See data and maps.
Naccarato, C. (2020). “Standard of comparison”. In: Typological Atlas of the Languages of Daghestan (TALD). Ed. by M. Daniel, K. Filatov, T. Maisak, G. Moroz, T. Mukhin, C. Naccarato and S. Verhees. Moscow: Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, NRU HSE. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6807070. http://lingconlab.ru/dagatlas.
@incollection{naccarato2020,
title = {Standard of comparison},
author = {Chiara Naccarato},
year = {2020},
editor = {Michael Daniel and Konstantin Filatov and Timur Maisak and George Moroz and Timofey Mukhin and Chiara Naccarato and Samira Verhees},
publisher = {Linguistic Convergence Laboratory, NRU HSE},
address = {Moscow},
booktitle = {Typological Atlas of the Languages of Daghestan (TALD)},
url = {http://lingconlab.ru/dagatlas},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.6807070},
}Comparative constructions typically involve three elements: a predicate and two noun phrases denoting the object of comparison and the standard of comparison. In example (1) the object of comparison is constituted by the first noun phrase (the tree), while the second noun phrase (the house) is the standard of comparison (the preposition than is the standard marker).
This chapter investigates the morphological coding of the standard of comparison in comparative constructions. In the languages of Daghestan, the standard of comparison is usually marked with a spatial form, i.e. an inflected form of a nominal normally expressing a spatial relation. A few languages employ dedicated comparative markers. The adjective in these constructions is usually not inflected for degree.1 Spatial (or “Locational”) comparatives are the most frequent strategy in the languages of the world according to data from WALS; cf. (Stassen 2013). Cross-linguistically, other common strategies involve the use of particles (other than those expressing spatial relations), predicates meaning ‘exceed, surpass’, and conjoined comparatives (Stassen 2013). Sometimes more than one strategy is available in one and the same language. In the languages of Daghestan, for instance, constructions with postpositions or special comparative particles are also found. Depending on the nature of the marker employed, spatially coded comparatives can be divided into three types: At-comparatives (i.e. essives), To-comparatives (i.e. latives), and From-comparatives (i.e. elatives or ablatives); cf. (Stassen 2013). This variation within the group of spatially coded comparatives, which was not considered for the purposes of the WALS map of comparative constructions, is the focus of the present investigation; see (Stassen 1985) for a typological parallel. Our goal is to classify the languages of Daghestan according to the type of spatial form used to mark the standard of comparison.
In the languages of Daghestan the standard of comparison is usually marked with a spatial form (see Spatial forms). A few languages feature dedicated comparative markers (see Dedicated comparative markers).
In comparative constructions, most languages of Daghestan mark the standard of comparison with a spatial form. However, variation is observed with respect to both the directionality marker (see Directionality markers) and the localization marker (see Localization markers) employed.
Most languages of Daghestan mark the standard of comparison with an elative form, cf. example (2) from Avar.
| di-da-sa | ɬik’-a-w | qazaq | du-je=gi | šːʷ-ela-r=in |
| i.obl-sup-el | good-adjz-m | worker | you.sg.obl-dat=add | get-fut-neg=emph |
| ‘You will also not get a better farm worker than me.’ |
There are 19 such languages (see Table 1). Note that Northern Akhvakh and Botlikh feature markers that are described in grammars as translative markers. However, their semantics is most often elative, so they are also included in this group.
| Family > Branch | Language | Suffix |
|---|---|---|
| EC > Avar-Andic | Avar | -da-sa |
| Akhvakh (North.) | -g-une | |
| Bagvalal2 | -la-sː | |
| Botlikh | -č’u-ku | |
| Chamalal | -č’-oː | |
| Godoberi | -č’u-ru | |
| Karata | -a-gal/-č’o-gal | |
| EC > Lezgic | Agul | -la-s |
| Archi3 | -tː-iš | |
| Kryz | -v-ar | |
| Lezgian | -l-aj | |
| Rutul4 | -la | |
| Tsakhur | -l-e | |
| EC > Tsezic | Hinuq5 | -ƛ’o-s |
| Khwarshi | -λ’a-zi | |
| Tsez | -ƛ’-aj | |
| EC > Dargwa | Itsari | -li(ː)-r |
| Sanzhi | -ja-r(ka) | |
| Tanty | -ja-r |
Five languages feature ablative markers (see Table 2). We use the term “ablative” instead of “elative” for languages that do not have bimorphemic spatial case systems, cf. Azerbaijani (3). On maps, however, elative and ablative markers are merged into a single group.
| Family > Branch | Language | Suffix |
|---|---|---|
| EC > Lezgic | Udi | -χun |
| Turkic > Kipchak | Kumyk | -dan (-den) |
| Nogai | -den | |
| Turkic > Oghuz | Azerbaijani | -dan (-dən) |
| IE > Armenic | Armenian | -ic’ |
| Bakı | Kirovabad-dan | böyük-dür |
| Baku | Kirovabad-abl | big-cop.3sg |
| ‘Baku is bigger than Kirovabad.’ |
Tat (Iranian < Indo-European) differs from all the other languages in that it does not have case inflection. The standard of comparison is marked with the ablative adposition ez, cf. example (4).
