Chapter 42: Comparative standard marking
1. Introduction ⇫ ¶
Like the previous Chapter 41 on comparative adjective marking, this chapter, too, deals with comparative constructions of inequality. In this feature, following Stassen (2005e), we are interested in the marking of the standard. In a comparative construction
the standard of comparison is the entity Y (Peter) to which the comparee X (Mary) is compared. In example (1) the standard Peter is marked by the particle than. The parameter of comparison is an adjective, taken in a semantic sense (as a gradable property word), as in Chapters 3 and 41.
The standard markers are here classified by the salient other meanings that they have in addition to that of marking the standard. Thus, surpass markers also occur as (or are closely related to) verbs meaning ‘surpass’ or ‘exceed’. Locational markers have a locational sense (ablative, allative, essive), or a dative sense. Particle markers are elements, which are specialized for standard marking, or at least have no ‘surpass’ or locational meaning (e.g. English than and French que).
2. The values ⇫ ¶
In this multiple-choice feature, we distinguish seven values:
| excl | shrd | all | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Primary surpass marking | 0 | 5 | 5 |
 | Secondary surpass marking | 7 | 20 | 27 |
 | Locational marking | 6 | 7 | 13 |
 | Particle marking | 22 | 21 | 43 |
 | Locational plus particle marking | 2 | 4 | 6 |
 | Standard is not overtly marked | 1 | 5 | 6 |
 | Conjoined marking | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Representation: | 72 | |||
In the first two types, the standard of comparison is encoded by a ‘surpass’ verb. We call the first construction type primary surpass marking (value 1). In examples representing this value, a 'surpass' verb is the only verb of the construction, and the standard is encoded as its direct object. The parameter of comparison is expressed as a prepositional phrase (na molaí ‘in tallness’ in the following example).
A much more widespread construction type within the APiCS languages is secondary surpass marking (value 2). Here a ‘surpass’ verb behaves like the second verb of a serial verb construction. The standard is the object of this serial 'surpass' verb (see e.g. Winford (1993: 248ff. for an extensive discussion of this construction in Caribbean English-based creoles).
The basic verb meaning in this type can also be ‘win’ (winim in Tok Pisin and gana in Media Lengua).
The third value is locational marking, i.e. the standard marker is also used to mark a locational relation, e.g. allative ('to'), ablative ('from'), or essive ('at'). An example for ablative marking (se 'from') comes from Pidgin Hindustani:
In Zamboanga Chabacano the locational notion 'against' (kóntra) is used to mark the standard:
The most prominent standard marking type within the APiCS languages is particle marking, which is the type of marking displayed in all European lexifiers (e.g. English than, Romance que, cf. Stassen 2005e). This heterogeneous category comprises various markers which are neither 'surpass' nor locational markers.
In French-based creoles, we find reflexes of the French standard marker que, which is typically identical to the relative pronoun and the complementizer. The standard markers in the creoles are ke and ki:
A small group of Portuguese-based creoles also belong to this value. Here, the marker diachronically reflects two units: one derives from a possessive marker, the other from a relative marker. But in a synchronic perspective the two components do not express the two functions anymore and have been lexicalized into a single marker.
In Sri Lanka Portuguese, the lexicalized marker dika is postposed to the standard:
The next value consists of a combination of locational and particle marking (regardless of the order of the marker). It is found only in Portuguese-based creoles. The marker is composed of reflexes of Portuguese do and que which are still synchronically transparent (possessive/ablative marker; relative marker). This transparency criterion puts these languages apart from their related sister languages Principense and Sri Lanka Portuguese (just mentioned earlier for value 4, particle marking). Examples for this value come from Casamancese Creole (ex. 12), where the locational part precedes the particle, and from Diu Indo-Portuguese (ex. 13), where the locational part follows the particle:
See Cardoso (2012) for an in-depth study of comparative constructions in Portuguese-based creoles in Asia.
Value 6 comprises languages where the standard is not overtly marked. Only few APiCS languages show this pattern. Chinese Pidgin English is the only language where this strategy is the only one available in the language.
Value 7 is represented by languages which do not use a specific comparison construction, but where comparison is expressed by two separately asserted predications. The comparison has then to be inferred by the hearer. This technique is called conjoined marking.
3. Geographical distribution ⇫ ¶
The geographical distribution of the different standard marking strategies is not random. We see clear areal effects: Central African contact languages with either African or European lexifier languages tend to show ‘surpass’ marking. ‘Surpass’ marking also extends to the Caribbean (even though not as the only possible strategy). This type of serial verb constructions in Atlantic creoles has long been traced back to African substrate languages, cf. e.g. Boretzky 1983: 104ff, 172, 184, Holm 1988: 189f, Parkvall 2000: 73f. Particle marking prevails in North America, the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean. East Africa and areas east of it prefer locational marking, whereas Australian contact languages have conjoined marking. Comparison with the world-wide picture shows very clear substrate effects (compare the corresponding WALS map by Stassen (2005e)).