grammaticalized in similatives in
the same way as English like (= (ii) in fn. 13, see also sect. 3.1.2). In certain varieties
in the region of Antwerp, it even occurs in comparatives, cf. (32).


(29) Dutch
a.    Mijn   kat   is           een    beetje kleiner       dan je        hondje. (Stand. Dutch, BSD)
b. Mijn      kaet is            een    bekke klender        as   awen ond. (Antwerp Dutch)
      my     cat   be:PRS;3SG a        bit      small:CPD than your dog
      ‘My cat is a little smaller than your dog.’


(30) Dutch
a.           Koen is            even     (/ zo)      oud als     Antje.     (Standard Dutch, BSD)
b. De        Koen is            even         / zoe   oud as      Antje.     (Antwerp Dutch)
      the    Koen be:PRS;3SG equally           as    old as      Antje
      ‘Koen is as old as Antje.’




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                     140
Jäger                                                    The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


(31) Dutch
a. Zij              zingt                  als                   Kylie Minogue.       (Standard Dutch)
b. Zij              zingt                  zoals                 Kylie Minogue.       (BSD)
c.     Zij          zingt                  zuas/gelak            Kylie Minogue.       (Antwerp Dutch)
      she           sing:PRS;3SG           like                  Kylie Minogue
      ‘She sings like Kylie Minogue.’


(32) Sint Lenaarts Dutch (Sint Lenaarts (K209p), DynaSAND)22
         ze       gelove              da          wij   rijker        zijn         lijk      zullie
         they     believe:PRS;3PL that            we    rich:CPD      be:PRS;1PL than        they
        ‘They believe that we are richer than them.’


In this particular dialect, we can accordingly observe a recurrent change according to
the comparative cycle with als replacing dan and subsequently (ge)lijk replacing als in
comparatives, both particles shifting from similatives to equatives to comparatives.


3.2. Sanskrit

Diachronic distributional shifts of standard markers according to the comparative
cycle are not limited to Germanic languages, but are also found in many other Indo-
European languages. A syntactic-semantic shift of the comparison particle of this kind
presumably already occurred from Vedic to Classical Sanskrit. In Vedic, the particle
ná, which is of the same origin as the negation particle and is assumed to have
developed from it (cf. Pinault 1985; Dunkel 2014: 546f.),23 is used as a
similative/equative particle meaning ‘as/like’, as illustrated in (33). In Classical
Sanskrit, however, it appears as a comparative particle meaning ‘than’, cf. (34).
According to Zeilfelder (2001: 99) it is not continuously attested, which is why she
rather supposes an independent source, taking a semantic change from an equative
particle to a comparative particle to be unlikely. However, she also explicitly indicates
a similarity to the ‘confusion’ of als and wie in colloquial German. Viti (2002:77) also


22
     http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/sand/
23
     According to Pinault (1985), the Vedic equative particle ná is derived from the negation particle ná
via bridging contexts such as ‘Not (as one might think) A, (but) B is speaking’ > ‘B speaks like A’, see
also Dunkel (2014: 546f.: “Der Ausgangspunkt liegt in implizierten Negativvergleichen” ‘The origin
lies in implicit negative comparisons’, same origin as negation particle, PIE *ne ‘not’).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                              141
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


considers the possibility of classical Sanskrit ná in comparatives continuing on from
Vedic equative ná and again mentions the Non-Standard German use of wie in
comparatives as a parallel.24


(33) Vedic (RV 1.39.10)
         íṣum                     ná      sṛjata                  dvíṣam
         arrow:ACC;SG             like    send:PRS;IMP;2PL        hatred:ACC;SG
         ‘Shoot the hatred like an arrow.’


(34) Classical Sanskrit (Pañcatantra 1.417 (after Viti 2002: 79))
         paṇḍito                  ’pi                 varaṃ       śatrur
         wise:NOM;SG;M            even                better      enemy:NOM,SG
         na          mūrkho               hitakārakaḥ
         than        stupid:NOM;SG;M ally:NOM;SG
         ‘Even a wise enemy is better than a stupid ally.‘


3.3. Baltic languages


If on the basis of Vedic ná, one posits PIE *né with the two functions of negative and
(secondarily) similative/equative particle, a distributional shift of a standard marker
from equative to comparative according to the comparative cycle can also be assumed
for Baltic languages: Old Lithuanian as well as Latvian ne, which are used as negative
particles, also rarely appear in comparatives, as illustrated in (35) and (36), and can
be considered to have undergone a development ‘not’ > ‘like’ > ‘than’ (cf. Petit 2021:
123-127).25 This scenario is supported by the fact that the “Baltic languages show
sporadic, but unequivocal traces of purely similative meaning of *ne ‘like’” (Petit
2021: 126), as in (37), which can be traced back to at least the 17th century.




24
     Delbrück (1888: 196) already points out constructions corresponding to Latin quam + comparative
in the ‘popular language’ (‘Volkssprache’) giving a Late Vedic example including yác ca ‘than’ and
stating “dass die Erklärung dieser Construction beim Comp. aus der gleichen Construction beim Positiv
herzuholen ist, ist wohl klar” (‘It is clear that the explanation of this construction with comparatives
is to be found in the same construction with the positive’).
25
     Petit (2021) also discusses an alternative scenario of ‘not’ > ‘than’.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                        142
Jäger                                              The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


(35) Latvian (K. Barons & H. Wissendorff, Latwju dainas (19th c., BW I 3320d) (after
        Petit 2021: 123))
        Sche       meitas             weʒakas,         ne     pate           mahte.
        here       girls:NOM;PL       old:CPD;NOM than self:NOM              mother:NOM
        ‘Here, the girls are older than the mother herself.’


(36) Old       Lithuanian   (Jacob     Brodowski,        Lexicon       Germanico-Lithvanicum             et
        Lithvanico-Germanicum (18th c., I 153, 9) (after Petit 2021: 121))
        Kétures    Akkis              daugiaus                máta                 ne          wiena.
        four:NOM eye:NOM;PL           much:CPD;ADV            see:PRS;3            than        one:NOM
        ‘Four eyes see more than one.’


(37) Old       Lithuanian   (Jacob     Brodowski,        Lexicon       Germanico-Lithvanicum             et
        Lithvanico-Germanicum (18th c., I 151, 9) (after Petit 2021: 126))
        Auga                 waikai               ne          Girroj’              Médʒé i.
        grow.up:PRS;3        child:NOM;PL         like        forest:LOC           tree:NOM;PL
        ‘Children grow up like trees in a forest.’


There are further comparison particles in the Baltic languages which are formed on
the basis of ne, consider for instance the Lithuanian similative/equative particle néi
and comparative particle neĩ, which are almost identical, both formed from *né +
particle *ei / *i, only differentiated by intonation (cf. Vine 1978: 183f., see also Petit
2021: 120f., 127), cf. (38) and (39). This similative/equative particle presumably
arose at a time when Lithuanian né was not yet a comparative particle but like PIE
*né a negative and a similative/equative particle, in which case we are dealing with
another instance of the comparative cycle.


(38) Lithuanian (after LKŽ 8: 622)
        Grikojai                      menkesni,        nei             avižojai.
        buckweat-straw:NOM;PL         smaller:NOM than                 oat-straw:NOM;PL
        ‘Buckweat straw is shorter than oat straw’


(39) Lithuanian (after LKŽ 8: 624)
        laukia               nei      gervė                 giedros.
        wait:PRS;3           like     crane:NOM;SG          good.weather:GEN;SG
        ‘He/she/they is/are waiting for it like a crane for good weather’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                            143
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


Further instances of the comparative cycle are found in the Baltic languages in the
case of Lithuanian kaĩp, Latvian kā and Old Prussian kai. All of these were originally
“conjunctions of manner derived from the relative stem *ka- < PIE *kwo-“ (Petit 2021:
103) and occur in similatives cf. (40)/(43)/(46) as well as equatives cf.
(41)/(44)/(47),26 which generally do not differ in terms of the standard markers used
in the Baltic languages (cf. Petit 2021: 105), but also in comparatives especially after
negation, cf. (42)/(45)/(48), since at least the 16th/17th century (for examples of
Modern Lithuanian kaĩp as a similative, equative and comparative particle see LKŽ 5:
60f.). In fact, Jensen (1934: 124) already explicitly mentions Lithuanian kaĩp as a
parallel case to German wie, Russian kak and Romance que/che of a comparative
particle that was originally only used in similatives/equatives, in other words, that
underwent the comparative cycle.


(40) Old         Lithuanian      (Jacob     Brodowski,         Lexicon   Germanico-Lithvanicum     et
         Lithvanico-Germanicum (18th c., II 723, 39641), (after Petit 2021: 103))
         Sauſa       Málka        kaip Kanklys
         dry:NOM wood:NOM like            harp:NOM
         ‘wood dry like a harp’


(41) Old         Lithuanian      (Jacob     Brodowski,         Lexicon   Germanico-Lithvanicum     et
         Lithvanico-Germanicum (18th c., I 115, 9–12) (after Petit 2021: 106))
         taip        maʒa
                        ́ s       kaip Pelle
         as          small:NOM as         mouse:NOM
         ‘as small as a mouse’


(42) Old Lithuanian (Mikalojus Daukša, Postilla Catholicka (1599: 84, 6) (after Petit
         2021: 119))
         Teip’       wel          baʒn
                                     ̇ îcʒia             ne     túri      níeko       pikteſnio
         thus        again        church:NOM             NEG    have:PRS;3 nothing:GEN bad:CPD;GEN
         kaip’       mókſʒła̗             Her̗ etíku.̗
         than        science:ACC          heretic:GEN;PL
         ‘Thus also the Church has nothing worse than the science of heretics.’




26
     In (47) gi constitutes an emphatic particle that is added to kāi.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                      144
Jäger                                                       The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


(43) Old Latvian (Georg Mancel, Phraseologia Lettica (1631: Cap. X 16) (after Petit
        2021: 103))
        Dſaͤlltaͤns                ka       Waſʒka.
        yellow:NOM                 like     wax:NOM
        ‘It is yellow like wax.’


(44) Old Latvian (Enchiridion (1586: G3A 1, 14) (after Petit 2021: 107))
        Eſſet                      packlouſʒige […] tha             Kunge         peetcʒ / Tick lab
        be:IMP;2PL                 obedient:NOM;PL the:GEN Lord:GEN behind as                       well
        tam           Koͤningam/            kha        tham         Wuerſʒenekam
        the:DAT king:DAT                    as         the:DAT superior:DAT
        ‘Be obedient behind the Lord as well to the king as to the superior.’