| me | ez | tü | ziyodte | ʕämeldan | vediromo-r-um |
| I | abl | you.sg | more | wily | come_out-aor-1sg |
| ‘I turned out to be smarter than you.’ |
Six languages mark the standard of comparison with essive suffixes, cf. example (5) from Tindi. Essives are usually zero-marked, i.e. no overt directionality marker follows the localization marker. In Dargwa languages, the localization marker is followed by noun class (gender) markers when the noun form is essive (see Table 3).
| wacːi | kj’e-ja | rehã-ɬːiː | muk’u-w | ija | jacːu-č’i |
| brother | two-num | year-nm.obl.erg | little-m | cop | sister.obl-cont(ess) |
| ‘The brother is two years younger than the sister.’ |
| Family > Branch | Language | Suffix |
|---|---|---|
| EC > Avar-Andic | Tindi | -č’i |
| EC > Dargwa | Standard Dargwa | -či-CM |
| Akusha | -či-CM | |
| Kubachi | -ži-CM | |
| Mehweb | -če-CM | |
| EC > Nakh | Tsova-Tush | -χ |
Three other languages mark the standard of comparison with spatial forms that do not include an overt directionality marker. These languages differ from the languages in Table 3 in that they display essive/lative syncretism (see Table 4).
| Family > Branch | Language | Suffix |
|---|---|---|
| EC > Avar-Andic | Andi | -č’u |
| Bagvalal | -č’ | |
| EC > Tsezic | Bezhta | -ʁa (-ʁoj) |
Hinuq (Tsezic < EC) differs from the other languages in terms of both the directionality marker and the localization marker employed, and features the aloc-lative (i.e. animate location lative) suffix to mark the standard of comparison (Forker 2019), cf. example (6). However, as mentioned above, the superelative marker is also employed in certain contexts.
| hago | di-de-r | ɬora | ƛeb-a | Ø-eˁžiy | goɬ |
| he | i.obl-aloc-lat | three.obl | year-in | m-big | cop |
| ‘He is three years older than me.’ |
The most common localization marker in spatial forms encoding the standard of comparison is SUP (location on a surface),6 cf. (2). It is found in 19 languages (see Table 5).
| Family > Branch | Language | Suffix |
|---|---|---|
| EC > Avar-Andic | Avar | -da-sa |
| Akhvakh (North.) | -g-une | |
| Bagvalal | -la-sː | |
| Karata | -a-gal | |
| EC > Tsezic | Bezhta | -ʁa (-ʁoj) |
| Hinuq | -ƛ’o-s | |
| Khwarshi | -λ’a-zi | |
| Tsez | -ƛ’-aj | |
| EC > Dargwa | Standard Dargwa | -či-CM |
| Akusha | -či-CM | |
| Itsari | -li(ː)-r | |
| Kubachi | -ži-CM | |
| Mehweb | -če-CM | |
| Sanzhi7 | -ja-r(ka) | |
| Tanty | -ja-r | |
| EC > Lezgic | Agul | -la-s |
| Archi | -tː-iš | |
| Lezgian | -l-aj | |
| Rutul | -la | |
| Tsakhur | -l-e |
In all Andic languages (except for Northern Akhvakh) the localization marker CONT (localization in contact with a surface) is found, cf. example (5) and Table 6. In Karata, CONT is used alongside SUP (Pasquereau 2010: 60). It is also used in the varieties of Karata spoken in Tukita (Michael Daniel p.c.) and Anchix (Konstantin Filatov p.c.).
| Family > Branch | Language | Suffix |
|---|---|---|
| EC > Avar-Andic | Andi | -č’u |
| Bagvalal | -č’ | |
| Botlikh | -č’u-ku | |
| Chamalal | -č’-oː | |
| Godoberi | -č’u-ru | |
| Karata | -č’o-gal | |
| Tindi | -č’i |
The localization marker AD (location in proximity to some entity) is used in Kryz (Lezgic < EC), cf. (7), whereas in Tsova-Tush (Nakh < EC) we find IN (location inside some entity), cf. (8).
| lu | utağ | la’a-be-v-ar | an | ghala-yu |
| dem | room | other-npl-ad-el | ptc | good-cop.f |
| ‘This room is more beautiful than the others.’ |
| seː | wašo | xeː | wašo-χ | iazi-wχ | w-a |
| I.gen | brother | you.sg.gen | brother-in(ess) | good-cmpr | m-cop |
| ‘My brother is better than yours.’ |
In nine languages the standard of comparison is marked with a dedicated suffix, sometimes called “comparative suffix”, cf. Table 7 and example (9) from Chechen (Nakh < EC).
| Family > Branch | Language | Suffix |
|---|---|---|
| EC > Lezgic | Archi | -χur |
| Budukh | -wor | |
| Rutul | -qaʔ | |
| Tabasaran | -t’an | |
| EC > Tsezic | Hunzib | -yɑː |
| EC > Khinalug | Khinalug | -q’ilːi |
| EC > Lak | Lak | -jar |
| EC > Nakh | Chechen | -(a)l |
| Ingush | -l |
| iza | suo-l | dika | v-u |
| he | i-cmpr | good | m-cop |
| ‘He is better than me.’ |
However, it should be pointed out that, in some cases, such comparative suffixes apparently include a spatial suffix, e.g. Khinalug -q’ilːi (elative -lːi), Tabasaran -t’an (elative -an), Budukh -wor (elative -r). In such cases, we might assume that a spatial form specialized in the encoding of the standard of comparison. In addition, Archi -χur is reported to have some residual spatial usages (Daniel, Ganenkov 2009: 673-674).
