Contrastive Study on Pragmatics, Syntax, and Semantics of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

Abstract

Comparison is a cornerstone cognitive process that enables individuals to draw parallels and contrasts between entities or events, facilitating comprehension and evaluation. The expression of comparison varies across languages, reflecting the diverse ways in which human cognition categorizes comparative relationships. This study focuses on four languages-English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen - to investigate the similarities and differences in the pragmatic, syntactic, and semantic characteristics of comparative constructions. Through an in-depth analysis of the linguistic mechanisms of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, the research provides valuable insights into the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural variations in expressing comparison. Based on the analysis of online English, Chinese, and Russian corpora, respectively COCA, CCL, RNC, and a self-built Turkmen corpus data, this article conducts a contrastive analysis of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, delving into their similarities and differences in terms of pragmatics, syntax, and semantic characteristics. The similarities are mainly manifested in the pragmatics of morphological and analytical comparatives, a high degree of asymmetrical syntactic distribution, and deletion phenomena in the overall semantics of comparative constructions in these four languages. The differences mainly manifest in the pragmatic frequency of morphological and analytical comparative constructions, the syntactic surface and word order of comparative constructions, and the explicit and implicit degree semantics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen.

Headnote

Abstract

Comparison is a cornerstone cognitive process that enables individuals to draw parallels and contrasts between entities or events, facilitating comprehension and evaluation. The expression of comparison varies across languages, reflecting the diverse ways in which human cognition categorizes comparative relationships. This study focuses on four languages-English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen - to investigate the similarities and differences in the pragmatic, syntactic, and semantic characteristics of comparative constructions. Through an in-depth analysis of the linguistic mechanisms of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, the research provides valuable insights into the cross-linguistic and cross-cultural variations in expressing comparison. Based on the analysis of online English, Chinese, and Russian corpora, respectively COCA, CCL, RNC, and a self-built Turkmen corpus data, this article conducts a contrastive analysis of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, delving into their similarities and differences in terms of pragmatics, syntax, and semantic characteristics. The similarities are mainly manifested in the pragmatics of morphological and analytical comparatives, a high degree of asymmetrical syntactic distribution, and deletion phenomena in the overall semantics of comparative constructions in these four languages. The differences mainly manifest in the pragmatic frequency of morphological and analytical comparative constructions, the syntactic surface and word order of comparative constructions, and the explicit and implicit degree semantics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen.

Keywords

Comparative Constructions, Contrastive Analysis, Pragmatics, Syntax, Semantics

1. Introduction

Comparison is a cornerstone cognitive process that enables individuals to draw parallels and contrasts between entities or events, facilitating comprehension and evaluation. The expression of comparison varies across languages, reflecting the diverse ways in which human cognition categorizes comparative relationships. This study focuses on four languages - English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen - to investigate the similarities and differences of pragmatic, syntactic, and semantic characteristics of comparative constructions. Through an in-depth analysis of the linguistic mechanisms of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, the research offers valuable insights into the crosslinguistic and cross-cultural variations in expressing comparison.

In recent years, scholars in the linguistic area have conducted research on comparative constructions, including a typology of comparatives (Greenberg, 1963; Ultan, 1972; Leon Stassen, 1985; Haspelmath, 1998, 2017; Li Lan, 2003; Liu Danqing, 2003), degree semantics of comparison (von Stechow, 1984; Kennedy, 1999; Kennedy, 2002; Kennedy, 2009; Heim, 2000; Schwarzchild, 2008; Bhatt & Takahashi, 2011; Roger Schwarzchild, 2008; Alrenga, Kennedy, & Merchant 2012; Luo Qiongpeng, 2017), English comparative constructions and their constituent structures (Bresnan, 1973; Bresnan, 1975; Dixon, 2005; Guo Jie, 2015; Zhang Fang, 2021), the syntax of comparative constructions (J. Bacskai-Atkari, 2014, 2018), the syntactic structure of Chinese comparative constructions (He Yuanjian, 2010), and functional grammar of Russian comparative constructions (Zhong Xiaowen & Wang Hongchang, 2015; Zhong Xiaowen & Wang Hongchang, 2016). Scholars such as Zhang Yong (2008), Huang Rui (2011), and Lu Changying (2001) conducted a comparative study of English-Chinese comparative constructions. M. Makri (2018, p. 188) emphasized that the semantics of comparative constructions are better understood through deletion operations; Luo Qiongpeng (2017, p. 333) introduced the concept of "degree" into the study of Chinese comparative constructions, proposed that the semantics of "bi th" sentences is related to the degree comparison, which is consistent with other languages such as English.