(45) Old Latvian (Georg Elger, Geistliche catholische Geſänge (1621: 46, 8–9) (after
        Petit 2021: 122))
        Naͤwar                     bût      ſaldak               dômaſʒan /           Ka     no     Jeſu
        NEG.can:PRS;3              be:INF sweet:CPD;NOM thought:NOM                   than of       Jesus:GEN
        muſe          dwaͤſels     gan.
        1PL;GEN soul:GEN           well
        ‘There cannot be any sweeter thought than of Jesus, our soul.’


(46) Old Prussian (Enchiridion (1561: III 49, 6–7) (after Petit 2021: 103))
        Swintai                    kai      ſtai              malnijkai           Deiwas
        holy:NOM;PL                like     the:NOM;PL        child:NOM;PL        God:GEN
        ‘holy like God’s children’


(47) Old Prussian (Enchiridion (1561: 103, 14-15) (after Petit 2021: 107))
        Tīt turri          dijgi ſtai              wijrai           ſwaians        gannans          milijt
        so have:PRS;3 also the:NOM;PL man:NOM;PL REFL:ACC;PL wife:ACC;PL love:INF
        kāi-gi        swian        ſubban              kērmenen.
        as-PTCL       REFL:ACC     self:ACC            body:ACC
        ‘Men should also love their wives as much as their own body.’


(48) Old Prussian (Enchiridion (1561 : III 115, 8–9) (after Petit 2021: 118))
        ſteimans malnijkikamans ni                       maſſais kai           ſtēimans           vremmans
        ART:DAT;PL      young:DAT;PL NEG                 less       than       the:DAT;PL         old:DAT;PL
        ‘to the young ones not less than to the old ones’


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                                 145
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


3.4. Armenian

In Classical Armenian, we also find evidence for a shift of standard markers from
equatives to comparatives. According to Zeilfelder (1996: 195f.; 2001: 3) the Classical
Armenian comparative case accusative stems from an accusative originally governed
by the preposition i, which together with an imperative ‘compare!’ formed the
equative particle ibrew. Kölligan (2021: 72) suggests instead that ibrew is originally
formed on the basis of ibr, an instrumental of ‘thing/which’ and a preposition ew
which the accusative was originally governed by. At any rate, due to the
grammaticalization of ibrew into an equative particle, the accusative was reanalysed
as a case of comparison. This comparison case as a standard marker was then
extended from equatives to comparatives.
   Besides, there appears to be another case in point in Classical Armenian, viz. the
comparison particle k’an. This particle is mostly attested in comparatives, cf. (49), but
also appears in comparisons of equality/similarity, as in (51), a type of comparison
in which otherwise ibew and other particles (see Kölligan 2021: 53) are used, cf. (50).
Etymologically k’an is generally assumed to be related to Latin quam / quantus < PIE
*kwānt ‘how much’, which suggests that it originally expressed equality/similarity so
that we are dealing with another distributional shift of a standard marker according
to the comparative cycle (see also Kölligan 2021: 71f.).


(49) Classical Armenian (Ps. 18(19).11 (after Kölligan 2021: 60))
      c'ankali ê              na                  k'an        zoski
      desirable be:PRS;3SG 3SG;NOM                than        ACC.gold

      ‘They (God’s commendments) are more precious than gold.’


(50) Classical Armenian (Matt. 28.4, Ms. E (after Kölligan 2021: 55))
      ełen                    ibrew               zmeṙeals
      become:AOR;3PL          like                ACC.dead:ACC;PL

      ‘They became like dead men.’


(51) Classical Armenian (Matt. 17.19[20] (after Kölligan 2021: 71))
      et'ê       ownic'ik'              hawats         k'an           zhat   mananxoy
      if         have:PRS;SBJV;2PL faith:ACC;PL as (much as) ACC.seed mustard:GEN;SG
      ‘if you have faith like/as small as a mustard seed’



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                            146
Jäger                                                 The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


3.5. Greek


Ancient Greek also shows a repeated shift of standard markers according to the
comparative cycle. The Ancient Greek comparative particle ḗ, which is used as a
standard marker in comparatives (besides comparison case genitive), etymologically
derives from *ēê ‘or’ or *ēé ‘how’ (cf. Schwyzer 1950: 565; Zeilfelder 2001: 65). In the
latter case, it constitutes a first instance of a comparison particle that shifted from
similatives/equatives to comparatives in Greek. Its strengthened form ēÿt́ e underwent
the same change, being originally used in comparisons of equality/similarity, as in
the similative in (52), but occuring in Homer already also as a comparative particle,
cf. (53) (see also Schwyzer 1950: 565).27
     Finally, the same development can be observed for hōs, a standard marker that was
grammaticalized on the basis of interrogative ‘how’ like German wie and is mainly
used in comparisons of equality. According to Zeilfelder (2001: 297-318) hōs occurs
mostly in similatives as in (54), and only secondarily also in equatives. Already during
later stages of Ancient Greek, however, it also starts to be used in comparatives, cf.
(55). We thus see the same three steps of the development as in German starting from
similatives to equatives to comparatives. The similarity of this change to the
development of German wie was already explicitly pointed out by Hildebrand (1871:
362, fn. 2) and Lerch (1942: 354). As in German, we witness a repeated shift of
standard markers according to the comparative cycle in Ancient Greek.

(52) Ancient Greek (Homer Iliad 2, 872)
     hòs                 kaì    chrysòn             échōn
     who:NOM;SG;M        also gold:ACC;SG;M         have:PTCP;PRS;NOM;SG;M
     pólemónd'           íen             ēÿt́ e        koúrē
     battle:ACC;SG;M;ALL go:PST;3SG      like          girl:NOM;SG;F
     ‘This one came to the battle dressed in gold like a girl.’

(53) Ancient Greek (Homer Iliad 4, 277f.)
     tōî               dé     t᾽       áneuthen   eónti
     this:DAT;SG;M      PTCL PTCL       far.away   be:PTCP;PRS;DAT;SG;M
     melánteron         ēÿt́ e píssa          phaínet’
     black:CPD;NOM;SG;N than pitch:NOM;SG     appear:IPF;3SG;MID
        ‘To him [= a goatherd] standing in the distance, it appeared blacker than pitch.’

27
     De Kreij (2021: 357) treats the example given in (53) as an instance of an equative. However,
morphologically (comparative form of the adjective) as well as semantically, it is clearly a comparative.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                           147
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


(54) Ancient Greek (Homer Iliad 2, 190)
         daimóni’                           oú      se           éoike          kakòn
         by.god.punished.one:VOC;SG NEG             you:ACC befit:PRF;3SG mean.one:ACC;SG;M
         hṑs        deidíssesthai
         like       be.afraid:INF
         ‘Man of ill fortune, it does not befit you to be afraid like a mean one!’


(55) Ancient Greek (Plato Republic 526c)
     Kaì      mḗn,      hōs   egōî mai,                    há           ge   meízō
         and        indeed       as      believe:PRS;1SG which PTCL big:CPD;ACC;SG;M
         pónon                   paréchei           manthánonti                    kaì
         toil:ACC;SG;M           cause:PRS;3SG      learn:PTCP;PRS;DAT;SG;M        and
         meletōn̂ ti,                    ouk        àn      rhāidíōs oudè pollà                 àn
         strive:PTCP;PRS;DAT;SG;M        NEG        well    easily       nor many:ACC;PL;N well
         heúrois                 hōs     toûto.
         find:OPT;AOR;2SG        than this:NOM;SG;N
         ‘And indeed, as I believe, studies that cause more toil to the learning and striving
         one than this you may not easily discover nor find many of them.‘


3.6. Latin

The Latin comparison particle quam, which derives from an accusative or old
instrumental form of the relative/interrogative stem PIE *kwo, constitutes another case
of a standard marker shifting according to the comparative cycle, cf. Hildebrand
(1871: 362, fn. 2), Middleton (1892: 59), Small (1924: 123, 1929: 22), Lerch (1942:
354), Weiss (2009: 425) and Tarriño (2009: 384), who, for the most part, explicitly
point out the similarity in development to German wie. In Classical Latin, quam is
attested as a comparison particle in equatives in combination with the correlate tam,
cf. (57),28 and is otherwise used in comparatives, as illustrated in (56).29 The usual




28
     Besides tam … quam further correlative patterns used in Latin equatives are talis … qualis, tantus …
quantus etc., cf. Tarriño (2009: 383). On the basis of the correlate tam and the frequently adjacent
comparison particle quam the comparison particle tamquam was grammaticalized (= (i) in fn. 13.)
29
     Instead of using a comparison particle, the standard in Latin comparatives may also be marked by
comparison case, viz. ablative, or the case-equivalent functional preposition a/ab (cf. Weiss 2009: 451).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                         148
Jäger                                                   The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


comparison particle in similatives, on the other hand, is ut (cf. Lerch 1942: 330f.;
Tarriño 2009: 399f.), as illustrated in (58).
     The distribution of quam in Classical Latin thus corresponds to that of als in 17th
century German: just as als, which had originated in similatives, had already been
largely replaced in this type of comparison by wie in the 17th century but still
represented the main pattern in equatives (with correlate + parameter) as well as in
comparatives, quam is hardly used in similatives in Classical Latin any more,30 but has
largely been replaced in this type of comparison by ut, whereas it is still used in
equatives and at the same time already in comparatives. This suggests that quam also
changed in three steps from similatives to equatives to comparatives.31

(56) Latin (Plaut. Stich. 109 (after Tarriño 2009: 380))
         Facile     inuenis              peiorem […]            quam illa                     fuit
         easily     find:PRS;2SG         bad:CPD;ACC;SG         than         that:NOM;SG;F be:PRF;3SG
         ‘You’ll easily find [a wife] worse than she was.’


(57) Latin (Cic. Verr. II 4, 126 (after Tarriño 2009: 381))
         tam        beati                quam        iste              est
         as         happy:NOM;PL;M as                that:NOM;M        be:PRS;3SG
         ‘as happy as that one is’


(58) Latin (Plaut. Cas. 419 (after Tarriño 2009: 402))
         faciam                  ut      iubes.
         do:FUT;1SG              as      command:PRS;2SG
         ‘I will do as you bid me.’