The standard of comparison in the languages of Daghestan is most
often marked by a spatial form. Even in languages featuring a dedicated
comparative marker, a possible spatial origin is often detectable.
Concerning directionality, elative markers are by far the most frequent
option, and occur in 25 languages (see Table 1 and Table 2). Elative markers are also the alleged source of
some of the comparative markers in Table 7. Essive and
lative markers are less frequent: the former are found in nine
languages, three of which show essive/lative syncretism, whereas a
purely lative marker is found in one language only; cf. Table 3, Table 4), and example (6). As
for localization markers, SUP is the most common marker, which is found
in 19 languages (see Table 5), whereas CONT occurs in
seven languages, all belonging to the Andic branch of East Caucasian
languages (see Table 6). Kryz employs the AD-marker
and Tsova-Tush the IN-marker. Finally, Hinuq features the animate
location marker.
The distribution of values across languages is represented on maps. Map 1 shows the
distribution of dedicated markers vs. different types of spatial
markers. Map 2
shows the distribution of different localization markers. The
distribution of values on maps does not reveal any noteworthy areal or
genealogical clustering. The only exception is constituted by the
localization CONT, which is found exclusively in Andic languages.
1sg — first person singular; 3sg — third person singular; abl — ablative; ad — adessive; add — additive; adjz — adjectivizer; aloc — animate location; aor — aorist; cmpr — comparative; cont — contessive; cop — copula; dat — dative; dem — demonstrative; el — elative; emph — emphatic; erg — ergative; ess — essive; f — feminine; fut — future; gen — genitive; in — inessive; lat — lative; m — masculine; neg — negation; nm — non-masculine; npl — non-human plural; num — numeral; obl — oblique; ptc — particle; sg — singular; sup — superessive
A few exceptions are constituted by Nakh languages, which have a morphological comparative degree, Tat, Armenian and Georgian, which feature lexical comparative markers meaning ‘more’. While in Ingush and Tsova-Tush the comparative degree of the adjective co-occurs with case marking of the standard of comparison, in Chechen one option excludes the other. That is, comparison is marked either on the adjective or on the standard of comparison (Nichols 1994: 30). In Armenian and Georgian, the comparative markers aveli and upro can be omitted when comparison is marked on the standard (Dum-Tragut 2009: 532); (Hewitt 2005: 40). In Tat, the comparative meaning is expressed by the adverbs diye=ş (de=ş) or ziyodte ‘more’, while the morphological comparative marker -te is found more rarely (Authier 2012: 75-76).↩︎
In Bagvalal, both superelative and contessive are possible (see Table 4). For the representation on maps we chose the contessive marker because it is mentioned in both the available sources for Bagvalal (Sosenskaja 2001) and (Magomedova 2004), whereas the superelative is only mentioned in (Sosenskaja 2001: 409).↩︎
The superelative suffix -tː-iš is mentioned in (Mikajlov 1967: 60) as the marker used to code the standard of comparison in Archi, but (Kibrik 1977b: 59) reports the dedicated comparative marker -χur instead. For the representation on maps we chose the variant reported in (Kibrik 1977b), which appears to be the only option for the encoding of the standard of comparison in Archi texts (Kibrik 1977a).↩︎
In Rutul (Mukhad dialect), two options are available to mark the standard of comparison, i.e. the superelative marker -la and the dedicated comparative marker -qaʔ (see Table 5). For the representation on maps we chose the marker -qaʔ because it is mentioned in both the available sources for the Mukhad dialect of Rutul (Maxmudova 2002) and (Ibragimov 2004), whereas the superelative is only mentioned in (Ibragimov 2004: 75).↩︎
In Hinuq, the superelative -ƛ’o-s is used by younger speakers in constructions expressing difference in age (Forker 2019).↩︎
It should be noted that the labels employed here for localization markers do not always coincide with the labels employed in the sources consulted. This mostly concerns the Russian-language literature, in which such labels are rarely employed (in most Russian-language grammars different localization markers are listed by simply naming them “series 1”, “series 2”, etc.). For more details on the semantics of localization markers, see [Spatial cases].↩︎
(Forker 2020: 66) lists several variants for the localization marker that appears in comparative forms: -le- / -ja- / -a-. This marker is labeled as LOC, and is described as “a general location marker that expresses the most common location of a figure with respect to the ground”. Its semantics seems comparable to that of SUP markers in other Dargwa languages, so we include Sanzhi in this group.↩︎