The contrastive study of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen can reveal the linguistic mechanisms and highlight the unique features in conveying the comparison in these four languages. A greater understanding of such processes of identification has potential social and educational implications. Despite the importance of contrastive studies on pragmatics, syntax, and semantics of comparative constructions in above mentioned languages, relatively few scholars have conducted a thorough investigation of this area. Previous research has mainly gone through the exploration of syntactic, semantic, or contrastive analysis of English-Chinese comparatives, but little attention has been paid to the various characteristics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, and there has been no systematic contrastive analysis of the pragmatics, syntax, and semantics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen. Therefore, based on the analysis of massive-scale online English, Chinese, and Russian corpora, respectively COCA, CCL, RNC, and self-built Turkmen corpus data, this article conducts a contrastive analysis of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, delving into their similarities and differences on pragmatics, syntax and semantic characteristics. The specific research questions in this article are: (1) What are the similarities in pragmatics, syntax, and semantics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen? (2) What are the differences in pragmatics, syntax, and semantics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen?

Because we have limited space in this article, we will only consider the inequality type of comparative constructions.

2. The Characteristics of Pragmatic Frequency of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

Here, we will first introduce the collection and processing of the corpus of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen. First, we searched for sentences that meet the criteria for the inequality comparative constructions in the COCA, CCL, RNC massive online corpora, and self-built Turkmen corpora by inserting the keywords and standard markers of the comparative constructions; Next, we involved the use of the Antconc (version 4.2.4) to observe and process the frequency and distribution of the retrieved comparative sentences; Then, we conducted three rounds of manual recognition on the retrieved comparative sentences to determine that, if our corpus is suitable for our study; Finally, by using Microsoft Excel software, we analyzed and calculated the statistics of the corpus of comparative constructions and their components in these four languages: standard marker, degree marker, comparative target, comparative standard and comparative predicate. Through the corpus statistics, there are some similarities and differences in the total frequency of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen.

2.1 Similarities in Pragmatics of Morphological and Analytical Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

Based on the collected corpus data, the similarities are mainly manifested in the utilization of morphological and analytical comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen. English comparative constructions have involved the use of morphological and analytical degree marker -er and more, respectively. For example, "smarter" and "more beautiful". Chinese comparative constructions mostly rely on the standard marker "bi bb" to express morphological comparison and the meaning of comparison is more intuitive. For example: "bi ta gao ЬМЙЖ", "bi ta piao Hang ЬЬЖЖЙ". Analytical comparative constructions in Chinese are expressed with the degree item "geng Ж". For example: "bi ta geng hao "bi ta geng piao Hang ЬЬЙМЖЙ". Russian comparative constructions have involved the use of morphological and analytical degree items -ее/e and более, respectively. For example: "красивее" (more beautiful), "более равнодушный" (rather indifferent). In Turkmen, the morphological degree marker "-rAk1" is almost optional, comparative constructions mostly rely on the ablative case marker "-dan" to express morphological comparatives. For example: "ondan owadan(rak)" (more beautiful than her). Analytical comparative constructions in Turkmen are expressed with the degree item "has" (more). For example: "has kig" (smaller).

In brief, the similarities are mainly manifested in the pragmatics of morphological and analytical comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen.

2.2 Differences in the Pragmatic Frequency of Morphological and Analytical Forms of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

We conducted exhaustive searches on the comparative constructions of English, Chinese, and Russian in the online corpora COCA, CCL, and RNC; Regarding the inequality comparative constructions in Turkmen, as there is no online corpus available, we conducted an exhaustive search on our self-built Turkmen corpus data. The collected Turkmen language corpus mainly consisted of contemporary literary works, newspapers, and magazines from the past fifty years. In the process of corpus screening, we found that the inequality comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen exhibited differences in the overall pragmatic frequency of morphological and analytical comparative constructions, as shown in Table 1.

According to Table 1, the total scope of English comparatives in COCA is 225208, the total frequency of Chinese comparative constructions in corpus CCL is 177401, the overall amount of Russian comparative constructions in the corpus RNC is 162607, and the overall scope of Turkmen comparative constructions in our self-built corpus is 18513. Based on the collected corpus data, we have calculated the pragmatic frequency of morphological and analytical forms of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen. The morphological form of English comparative constructions accounts for 75.3%, while the morphological form of comparatives in Russian accounts for 98.55%; in Turkmen, an overt morphological form of comparative constructions (with degree marker -rAk) accounts for only 6.42%, on the other hand, morphological comparatives with implicit degree marker account for 64.3%. Chinese lacks explicit degree items, the component "bi bb" by itself is able to encode the degree comparison, which accounts for 67.4%. The analytical forms of English and Russian comparative constructions account for 24.7% and 1.45% respectively; while in Turkmen and Chinese, the analytical forms of comparative constructions account for 29.3% and 32.6% respectively. The pragmatic frequency level of morphological comparative constructions among English, Chinese, Russian and Turkmen is Russian>English>Turkmen> Chinese; The pragmatic frequency level of the analytic form of comparative constructions among English, Chinese, Russian and Turkmen is Chinese>Turkmen>English>Russian. The total pragmatic frequency of morphological comparative constructions in Russian shows the highest frequency level among the languages, on the other hand, the total frequency of analytical form of comparative constructions in Chinese exhibits the highest level among the languages.