(59) Latin (Petron. 38, 15 (after Tarriño 2009: 401))
         Solebat                 sic     cenare       quomodo          rex.
         use.to:IPF;3SG          so      dine:INF     like             king:NOM
         ‘He used to dine like a king.’




30
     Remnants of the use of quam in similatives are attested in all stages from Plautus to Late Latin (cf.
Tarriño 2009: 387).
31
     According to Small (1924: 55) Latin et, which is also used as a comparison particle, represents
another instance of the distributional shift from equatives to comparatives.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                             149
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


Besides ut, a new standard marker appears in Latin, viz. quomodo, cf. (59), which was
grammaticalized on the basis of a nominal syntagm (< quo modo ‘in which manner’;
= (iv) in fn. 13). This comparison particle is restricted to similatives in Latin, cf.
Gamillscheg (1957: 743), so that, once more, the innovation starts in similatives.
Quomodo and its successor forms como/com/come/comme/cum etc., which over the
course of the development completely replaced ut in similatives, play a role as a
standard marker in various Romance languages until today and also show a shift
according to the comparative cycle in the further diachronic development.


3.7. Romance languages

For the standard markers como/com/come/comme/cum etc. in the individual Romance
languages, continuing on from Latin quomodo which had been restricted to similatives
(see above), in the next step a distributional shift can be observed again in the same
direction as in German and other languages, viz. an extension to equatives. According
to Tarriño (2009: 389), this development follows “a general trend of expressions of
manner to change into expressions of degree” – a trend which is obviously part of the
more general phenomenon of the comparative cycle. The resulting situation can be
observed in Modern Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese and Italian, cf. Price (1990), where
como, com and come, respectively, are used in similatives as well as in equatives, as
illustrated with Italian in (60) and (61)(a). In comparatives, on the other hand,
que/che appears as a standard marker, cf. (62)(a).32 This comparison particle and its
cognates in various Romance languages are generally assumed to derive from Latin
quam, cf. Mattoso Camara (1972: 73, 214) on Portuguese, Gamillscheg (1957: 743,
748) and the etymological online dictionary of the Centre National de Ressources




32
     In these Romance languages with como/come/com in equatives and similatives vs. que/che in
comparatives we are accordingly dealing with system IIa in Table 1. In equatives a comparison particle
that was grammaticalized on the basis of the interrogative/relative 'how much‘, viz. quanto, is
alternatively used in Portuguese and Italian, cf. (61)(b). In comparatives, besides the comparative
particle que/che we partly find a functional preposition de/di, which is typologically equivalent to a
comparison case construction, cf. (62)(b), and in most Romance languages relative constructions with
the comparison-case equivalent preposition de/di and a pronominal element, which are
grammaticalized to varying degrees: Spanish de lo que, Portuguese do que, French de ce que, Italian di
quanto/di quello que/di come, Romanian decît, Catalan del que etc. (cf. Price 1990).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                      150
Jäger                                                       The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


Textuelles et Lexicales33 on French.34 In these languages, quam > che/que is
accordingly only kept in its historically most recent context of use, viz. comparatives,
just as als in present-day German. Note, however, that quite a number of Latin
elements introducing subordinate clauses phonologically merged in que/che in the
Romance languages, viz. besides quam also quia, quid, quod and quem so that que/che
constitutes a kind of universal complementizer in Romance languages today.35


(60) Italian
         Maria       corre          come         (corre)            Anna.
         Maria       run:PRS;3SG as/like         run:PRS;3SG        Anna
         ‘Maria runs like Anna (does).’


(61) Italian
a.      Maria è                (così)     alta        come Anna.
       Maria be:PRS;3SG        as         tall:F      as          Anna
b. Maria è                   alta       tanto         quanto             Anna.
       Maria be:PRS;3SG tall:F          as.much       how.much           Anna
       ‘Maria is as tall as Anna.’


(62) Italian
a. Tu          sei           più        bella              che      una rosa.
       you     be:PRS;2SG more          beautiful:F        than     a:F    rose
b. Tu          sei           più        bella              di       una rosa.
       you     be:PRS;2SG more          beautiful:F        from     a:F    rose
       ‘You are more beautiful than a rose.’


The same distribution as observed for como/com(e) in the languages discussed above
can also be found for com(e) in Old French: In contrast to Modern French comme, it
was not only used in similatives but also in equatives, cf. (63). According to Lerch
(1925, I: 232) and Gamillscheg (1957: 748), there is even evidence for a further



33
     www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/que
34
     Vs. Seuren (1984: 123): que < Lat. quo, Small (1924: 53f.): French que/Ital. che etc. < Lat.
quem/quia, only Romanian ca < quam.
35
     In Romanian ca, however, the distinct vowel of the underlying quam is preserved (see below).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                                 151
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


distributional shift of this standard marker into comparatives in Old French, cf. (64)
– again in line with the comparative cycle.


(63) Old French (Joinville in Paris-Langlois, Chrestom. 220 (after Lerch 1925, I: 228))
      Aussi      gros         come li                        bondons         d’        un   tonel
      as         big          as       the:NOM;PL;M          plug:NOM;PL of            a    barrel:OBL
      ‘as big as the plugs of a barrel’


(64) Old French (Gaydon 31 (after Gamillscheg 1957: 748))
      Vëis                    tu       onques     home plus            mal        mené
      see:PST;2SG             you      ever       man        more      badly      behave:PTCP
      com        fu           mes                   sires?
      than       be:PST;3SG my:NOM;SG;M             lord:NOM;SG
      ‘Did you ever see a man more badly behaved than my Lord?’


(65) Old French (Perceval 16 (after Gamillscheg 1975: 750))
      Mais       je           proverai              que li               cuens
      but        I            prove:FUT;1SG         that the:NOM         count:NOM
      vaut                    miauz               que        cil                  ne        fist
      be.worth:PRS;3SG        much:CPD            than this:NOM;SG;M              NEG       do:PRS;3SG
      ‘But I will prove that the count is worth more than this one.'

(66) Old French (Hugues Capet 125 (after Lerch 1925, I: 230))
     Qui                 est           blance     qu’ aubespin
     which:SG;M          be:PRS;3SG    white:SG;F as hawthorn
     ‘Which is white as hawthorn’

(67) Modern Standard French
     Elle       est        plus grande            que  moi.
     she        be:PRS;3SG more tall:F            than I
     ‘She is taller than me.’


(68) Modern Standard French
      Elle       est          aussi grande          que moi.
      she        be:PRS;3SG as         tall:F       as       I
      ‘She is as tall as me.’



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                         152
Jäger                                                   The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective




(69) Modern Standard French
         Elle       fait         cela    comme moi
         she        do:PRS;3SG this      like       I
         ‘She does this like me.’


Over the course of the further development of French, however, a noteworthy
development into the opposite direction can be observed: The standard marker que,
which in Old French constitutes the regular comparison particle in comparatives, cf.
(65), starts to appear very occasionally in equatives, cf. (66) (see Lerch 1925, I: 230).
Since the 13th century its use in equatives increases, cf. Gamillscheg (1957: 743) and
Buridant (2000: 550), eventually replacing comme, which, however, is used in
equatives ‘up to the Classical period’ according to Lerch (1942: 331), according to
Buridant (2000: 555) until the 17th century and occurs in equatives in Colloquial
French and certain dialects occasionally even today, see examples (74) and (75)
below. Since the 17th century prescriptive grammarians also demand the use of que
instead of comme after correlates such as autant, tel, si and aussi, i.e. in equatives.36
Thus, the distributional pattern arose that we still find in Modern Standard French
with que as a uniform particle in [+ degree] comparisons, i.e. comparatives and
equatives, cf. (67) and (68),37 and comme in similatives, cf. (69).38 In contrast to Old
French, where it was only the feature [± dissimilarity] that was expressed by the
choice of the standard marker, it is now only the feature [± degree] so that we witness
a diachronic change from type IIa to IIb in Table 1.
      The reason for this development in French since the late Middle Ages in the
opposite direction to the crosslinguistically predominant pattern of change captured
in the comparative cycle, which we also observed in the earlier development of


36
     According to Lerch (1925, I: 228), among the prescriptive French grammarians, during the first half
of the 17th century Vaugelas demands que instead of comme after autant and quel, but still accepts
comme after aussi und si. However, during the second half of the 17th century Ménage, Corneille and
Richelet demand que instead of comme in all of these contexts.
37
     Similarly, Occitan que and Walloon k’ are used as uniform standard markers in comparatives and
equatives, cf. Price (1990: 232).
38
     Besides comme, a number of other standard markers occur in similatives over the course of the French
language history, viz. ainsi comme, later also ainsi que and autant que (16th-18th century)
grammaticalized according to pattern (i) in fn. 13, but also standard markers grammaticalized
according to pattern (iv), for instance de même que (cf. Gamillscheg 1957: 746f.).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                             153
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


French, can be seen in the fact that, as discussed above, numerous Latin expressions
introducing subordinate clauses merged in que. Therefore, this ubiquitous
complementizer is also increasingly generalized in comparison constructions.
According to Gamillscheg (1957: 744), it was in particular the homonymy with the
relative complementizer que in semantically and syntactically similar constructions
that contributed to the distributional extension of que into equatives, notably the
relative construction le même que ‘the same as’ as a bridging construction for a
reanalysis of que as an equative particle.
   Similar distributional shifts in the opposite direction, i.e. from comparatives to
equatives, can arguably also be found for the cognates of que in a few other Romance
languages: in Romanian (phrasal) equatives, besides cum (< quomodo), cognate of
French comme, the standard marker ca (< quam), cognate of French que is also
possible, which otherwise is used as a comparative particle, as illustrated in (70), (71)
and (72) (cf. Price 1990: 200, 205). Meyer-Lübke (1899: 304), on the other hand,
views Romanian ca as the continuation of Latin quam in equatives and as an
innovation in comparatives, which would correspond to the usual development in the
comparative cycle.


(70) Romanian (after Price 1990: 205)
      Scriu                    tot                așa       de corect       cum citești
      write:PRS;1SG            all:M/N            as        of correctly as         read:PRS;2SG
      tu.
      you:NOM
      ‘I am writing as correctly as you are reading.’


(71) Romanian (after Price 1990: 202)
      Ion        e             mai     mic        ca           mine.
      Ion        be:PRS;3SG more small            than         I:ACC
      ‘Ion is smaller than me.’


(72) Romanian (after Price 1990: 205)
      E                        la      fel        de        înalt      ca   mine.
      be:PRS;3SG               after kind         of        big        as   I:ACC
      ‘He is as tall as me.’




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                       154
Jäger                                                 The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


In Colloquial Italian we partly also find an extension of a standard marker from
comparatives to equatives in so far as, in contrast to the standard language, che is not
only used in comparatives but also in equatives as in (73) (cf. Price 1990: 176). The
same is true of regional varieties of Italian such as Friulian and even more so Sardinian
where che not only appears in comparatives and equatives but optionally also in
similatives (cf. Haspelmath & Buchholz 1998: 315).


(73) Colloquial Italian (after Price 1990: 176)
        Riesce                 tanto               nella pittura         (quanto          / che)
        succeed:PRS;3SG        as.much             in.the paiting        how.much             as
        nella                  scultura.
        in.the                 sculpting
        ‘He is as good at painting as he is at sculpting.’


The diachronic development starting from Latin and continuing in individual
Romance languages is summarized in Table 3, in which the distribution of standard
markers in Latin, Old French and Modern French are given. Further Romance
varieties, which of course do not constitute historical periods of French, but
potentially correspond to further steps in the development are added in the shaded
cells.39 Thus the situation in Friulian corresponds to a stage between Old and Modern
French, while the distribution in Sardinian corresponds to a potential further stage in
the development.
     Note that while in these particular Romance languages, the original development
according to the comparative cycle is turned back, as it were, due to the ubiquitous
use of the complementizer que/che resulting in diachronic stages with a uniform

39
     This scenario holds provided that there was indeed an intermediate diachronic stage at which
como/com(m)e etc. was used in similatives and equatives as in Old French and Modern Spanish,
Portuguese and Standard Italian, and que/che in Friulian, Sardinian etc. equatives and partly similatives
does not simply constitute a direct continuation of Latin quam in these contexts, in which case these
languages would not show a development in the opposite direction to the typical comparative cycle,
after all. Considering the distribution in Latin, where quam was hardly used in similatives any more,
this alternative scenario seems unlikely, but as discussed above, it is in fact proposed for Romanian by
Meyer-Lübke (1899: 304).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                           155
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


standard marker in [+ dissimilarity] or in [+ degree] comparisons (type IIa and IIb
in Table 1, respectively) or even for all three types of comparison as partly in
Sardinian (type I in Table 1), this change, even if it takes place in the opposite
direction to the usually observed comparative cycle, still evolves in the stepwise
manner predicted by the markedness hierarchy of comparisons with equatives taking
up an intermediate position between comparatives and similatives.


                                      similative               equative        comparative
 Latin                                    ut                    quam                  quam
                                      /quomodo
 Old French                   (quomodo >) come                  come           (quam > ) que
 (≈ Spanish, Portuguese,                                                       (rarely come)
 Catalan, Italian)
 Friulian                                  come                come/que                que
 (≈ Romanian)
 Modern French                             comme                 que                   que
 Sardinian                              comente/che              che                   che


                     Table 3: Development of standard markers in Romance languages.


Interestingly, in Modern non-standard varieties of French, especially in Western parts
of France, and in North-American French, for instance in Nova Scotia and Louisiana,
comme and its equivalents are not only used in similatives but also in equatives, as
(74) and (75) illustrate. It remains to be ascertained whether this represents a relict
form, as Lerch (1925, I: 228) and Neumann-Holzschuh & Mitko (2018: 740) suggest,
or whether this use represents a recent, secondary development. The fact that it is
socially very marked as decidedly lower-class or very informal speech seems to
support the latter scenario, in which case there would be evidence for a renewed
development into the typical direction according to the comparative cycle in French.


(74) North-American French: Nova Scotia (after Neumann-Holzschuh & Mitko 2018:
      743)
         I est                  aussi haut            coumme     Pierre.
         he be:PRS;3SG          as       high         as         Pierre
         ‘He is as tall as Pierre.’




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                   156
Jäger                                                    The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


(75) Modern Non-Standard French (after Gadet 1992: 93)
         Il         est                   aussi     grand        comme         moi
         he         be:PRS;3SG            as        big          as            I
         ‘He is as tall as me.’


3.8. Slavic languages


Slavic languages show evidence of developments of standard markers in comparisons
according to the comparative cycle, too. In Polish – as in German and many other
European languages – an interrogative-based comparison particle is used in equatives
and similatives, viz. jak, cf. (76) and (77). In comparatives, on the other hand, the
comparison particle niż, cf. (78)(a) and (79)(a), or more rarely (and only in phrasal
comparatives) the particle od in combination with genitive case mark the standard of
comparison, cf. (78)(b) and (79)(b).40 However, in Colloquial Polish the comparison
particle jak also appears in comparatives if they are negated, cf. (79)(c).41 Adverbial
function of the parameter and the occurrence of negative concord, cf. (80), increase
the acceptability of jak in comparatives in Polish.


(76) Polish
         Anna                     idzie             tak       (samo) szybko           jak Maria.
         Anna:NOM                 walk:PRS;3SG      so        same      fast          as     Maria:NOM
         ‘Anna walks as fast as Maria.’




40
     This goes back to a comparison case construction with the case-equivalent functional preposition ot
> od ‘from’ (corresponding to the Italian comparison-case equivalent preposition di, which occurs in
comparatives as an alternative to che, cf. (62)(b)). For an analysis of phrasal as opposed to clausal
comparatives in Slavic see Pancheva (2006; 2010).
41
     “Przyimek jak jest używany w konstrukcjach porównawczych, zawierających w pierwszym,
zaprzeczonym członie przymiotnik w stopniu wyższym, np. Nie ma nic lepszego jak mocna herbata.
Natomiast niepoprawne jest używanie w takich porównaniach przyimka jak z członem pierwszym
niezaprzeczonym.” (‘The pronoun jak is used in comparative constructions that contain a comparative
form of an adjective in the first, negated clause, e.g. There is nothing better than [= jak ‘as/like’, A.J.]
strong tea. However, it is ungrammatical to use the pronoun jak if the first clause is not negated.’
Krystyna Długosz-Kurczabowa, University of Warsaw, https://sjp.pwn.pl/poradnia/haslo/lepszy-niz-i-
lepszy-od;10270.html).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                              157
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


(77) Polish
      Anna                    idzie               tak       (samo) jak             Maria.
      Anna:NOM                walk:PRS;3SG        so        same       as          Maria:NOM
      ‘Anna walks like Maria.’


(78) Polish
      a. Anna                 idzie               szybciej         niż             Maria.
         Anna:NOM             walk:PRS;3SG        fast:CPD         than       Maria:NOM
      b. Anna                 idzie               szybciej         od              Marii.
         Anna:NOM             walk:PRS;3SG        fast:CPD         from       Maria:GEN
         ‘Anna walks faster than Maria.’


(79) Polish
      a. Anna                 nie      idzie                szybciej        niż      Maria.
         Anna:NOM             NEG      walk:PRS;3SG         fast:CPD        than     Maria:NOM
      b. Anna                 nie      idzie                szybciej        od       Marii.
         Anna:NOM             NEG      walk:PRS;3SG         fast:CPD        from     Maria:GEN
      c. Anna                 nie      idzie            szybciej       jak         Maria.
         Anna:NOM             NEG      walk:PRS;3SG fast:CPD           than        Maria:NOM
         ‘Anna doesn’t walk faster than Maria.’


(80) Polish
      Nigdy      nie          kupiłam             więcej           jak        5kg ziemniaków.
      never      NEG          buy:PST;1SG         many: CPD than              5kg potato:GEN;PL
      ‘I never bought more than 5kg potatoes.’


The usual similative and equative standard marker jak/kak ('how', 'like', 'as') is also
possible in comparatives in other Slavic languages. Thus in Russian, the particle kak
also appears in negated comparatives, cf. (81) and (82), where otherwise the standard
of comparison is marked by the particle čem (in archaic speech also neželi) or by
comparative case (genitive), see also Jensen (1934: 124).
   In Ukrainian, jak is already generally acceptable instead of niž as a standard marker
in comparatives. (83) and (84) illustrate jak in a similative and in a comparative. In
this language, negated comparatives presumably also acted as bridging contexts for




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                      158
Jäger                                                The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


the distributional extension of jak into comparatives according to the comparative
cycle, as early examples of comparative jak from around 1800 suggest, cf. (85).


(81) Russian
        nikto                 inoj       kak    ja
        nobody:NOM            other than        I:NOM
        ‘none other than me’


(82) Russian (NKRJa: Izvestija, 2002/09/27)
        on         ne pridumal                  ničego              lučše,        kak posporitʹ
        he:NOM NEG concoct:PST;SG;M             nothing:GEN         good:CPD than quarrel:INF
        s          desantnikami
        with       paratrooper:INSTR;PL
        ‘[…] he did not concoct anything better than to quarrel with the paratroopers’


(83) Ukrainian (Je. Hucalo (after Horodensʹka 2017: 657))
        Ja         vže        vilʹnyj,          jak       ptaxa         v      nebi
        I:NOM      already    free:NOM;SG;M     like      bird:NOM in          sky:LOC
        ‘I am already free as a bird in the sky.’


(84) Ukrainian (Ukr. pryslivʹja (after Horodensʹka 2017: 658))
        Lipše      vesʹ       vik               divuvaty,               jak z
        good:CPD whole        life:ACC          be.a.virgin:INF         than with
        neljubom              prožyvaty
        unloved:INSTR;M       live:INF
        ‘Better to be a spinster the whole life than to live with an unloved one’


(85) Ukrainian (Hryhoryj Kvitka-Osnov’janenko (1778-1843) (after Medvedjev 1962:
        80))
        Ne         bulo                  j      na usij                 slobodi
        NEG        be:PST;SG; M          even   in whole:LOC            settlement:LOC
        durnišoho,                       jak    Parxim       Šerevertenʹ
        stupid:CPD;GEN;SG;M              than   Parxim       Šerevertenʹ
        ‘In the whole settlement there was no-one more stupid than Parxim Šereverten'.’




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                          159
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


3.9. Hungarian

Even in Non-Indo-European languages, distributional shifts of standard markers
according to the comparative cycle can be found, for instance in Hungarian. In all
three types of comparison constructions considered here, the comparison particle mint
is used in Hungarian, cf. (86)-(88) (= type I in Table 1).42 This particle, too, originates
in the interrogative adverb ‘how’ (cf. Heine & Kuteva 2002: 177), and accordingly
must have been used in similatives and equatives first and has subsequently been
extended to comparatives, similar to wie in colloquial and dialectal German.43


(86) Hungarian
        Néz                    mint egy              bárány
        look:PRS;SBJV;3SG      like     a            lamb
        ‘He looks like a lamb.’


(87) Hungarian
        János     olyan        kicsi    mint       Péter
        Janos     as           small as            Peter
        ‘Janos is as small as Peter.’


(88) Hungarian
        János     kisebb       mint Péter
        Janos     small:CPD than Peter
        ‘Janos is smaller than Peter.’


In the history of Hungarian, there is even evidence for a repeated change according
to the comparative cycle. The original comparison particle in Old Hungarian is hogy,
which was beginning to be replaced in equatives by the more recent standard marker



42
     The phenomenon that the same comparison particle appears in similatives, equatives and
comparatives can also be observed in further Uralic languages, viz. Estonian kui, Finnish kuin. Whether
these particles historically show the same shifts according to the comparative cycle as observed for
Hungarian needs to be established in future research.
43
     Besides using a comparison particle, the standard may also be marked by comparison case in
Hungarian comparatives, viz. by adessive case, a locative case expressing proximity to an object (e.g.
János kissebb Péter-nél. - Janos small:CPD Peter:ADESS ‘Janos is smaller than Peter.’)


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                       160
Jäger                                                 The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


mint already in Old Hungarian, cf. Haader (2003) and Bacskai-Atkari (2014).44 In
historical Hungarian, hogy constitutes a kind of uniform comparison particle in all
types of comparison, too.45 Etymologically, it also meant ‘how’ so that hogy, too, must
have undergone a distributional shift from similatives and equatives to comparatives.


3.10.       Chinese

Evidence for the comparative cycle can also be found in unrelated Non-European
languages such as Chinese. Heine & Kuteva (2002: 256f.) discuss Chinese besides
German (comparison particle wie) as an example for the development from equatives
to comparatives and characterise the respective developments in both languages as
directly comparable. The change in Chinese does not only evolve in the same direction
as in German but has repeatedly taken place, too, in fact at least three times, which
once more corroborates the analysis that we are dealing with an instance of cyclical
language change. According to Heine & Kuteva, who base their discussion on Sun
(1996), the Late Archaic Chinese and Han Chinese verbal equative marker bi ‘to
compare with, be like, imitate’, cf. (89), developed into a marker in comparatives in
Late Medieval Chinese of the 8th and 9th century with the meaning of ‘more than’,
which it still has in Modern Mandarin Chinese today, cf. (90).46
      The second lexeme that has undergone a development from comparisons of
equality/similarity to comparisons of inequality/dissimilarity in Chinese is ru.
Starting with a meaning of ‘to resemble/be like’, cf. (91), it changed into a standard
marker in comparatives in Early Mandarin Chinese, cf. (92). The third instance of this
type of syntactic-semantic distributional shift in Chinese concerns the lexeme xiang,
which again used to mean ‘to resemble/be like’ and later also became used as a
standard marker in comparatives.


(89) Old Chinese (Mengzi Gongsun Chou shang (Heine & Kuteva 2002: 256, after Sun
     1996: 39))
     er      he        ceng bi        yu    yu shi?
     2SG     how       STRESS compare 1SG   YU   3SG
         ‘How (dare) you compare me to him?’

44
     Up to Middle Hungarian, the combination hogy mint is attested.
45
     In comparatives, hogy is, however, almost only found together with the negative/polarity particle
nem/sem, later it is also occasionally found without the negation particle in the combination hogy mint.
46
     According to Sun (1996: 38f.) the steps of the development are as follows: Old Chinese: verb ‘to
compare’ > Middle Chinese: equative preposition ‘as/like’ > comparative particle.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                           161
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


(90) Modern Mandarin Chinese (Heine & Kuteva 2002: 256, after Sun 1996: 38)
      ta          bi          meimei              piaoliang.
      3SG         than        sister              beautiful
      ‘She is prettier than (her) sister.’


(91) Early Mandarin Chinese (Yuan kann zaju sanshi zhong Yu Shang Wang (Heine
      & Kuteva 2002: 256, after Sun 1996: 40))
      xiong-jiujiu            de       gongren       ru                hu      lang.
      gallantly               PTCL     policemen resemble/like         tiger   wolf
      ‘Arrogant policemen are like tigers and wolves.’


(92) Early Mandarin-Chinese (Yuan kann zaju sanshi zhong Yu Shang Wang (Heine
      & Kuteva 2002: 257, after Sun 1996: 40))
      Chi         le          xie      popei         chunno    sheng   ru
      eat         ASP         some fermented spirit            better than
      yu          xie         qiongjiang.
      jade        liquid      wine
      ‘(I) took some fermented wine, better than the best wine.’


Heine & Kuteva (2002: 257) state that further data besides those from the two
languages they discuss, viz. German and Chinese, would be required to corroborate
the grammaticalization path from equative markers (or ‘to resemble/be like’) to
comparative markers. They speculate that the development in Chinese constitutes an
instance of a verb with a salient feature becoming a grammatical marker for that
feature. Note, however, that this salient feature would be similarity/equality, whereas
the meaning of the resulting grammatical marker is one of dissimilarity/inequality.
This can be explained if the development is seen as an instance of the comparative
cycle turning a marker in comparisons of equality/similarity (standard markers or
other linguistic expressions of similarity such as the discussed Chinese verbs) into a
marker in comparisons of inequality/dissimilarity, i.e. comparatives, a phenomenon
which is not limited to German and Chinese, but occurs in numerous languages as the
discussion in the previous sections has shown.


4. The comparative cycle: Characteristics and causes

As demonstrated above, one can crosslinguistically observe a diachronic shift of
comparison markers (notably comparison particles) according to the comparative


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                           162
Jäger                                          The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


cycle. While the development may occasionally proceed in a different way in
individual languages due to pecularities of the language system (e.g. in certain
Romance languages) the general direction of change is that from equality to
inequality, more specifically from similatives to equatives to comparatives.
Similatives not only stand out as a typical context for innovation of standard markers
(cf. fn. 13), but are also the least marked type of comparison constructions, which
will help to explain the steps and typical direction of change in the comparative cycle.


4.1. Cyclical language change

The observed changes constitute a stepwise and repeated development into the same
direction, i.e. an instance of cyclical language change. Indeed, as we saw above, in
several languages we witness repeated shifts of comparison markers from similatives
to equatives to comparatives. The fact that language change may proceed in a cyclical
fashion (or spiral) has already been noted by von der Gabelentz (1891: 241ff.) and
Meillet (1912) in relation to the future cycle in Romance languages, i.e. the repeated
development of future markers from synthetic to analytic to synthetic again etc. (cf.
also Hopper & Traugott 2003: 9). Another classical instance of cyclical change is the
repeated change of negation particles from clitic negator to clitic + free negator to
free negator to clitic negator again, described by Jespersen (1917) and investigated
in much subsequent work (van Kemenade 1999, 2000; Rowlett 1998; Jäger 2008; van
der Auwera 2010; Willis et al. eds. 2013 among others).
  In recent years there has been an increased interest in cyclical change (cf. for
instance van Gelderen ed. 2009, 2011, ed. 2016; Breitbarth & Jäger in prep.) because
this kind of change brings out the systematic, language-independent side of change
and thus allows us to investigate general crosslinguistic principles of language change.
There have been in-depth studies of various further cycles besides the future cycle
and Jespersen’s cycle such as the subject-agreement cycle between subject pronouns
and verbal agreement morphology (van Gelderen ed. 2009, 2011, ed. 2016), the
copula cycle between a demonstrative or a main verb and a copula (cf. Lohndal 2009),
the definiteness cycle from demonstratives to definite articles to nominal case or
derivation morphemes (van Gelderen 2007, 2011), or the relative cycle from relative
pronoun to relative particle to particle + new pronoun, finally simple pronoun again
etc. (van Gelderen 2004).




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                    163
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


   For several instances of cyclical change it has been suggested that phonological
reduction of the original marker and subsequent strengthening and finally
replacement by another marker drive the development. While phonological reduction
can often also be observed in the diachronic development of comparison particles and
other standard markers, phonological reduction and subsequent strengthening does
not seem to be the main driving force behind the comparative cycle, for instance for
the replacement of German denn by als in comparatives (denn is still used in other
functions without being perceived as phonologically too weak) or als by wie in
equatives (again als survives in other functions, notably as a comparative particle, i.e.
cannot be considered phonologically too weak to be used as an equative particle).
   However, phonological reduction is not the only possible cause for cyclical change.
Another cause may be a recurrent reanalysis of the same kind. This may for instance
be due to markedness reversal as in the case of the repeated reanalysis of plural forms
as singular forms and formation of a new plural form e.g. with the noun for ‘pear’ in
German (Lat. SG pirum – PL pira > OHG/MHG SG bira/bire – PL bir(e)n > Modern
German SG Birne – PL Birnen). Furthermore, desemanticization of an originally
pleonastic, emphatic construction turning the respective expression into the regular,
non-emphatic marker, i.e. largely semantic-pragmatic developments have been
suggested to be the cause behind certain instances of cyclical change.
   With respect to the comparative cycle, semantic and syntactic reanalysis as well as
loss of emphasis also play a role especially in relation to the grammaticalization of
new standard markers, which typically starts in similatives, contributing to the
directionality of the change. The primary explanation, however, will be argued to lie
in the markedness relations of comparison constructions in combination with
linguistic economy at different levels of the language system.


4.2. Chain shifts or functional overload as causes?


Let us first, however, revise two other causes that have been suggested in the
literature specifically with respect to the distributional shift of standard markers in
comparisons. The first one is a mechanism of chain shift as it is also assumed in
explanations of phonological developments or of semantic changes within so-called
word fields. Grimm (DWB 1: 248; 250f.) and Lerch (1942: 349) assume for the
development in German that the use of wie as a comparison particle caused a push
chain of repeated replacement among the comparison particles. However, the



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                         164
Jäger                                                The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


timeline of the developments disproves this hypothesis (for a detailed discussion see
Jäger 2018: 401-404). As discussed in sect. 3.1.1, German als replaced denn in
comparatives during the 17th century – well-before it was ‘pushed out’ of equatives
by wie, which only took place during the 19th century. Moreover, the extension of
wie into comparatives since the 18th and especially 19th century cannot be linked to
any other element pushing it out of similatives and equatives, as it still constitutes
the main pattern in these types of comparisons until today, so that the comparative
cycle cannot be explained by chain shifts.
     The second hypothesis that is occasionally raised in the literature sees the cause of
the change within the respective comparison particle itself. It is assumed that a certain
item stops to be used as a comparison particle once it develops too many other
meanings or functions, i.e. due to ‘functional overload’. Thus the replacement of the
German comparative particle denn by als has been linked to the rise of causal denn
since the 15th century (DWB 29: 1484; Lerch 1942: 355, 359; Dückert 1961: 215)
and the replacement of the equative particle als by wie to the rise of predicative als or
an increased use of als as a temporal complementizer since late MHG, respectively
(DWB 29: 1471; Lerch 1942: 349; Dückert 1961: 207).47
     A close investigation of the developments, however, shows that this hypothesis
does not hold, either (for a detailed discussion see Jäger 2018: 404-418). The increase
of German dann/denn, for instance, which had already been used in various functions
(conditional, temporal etc.) during OHG and MHG, as a causal complementizer took
place several centuries before it stopped being used as the main comparison particle
in comparatives. Als on the other hand considerably increased its functions during
MHG and ENHG (modal demonstrative adverb, temporal, conditional, causal and
concessive complementizer, relative particle, predicative conjunction, coordinating
conjunction) and at the same time as well as during the directly ensuing time period
it was even increasingly used as a comparison particle, being extended from one type
of comparison to the next. Similarly, wie took on more and more functions during
ENHG and early NHG (interrogative/relative adverb, complementizer ‘that’,
concessive, temporal and causal complementizer, relative particle, coordinating
conjunction), yet at the same time it was extended into further types of comparison
at the expense of als.

47
     Similarly, the replacement of the Dutch comparative particle dan by als during the 16th and 17th
century has been considered as a consequence of the rise of dan in the sense of ‘but’ (van der Horst
2008: 993).


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                          165
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


   In fact, the comparative cycle regularly leads to an increase of polysemy and
functional load of lexemes as they often take over the function of standard marker in
further types of comparison at the same time or directly after an increase of other
functions. Lexemes with the single function of equative particle, on the other hand,
such as the historical German alsam, occasionally attested in MHG, or inmassen,
sometimes found in ENHG, should be expected to gain importance in this exclusive
function and be stably used – instead they quickly disappeared in contrast to the
highly polysemous wie, which was nevertheless very successful diachronically in all
types of comparisons. The fact that polysemy and ‘high functional load’ may even be
conducive to an increased use as a comparison particle is also obvious from the
increasing use of que/che as a comparison particle in various Romance languages (see
sect. 3.7). Besides failing with regard to the exact development in concrete cases,
these hypotheses fall short of explaining the systematic and crosslinguistic nature of
the change by seeking the cause in language-specific and lexeme-specific
developments.


4.3. Economy and markedness as the causes of the comparative cycle

An explanation of the comparative cycle that captures its lexeme-independent,
crosslinguistic and systematic nature must build on universal principles and
mechanisms of language change. I would like to argue that markedness and linguistic
economy play a crucial role as causes of the observed developments. The
directionality and individual steps of the comparative cycle can be argued to result
from the characteristics of the different types of comparison constructions, in
particular the markedness hierarchy formulated in (2), in combination with linguistic
economy at different levels of the language system.
   At the level of the lexicon, economy repeatedly leads to the rise of a uniform
standard marker for several types of comparison, as can be observed in the diachronic
development of many of the languages discussed above. Since the difference between,
for instance, [+ dissimilarity] and [- dissimilarity] comparisons is marked by means
of the parameter marker (an inflectional morpheme on the adjective/adverb or a free
morpheme accompanying it) in the languages under discussion, it need not be marked




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                      166
Jäger                                                  The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


by a different standard marker in addition.48 This is also reflected in the formal
semantic analysis of comparison constructions (von Stechow 1984; Heim 1985,
2000), according to which the equative or comparative semantics resides in the
respective parameter marker, whereas the comparison particles themselves are
assumed to be semantically empty and are therefore deleted at the level of Logical
Form. Against this background a recurrent reduction of the functional lexicon w.r.t.
lexical entries for comparison particles for reasons of economy is to be expected.
      Relevant bridging contexts that facilitate this process of using one particle in
several types of comparison are negated equatives or equatives containing expressions
of multiples, thus referring to a relation of dissimilarity as a whole, as well as negated
comparatives expressing similarity rather than dissimilarity. This is also evident in
several of the languages discussed above. Thus a construction such as the equative
[not [as big as]] may be read as a comparative [[not as big = smaller] than], or [twice
[as big as]] as [[twice as big = bigger] than] giving rise to the use of the comparative
particle in equatives. Conversely, a comparative such as [not [bigger than]] may be
taken as [[not bigger = as big] as], giving rise to the use of the equative standard
marker in comparatives. This can be analysed as an instance of re-bracketing resulting
in narrow scope of the respective operator (negation, multiple) over the parameter
rather than wide scope over the entire comparison. Indeed, there is evidence for this
phenomenon both synchronically as well as historically in various languages such as
the Baltic and Slavic languages discussed in sections 3.3 and 3.8, and partly also
English cf. sect. 3.1.2. In the history of German, cf. sect. 3.1.1, too, the first uses of
the equative particle als in comparatives appear in these kinds of constructions, cf.
example (11) with a negated comparative, but also the exceptional use of the
comparative particle thanne/dann in equatives.49 While this explains how a shift of



48
     Note that accordingly the comparative cycle is less likely to occur in languages which only mark the
difference between the different types of comparison by means of the standard marker without
employing a parameter marker.
49
     An early example from OHG of thanne in an equative with an expression of multiples (‘twice as …
as’) is the following:
uuánda óuh sélbez taz sáng . nôte stîgen sól […] únz tára sîn hóhi gât . íh méino uuîlôn ióh ze demo
áhtodên bûohstábe . dér zuíualt líutet . tánne dér bûohstáb . ze démo iz ánafîeng
‘because the melody itself shall necessarily rise up to its high point, I mean sometimes even to the
eighth tone which sounds twice as high as the tone at which it startet.’ (Notker Mus. IV, 16)




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                            167
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


markers from one type of comparison to another is possible in principle and will be
favoured due to lexicon economy, the typical directionality and steps of the
comparative cycle are not yet explained as, on this basis, a shift in both directions
may occur.
   A central counterpart of lexicon economy that also partly contributes to the
directionality of the change is economy at the syntactic and semantic/pragmatic level,
which repeatedly leads to the grammaticalization of new standard markers. In this
respect, similatives stand out as a primary context of innovation due to their syntactic
and semantic characteristics: the typical lack of a parameter expression leads to a
frequent adjacency of elements such as the correlate or an element meaning ‘same’
etc. in the superordinate clause and the comparison particle, which may give rise to
the grammaticalization of new comparison particles by univerbation with different
types of preceding elements (cf. fn. 13). Treating the respective expressions as one
syntactic item is more economical syntactically than a syntactic structure in which
they are two separate items (see also Weiß 2019: 533-537).
   This is further enhanced by semantic/pragmatic bleaching. Part of the semantics
of similatives (and equatives) is a certain granularity or tolerance range (cf. Umbach
& Gust 2014): For x to be like y it is not necessary that it is identical with respect to
all contextually salient features but that the respective feature values are close
enough. Therefore, a very close or even exact identity is typically expressed by
additional emphatic markers such as ‘fully’ or ‘exactly’ whose emphatic character may
be bleached over time so that they are grammaticalized as part of the usual standard
marker (cf. (iii) in fn. 13, among others leading to the grammaticalization of German
als and English as). In this respect loss of emphasis also plays a role in the comparative
cycle as it does in other types of cyclical change (see sect. 4.1).
   Another syntactic factor that contributes to similatives being a preferred context
for the grammaticalization of new comparison particles is the fact that similatives are
very close syntactically to wh-constructions, notably to free modal (co-)relatives. In
many European languages including several languages discussed in sect. 3 above, one
can thus observe the grammaticalization of modal interrogative/relative adverbs


Similar examples are found in various languages, consider the following example from present-day
English:
The symbol from the last position does not appear anymore in the calculation because the last number is
twice as big than prior, it is the same as having two symbols in the prior position.
(Chester Litvin: Advance brain stimulation by psychoconduction (2012: 41); after Google Books)


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                       168
Jäger                                                  The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


('how') into comparison particles, which is again driven by syntactic economy: A
syntactic head such as a comparison particle is more economical than a full syntactic
phrase such as a relative/interrogative adverb (for a detailed discussion of the
structural syntactic changes involved in the grammaticalization of a modal wh-adverb
into a comparison particle as well as those involved in the diachronic development of
individual comparison particles during the comparative cycle see Jäger 2018: ch.8.1,
2019: 7-19). The fact that, for these syntactic and semantic reasons, similatives form
a primary context for the grammaticalization of new standard markers makes them a
typical starting point of the development and thus contributes to the directionality of
the comparative cycle. This crucially coincides with the predictions of the markedness
hierarchy of comparison constructions given in (2), which not only explains the
directionality of the development, starting from similatives, but also explains the
individual steps of the change.
     Similatives represent the least marked type of comparison constructions, being
characterized by [- dissimilarity] as well as [- degree]. This is corroborated by the
observation that they show the least specific, least grammaticalized markers
crosslinguistically.50 Data from language acquisition indicates that similatives are also
the type of comparisons that is acquired earliest (cf. Hohaus 2015). Moreover,
similatives constitute the most frequent type of comparisons in corpora (cf. for
instance Zeilfelder 2001: 474 for the early IE languages Hittite, Vedic and Ancient
Greek, Hahnemann 1999: 29 for a Modern German newspaper corpus, Jäger 2018:
433 for a historical German corpus covering OHG, MHG, ENHG and early NHG). The
pattern used in similatives is thus easily transferred onto other types of comparison.
This extension or shift takes place gradually from less marked to more marked
contexts in line with standard assumptions of markedness theory on language change
(cf. Wurzel 1994: 43f.). Being characterized by [- dissimilarity] and [+ degree],
equatives take up an intermediate position between similatives and comparatives
regarding markedness. The prediction that the shift of standard markers to equatives
constitutes an intermediate step in the comparative cycle is borne out as the
discussion in section 3 has shown. The final step in the typical development is the
distributional shift of standard markers to comparatives, which constitute the most


50
     Similarity also seems cognitively unmarked in contrast to dissimilarity, i.e. similarity comes with
less cognitive effort. This fact is employed for instance in perception studies with infants, whose
sucking rate is stable if they perceive two items they do not discriminate, i.e. items they perceive as
similar/equal, whereas it increases if they perceive an item as different from, i.e. dissimilar to, the
previous one.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                            169
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


marked type of comparisons being characterized by [+ dissimilarity] and
[+ degree].


5. Conclusion


The    syntactic-semantic        shift   of     standard    markers    from      comparisons    of
similarity/equality to those of dissimilarity/inequality, more specifically from
similatives to equatives to comparatives, is found in the history of many languages.
In several languages, there is even evidence that this kind of change occurred several
times and thus constitutes a cycle: the comparative cycle.
   The crosslinguistic and systematic nature of the comparative cycle can be explained
as an effect of economy at the level of the lexicon leading to the use of one standard
marker for several types of comparison, and economy at the syntactic and
semantic/pragmatic level leading to the grammaticalization of new standard markers
especially in similatives. Their shift into further types of comparisons, viz. equatives
and finally comparatives, can be understood against the background of the
markedness hierarchy of comparison constructions as an instance of natural language
change. In order to deepen our understanding of the comparative cycle, its
characteristics and causes, further detailed diachronic investigations would be useful,
covering further languages and including data on all three types comparisons
discussed, viz. comparatives, equatives and notably similatives.


Acknowledgements


I would like to thank a number of colleagues for data and/or helpful comments on a
number of languages: Anne Breitbarth, Koen van Hooste and Chris de Wulf on BSD
and Flemish varieties, Pia-Mareen van de Kerkhof on Standard Dutch, Eugen Hill on
PIE and Lithuanian, Daniel Kölligan on Old Armenian and Ancient Greek, Marco
Coniglio and Chiara Gianollo on Italian, Martin Becker on Old French, Pierre Larrivée
on colloquial and Northern-American French, Barbara Tomaszewicz-Özakin on
Polish, Daniel Bunčić on Russian and Ukrainian, Julia Bacskai-Atkari and Melani
Wratil on Hungarian, and Barbara Meisterernst on Chinese.


Abbreviations

 1 = 1st person                       GEN   = genitive                PL   = plural
 2 = 2 person
       nd
                                      IMP   = imperative              PRF   = perfect



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                   170
Jäger                                                The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


 3 = 3rd person                    INF   = infinitive                    PRS   = present
 ACC   = accusative                INSTR   = instrumental                PST   = past
 ADESS   = adessive                IPF   = imperfect                     PTCL   = particle
 ALL   = allative                  LOC   = locative                      PTCP   = participle
 AOR    = aorist                   M   = masculine                       Q   = question particle
 ASP   = aspect                    MID   = middle                        REFL   = reflexive
 AUX   = auxiliary                 N   = neuter                          SBJV   = subjunctive
 CPD   = comparative degree        NEG   = negation                      SG   = singular
 DAT   = dative                    NOM    = nominative                   SPD   = superlative degree
 F   = feminine                    OBL   = oblique                       VOC    = vocative
 FUT   = future                    OPT   = optative


Languages

 BSD =        Belgian   Standard   MHG      =     Middle    High         OHG = Old High German
              Dutch                               German
 ENHG = Early Middle High          NHG = New High German                 PIE = Proto Indo-European
              German


References


Alrenga, Peter. 2007. Dimensions in the semantics of comparatives. PhD Dissertation,
     University of California.
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia. 2014. Cyclical change in Hungarian comparatives. Diachronica
     31. 465-505.
Breitbarth, Anne & Jäger, Agnes. In prep. Cyclical change. In Bousquette, Joshua &
     Pickl, Simon (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the German language. Oxford : Oxford
     University Press.
Buridant, Claude. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l'ancien français. Paris: Sedes.
Camara Mattoso, Joaquim Jr. 1972. The Portuguese language. Chicago: Univ. of
     Chicago Press.
CHEL II = Blake, Norman (ed.). 1992. The Cambridge history of the English language.
     Vol. 2. 1066-1476. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CHEL III = Lass, Roger (ed.). 2006. The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol.
     3. 1476-1776. Third edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Kreij, Nina. 2021. Ancient Greek. In Keydana, Götz & Hock, Wolfgang & Widmer,
     Paul (eds.), Comparison and gradation in Indo-European (= Mouton Handbooks of
     Indo-European Typology, 1), 349-384. Berlin: de Gruyter.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                          171
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


Delbrück, Berthold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des
   Waisenhauses.
Dückert, Joachim. 1961. Das geschichtliche Verhältnis des vergleichenden als und
   wie. PBB 83. 205-230.
Dunkel,      George      E.    2014.     Lexikon      der   indogermanischen    Partikeln   und
   Pronominalstämme.           Vol.      1:     Einleitung,     Terminologie,     Lautgesetze,
   Adverbialendungen, Nominalsuffixe, Anhänge und Indices; Vol. 2: Lexikon.
   Heidelberg: Winter.
DWB = Grimm, Jabob & Grimm, Wilhelm. 1854–1961. Deutsches Wörterbuch. 33 vols.
   Leipzig: Hirzel (Reprint: Deutscher Taschenbuchverlag, 1984).
Gadet, Françoise. 1992. Le français populaire. Paris: PUF.
Gamillscheg, Ernst. 1957. Historische französische Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Haader, Lea. 2003. Az ómagyar kor. Mondattörténet: Az összetett mondat. In Kiss,
   Jenö & Pusztai, Ferenc (eds.), Magyar nyelvtörténet, 500-560. Budapest: Osiris
   Kiadó.
Hahnemann, Suzan. 1999. Vergleiche im Vergleich. Zur Syntax und Semantik
   ausgewählter Vergleichsstrukturen mit "als“ und "wie“ im Deutschen. (= Linguistische
   Arbeiten, 397). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Haspelmath, Martin & Buchholz, Oda. 1998. Equative and similative constructions in
   the languages of Europe. In Van der Auwera, Johan & O Baoill, Dónall (eds.),
   EUROTYP. Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, vol. 3 (= Empirical
   Approaches to Language Typology, 20-3), 277-334. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Heim, Irene. 1985. Notes on comparatives and related matters. Ms. University of Texas,
   Austin.
   (Online:
   http://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zc0ZjY0M/Comparatives%2085.pdf).
Heim, Irene. 2000. Degree operators and scope. In Jackson, Brendan & Tanya
   Matthews (eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 10, 40-64.
   Cornell University Ithaca
   (Online:
   http://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/SALT/article/view/3
   102/).
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge:
   Cambridge University Press.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                172
Jäger                                          The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


Hildebrand, Rudolf. 1871. Rezension zu Ph. Dietz: Wörterbuch zu Dr. Martin Luthers
  deutschen Schriften. Leipzig: Vogel, 1870. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 3. 358-
  365.
Hohaus, Vera. 2015. A semantics for degree and property equatives. Ms. Paper
  presented at the conference “Comparison constructions”, 21/12/2015. University
  of Cologne.
Horodensʹka, Kateryna Hryhorivna (ed.) 2017. Hramatyka sučasnoï ukraïnsʹkoï
  literaturnoï movy. Kyïv: Vydavničyj dim Dmytra Buraho.
Hubers, Ferdy & de Hoop, Helen. 2013. The effect of prescriptivism on comparative
  markers in spoken Dutch. In Aalberse, Suzanne & Auer, Anita (eds.), Linguistics in
  the Netherlands 2013 (= Linguistics in the Netherlands, 30), 89-101. Amsterdam:
  Benjamins.
Jäger, Agnes. 2008. History of German negation. (= Linguistik aktuell, 118).
  Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Jäger, Agnes. 2010. Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln.
  Linguistische Berichte 224. 467-493.
Jäger, Agnes. 2018. Vergleichskonstruktionen im Deutschen: Diachroner Wandel und
  synchrone Variation (= Linguistische Arbeiten, 569). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Jäger, Agnes. 2019. The syntax of comparison constructions in diachronic and
  dialectal perspective. Glossa 4(1): 70. 1–51.
Jäger, Agnes & Walkden, George. 2021. West Germanic. In Keydana, Götz & Hock,
  Wolfgang & Widmer, Paul (eds.), Comparison and gradation in Indo-European (=
  Mouton Handbooks of Indo-European Typology, 1), 281-348. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Jensen, Hans. 1934. Der steigernde Vergleich und sein sprachlicher Ausdruck.
  Indogermanische Forschungen 52. 108-130.
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. (= Historisk-filologiske
  Meddelelser, 1/5). Copenhagen: A. F. Host.
Klooster, Willem. 2001. Grammatica van het hedendaags Nederlands: Een volledig
  overzicht. Den Haag: SDU.
Kölligan, Daniel. 2021. Classical Armenian. In Keydana, Götz & Hock, Wolfgang &
  Widmer, Paul (eds.), Comparison and gradation in Indo-European (= Mouton
  Handbooks of Indo-European Typology, 1)¸ 49-79. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Lerch, Eugen. 1925. Historische französische Syntax. Vol. 1: Definition der Syntax -
  syntaktische Methoden - Allgemeines über Satzverknüpfung und Konjunktionen -




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                    173
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


   Beigeordnete Sätze - »Que«-Sätze, Sätze mit »si«, »quand« und »comme«. Leipzig:
   Reisland.
Lerch, Eugen. 1942. Ist schöner wie ein Sprachfehler? Zum Streit um die Berechtigung
   der Sprachregelung. PBB 65. 329-372.
LKŽ 5 = Ulvydas, Kazys & Jonikaitė, Zuzana & Vosylytė, Bronė & Kruopas, Jonas &
   Kabelka, Jonas. 1959. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 5: K - klausitys. Vilnius: Valstybinė
   politinės ir mokslinės literatūros leidykla.
LKŽ 8 = Kruopas, Jonas & Jonikaitė, Zuzana & Kėzytė, Sofjia & Kučinskaitė, Antanė
   & Lyberis, Antanas. 1970. Lietuvių kalbos žodynas. 8: Melūda - ožvilnis. Vilnius:
   ‘Minties’ leidykla.
Lohndal, Terje. 2009. The copula cycle. In Gelderen, Elly van (ed.), Cyclical change,
   209-242. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Medvedjev, Fedir Pylypovyč. 1962. Systema spolučnykiv v ukraïnsʹkij movi. Charkiv:
   Univ.
Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L’évolution des forms grammaticales. Rivista di scienzia 12.
   384-400. (Reprint in: Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Second edition.
   Paris: Société de Linguistique Paris VIII, 1926. 130-148).
Meyer-Lübke, Wilhelm. 1899. Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen. Vol. 3: Syntax.
   Leipzig: Reisland.
Middleton, George. 1892. An essay on analogy in syntax. London: Longmans.
Neumann-Holzschuh, Ingrid & Mitko, Julia. 2018. Grammaire comparée des français
   d’Acadie et de Louisiane (GraCoFAL). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Phrasal and clausal comparatives in Slavic. In Lavine,
   James & Franks, Steven & Tasseva-Kurktchieva, Mila & Filip, Hana (eds.), Formal
   Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 14: The Princeton meeting 2005, 236–257. Ann Arbor:
   University of Michigan Slavic Publications.
Pancheva, Roumyana. 2010. More Students Attended FASL than CONSOLE. In
   Browne, Wayles & Cooper, Adam & Kesici, Esra & Predolac, Nikola (eds.), Formal
   approaches to Slavic linguistics 18: The second Cornell meeting 2009, 383-400. Ann
   Arbor: University of Michigan Slavic Publications.
Paul, Hermann. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 25th edition; revised by Klein,
   Thomas & Solms, Hans-Joachim & Wegera, Klaus-Peter & Prell, Heinz-Peter.
   Tübingen: Niemeyer.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                          174
Jäger                                          The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


Petit, Daniel. 2021. Baltic. In Keydana, Götz & Hock, Wolfgang & Widmer, Paul (eds.),
  Comparison and gradation in Indo-European. (= Mouton Handbooks of Indo-
  European Typology, 1), 99-147. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Pinault, Georges. 1985. Négation et comparaison en Védique. In Bulletin de la société
  de linguistique de Paris, 103-144. Paris/Louvain: Peeters.
Postma, Gertjan. 2006. Van “groter dan” naar “groter als“. Structurele oorzaken voor
  het verval van het comparatieve voegwoord “dan”. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 11(1).
  2-22.
Price, Susan. 1990. Comparative constructions in Spanish and French syntax.
  London/New York: Routledge.
Reinarz, Lukas & de Vos, Hugo & de Hoop, Helen. 2016. Conflicting constraints in the
  comparative cycle. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28. 403-425.
SAND = Babiers, Sjef & van der Auwera, Johan & Bennis, Hans & Boef, Eefje & de
  Vogelaer, Gunther & van der Ham, Margreet. 2005ff. Syntactische Atlas van de
  Nederlandse Dialecten. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Schwyzer, Eduard. 1950. Griechische Grammatik. Vol. 2: Syntax und syntaktische
  Stilistik. München: C.H. Beck.
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1984. The comparative revisited. Journal of Semantics 3. 109-
  141.
Small, George William. 1924. The comparison of inequality. The semantics and syntax of
  the comparative particle in English. Greifswald: Abel.
Small, George William. 1929. The Germanic case of comparison. With a special study of
  English (= Language Monographs, 5). Philadelphia: Linguistic society of America.
Stassen, Leon. 1985. Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford/New York: Blackwell.
Stassen, Leon. 2005. Comparative constructions. In Haspelmath, Martin & Dryer,
  Matthew S. & Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard (eds.), The world atlas of language
  structures, 490-493. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sun, Chaofen. 1996. Word-order change and grammaticalization in the history of Chinese.
  Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Tarriño, Eusebia. 2009. Comparative clauses. In Cuzzolin, Pierluigi & Baldi, Philip
  (eds.), New perspectives on historical Latin syntax. Vol. 4: Complex sentences,
  grammaticalization, typology, 373-426. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Thurmair, Maria. 2001. Vergleiche und Vergleichen. Eine Studie zu Form und Funktion
  der Vergleichsstrukturen im Deutschen (= Linguistische Arbeiten, 433). Tübingen:
  Niemeyer.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                    175
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


Umbach, Carla & Helmar, Gust. 2014. Similarity demonstratives. Lingua 149, 73-93.
van der Auwera, Johan. 2010. On the diachrony of negation. In Horn, Larry (ed.), The
   expression of negation, 73-101. Berlin: de Gruyter.
van der Horst, Joop. 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis, vol. 1. Leuven:
   Universitaire Pers Leuven.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2007. The definiteness cycle in Germanic. Journal of Germanic
   Linguistics 19. 275-305.
van Gelderen, Elly (ed.). 2009. Cyclical change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty.
   Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Gelderen, Elly (ed.). 2016. Cyclical change continued. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
van Kemenade, Ans. 1999. Sentential negation and clause structure in OE. In Tieken-
   Boon van Ostade, Ingrid & Tottie, Gunnel & van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Negation in
   the history of English, 147-165. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
van Kemenade, Ans. 2000. Jespersen’s cycle revisited. In Pintzuk, Susan & Tsoulas,
   George & Warner, Anthony (eds.), Diachronic syntax, 51-74. Oxford: Oxford
   University Press.
von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1891. Die Sprachwissenschaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und
   bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel. (Reprint: Narr, 1972).
von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. Comparing Semantic Theories of Comparison. Journal of
   Semantics 3. 1-77.
Vine, Brent. 1978. On the metrics and origin of Rig-Vedic ná ‘like, as’. Indo-Iranian
   Journal 20. 171-193.
Viti, Carlotta. 2002. Comparazione e Individuazione: uno studio sugli equativi
   rigvedici iva e ná. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 87. 46-87.
Weiß, Helmut. 2019. Rebracketing (Gliederungsverschiebung) and the Early Merge
   Principle. Diachronica 36. 509-545.
Weiss, Michael. 2009. Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann
   Arbor: Beech Stave Press.
Willis, David & Lucas, Christopher & Breitbarth, Anne. 2013. Comparing diachronies
   of negation. In Willis, David & Lucas, Christopher & Breitbarth, Anne (eds.), The
   development of negation in the languages of Europe, Vol. 1: Case studies, 1-50. Oxford:
   Oxford University Press.




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                          176
Jäger                                          The comparative cycle in crosslinguistic perspective


Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1994. Grammatisch initiierter Wandel. Unter Mitarbeit von
  Andreas und Dagmar Bittner. Bochum: Brockmeyer.
Zeilfelder, Susanne. 1996. Zur Syntax des Komparativs im Altarmenischen. Historische
  Sprachforschung 109. 175–198.
Zeilfelder, Susanne. 2001. Steigern und Vergleichen in indogermanischen Sprachen. Ms.
  Habilitation Dissertation, University of Jena.
Zifonun, Gisela & Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der
  deutschen Sprache. (= Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 7). Berlin: de
  Gruyter.


Sources

Brian Holton: The Mossflow. [= Scottish corpus of texts & speech: document 1628].
JBang = Thüringische Chronick oder Geschichtbuch (...) anfenglich auss einem alten
  geschriebenen (...) Exemplar colligirt (...) vnd ferner durch weiland Ern Friderichen
  Schmidt Pfarherrn zu Grossen Beruingen reuidiert vnd vermehret / dann (...) von andern
  (...) continuirt. Jetzo aber (...) in Druck geben / durch Johan Bangen. Mühlhausen,
  1599. Druck: Andreas Hantzsch. [= Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus: text 255].
JMath = Passionale Mathesij, das ist / christliche vnd andechtige Erklerung vnd Außlegung
  des zwey und zwantzigsten Psalms / vnd drey vnd funffzigsten Capitels des Propheten
  Esaia geprediget durch M. Johannem Mathesium / weyland Pfarrer in S. Joachimsthal.
  Leipzig 1587. Druck: Johann Beyer. [= Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus: text
  145].
Lil = Die Lilie. Hrsg. von Paul Wüst. Berlin: Weidmann 1909. [= Referenzkorpus
  Mittelhochdeutsch: text M327].
Notker Mus. = Notker Labeo: De musica. Edition, Übersetzung und Kommentar von
  Martin van Schaik. Utrecht: Galapagos, 1995.
Notker Ps. = Die Werke Notkers des Deutschen. Neue Ausgabe. Begonnen von Edward
  H. Sehrt und Tayler Starck. Fortgesetzt von James C. King und Petrus W. Tax.
  Vol. 8: Der Psalter. Psalm 1-50. Hrsg. von Petrus W. Tax. Tübingen: Niemeyer,
  1979.
  Vol. 9: Der Psalter. Psalm 51-100. Hrsg. von Petrus W. Tax. Tübingen: Niemeyer,
  1981.
Pañcatantra = Panchatantra I. Edited, with notes, by F. Kielhorn. Sixth Edition.
  Bombay: Government Central Book Depôt, 1896.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                                    177
Linguistic Typology at the Crossroads 1-1 (2021): 124-178


Phys= Der altdeutsche Physiologus. Die Millstätter Reimfassung und die Wiener Prosa
   (nebst dem lateinischen Text und dem althochdeutschen Physiologus). Hrsg. von
   Friedrich      Maurer.       Tübingen:       Niemeyer,   1967.   [=    Referenzkorpus
   Mittelhochdeutsch: text M157].
RV = Rig Veda. A metrically restored text with an introduction and notes. Ed. by Barend
   A. Van Nooten and Gary B. Holland. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London:
   Harvard University Press, 1994.
SalH = Salomonis hûs. Hrsg. von Johann Valentin Adrian. In: Mittheilungen aus
   Handschriften und seltenen Druckwerken. Frankfurt a.M.: Sauerländer, 1846, 417-
   455. [= Referenzkorpus Mittelhochdeutsch: text M337].
Tatian = Die lateinisch-althochdeutsche Tatianbilingue Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen Cod. 56.
   Achim Masser (ed.) Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994.
TrHL = Das St. Trudperter Hohe Lied. Hrsg. von Hermann Menhardt. (Rheinische
   Beiträge und Hülfsbücher zur germanischen Philologie und Volkskunde 21). Halle
   a.d. Saale, 1934. [= Referenzkorpus Mittelhochdeutsch: text M113].
WRal = Walter Ralegh: Amerika. Frankfurt am Main 1599. Druck: Matthäus Becker.
   [Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus: text 245].


Corpora

Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus
   https://korpora.zim.uni-duisburg-essen.de/Fnhd/
NKRJa = Russian National Corpus/Nacionalʹnyj korpus russkogo jazyka
   http://ruscorpora.ru/
Referenzkorpus Mittelhochdeutsch
   https://www.linguistics.rub.de/rem/
Scottish corpus of texts & speech
   https://www.scottishcorpus.ac.uk



CONTACT
agnes.jaeger@uni-jena.de




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2785-0943/13430                                           178