As can be seen, English, Chinese, Russian and Turkmen utilize two types of formation of comparatives: morphological and analytical. However, there is a significant difference in the pragmatic frequency of morphological and analytical comparative constructions.

In short, the differences are mainly manifested in the pragmatic frequency of morphological and analytical comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen. The above statistical analysis of the pragmatic frequency of morphological and analytical comparative constructions highlights the diverse syntactic structures employed in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, which will be discussed in the next section.

3. The Similarities and Differences in Syntax of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

3.1 Similarities in Asymmetrical Distribution of Comparative Items in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen Comparison

The similarities in syntax are mainly manifested in a high degree of asymmetrical syntactic distribution of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen.

Treis (2018) assumes that a comparison is a mental act by which two or more items arc examined in order to assess similarities and differences between them. This means that a comparative construction must have two or more comparative items as the basis for comparison. The basic form of the comparative construction in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen requires X=Y, where two comparative terms are symmetrically distributed on both sides of the standard marker so that the referential concepts of the comparative target and standard are completely symmetrical. Consider the typical English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen comparative constructions in the following examples:

(1) Mary is faster than Susan. (COCA)

(2) ВnЖ (CCL)

Zuótiän bï jīntiān lëng.

Yesterday was colder than today.

(3) Она красивее меня (RNC)

She beautiful. Comp. Me.gen.

She is more beautiful than me.

(4) Bu bag ol j aýlan beýik(-rAk). (self-built corpus)

This tree that house.abl. High.(er)

This tree is higher than that house.

The above examples exhibit comparative constructions, which compare the comparative target "Mary", "zuo tian B^ "она" (she), "bu bag" (this tree) with the comparative standard "Susan", "jin tian ф^", "меня" (me) and "ol jaÿ' (that house). In these examples, the distribution of compared items is symmetrical, which is "X than Y". However, the syntactic characteristics of comparative constructions, under the influence of operational methods such as deletion, subdeletion or etc. exhibit a significant asymmetry between the comparative target and the comparative standard in most cases, as shown in Figure 1.

Based on our corpus analysis, the similarities of syntactic distribution characteristics of the comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen mainly lie in their degree of asymmetry. According to Figure 1, the frequency ratio of asymmetry and symmetry distribution in English and Russian comparative constructions are 83%: 17% and 77%:23%, respectively. The frequency ratio of asymmetry and symmetry distribution in Chinese and Turkmen comparative constructions are 76.2%:23.8% and 68.3%:31.7%, respectively. This indicates that the degree of asymmetry of compared items in the comparative constructions of English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen is higher than their degree of symmetry. For example:

(5) Flaca has grown taller than me. (COCA)

(6)ЙЙ^Ж. (CCL)

Wo tiào dé bï tā háo

I can dance better than him.

(7) При одинаковом повышении температуры медь расширяется больше чем железо. (RNC) With same.masc.prep. Increase.prep. Temperature.асе. copper expand.3.sg.refl. more than iron. With the same increase in temperature, copper expands more than iron.

(8) Merjenih hat ýazyşy klasdaşlarynyhkydan owadan. (self-built corpus)

M.nom.gen. handwriting. 3.sg. Classmate.pl.gen.abl. beautiful

Merjen's handwriting is more beautiful than her classmates.

The above examples exhibit the asymmetrical nature of syntactic units between matrix clause and comparative clause. In examples (5)-(8) matrix clauses "Flaca has grown", "wo tiao de $ W ", "При одинаковом повышении температуры медь расширяется больше" (With the same increase in temperature copper expands more), and "Merjenih hat ýazyşy" (Merjen's handwriting) are all include VP (verbal phrase). However, the standard in comparative clause only consists of a single NP (nominal phrase) in English and Russian: "than me" and "чем железо" (than iron), respectively. While in Chinese and Turkmen, the comparative clause consists of NP+AP (nominal+adjective phrase): "bi ta hao and "klasdaşlarynyhkydan owadan" (beautiful than her classmates). These examples prove that the comparative constructions in these four languages have undergone the deletion process2 according to a minimalist approach to languages.

In short, the similarities in the syntactic distribution of the comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen mainly lie in their degree of asymmetry.

3.2 Differences in Syntax of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

3.2.1 Differences in Constituent Components of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

We have opted for the following terms to name the constitutive components of the comparative constructions: comparative target-CT, gradable predicate-GP, degree marker-DM, standard marker-SM, and comparative standard-CS. For example:

(9) A. She is faster than me.

в. »tafto

С. Она быстрее меня./ Она быстрее чем я.

D. Ölmenden çalt/çaltrak.

Examples (9 A, B, C, D) exhibit comparative constructions, which express that the degree of the comparative target's (She, ta Ш, Она, 01) speed exceeds the degree of the comparative standard's (me, wo меня, men) speed. The gradable predicates "faster" and "быстрее" in English and Russian comparatives are located in the matrix clause and they consist a morphological degree marker "-er" and "-ее". On the other hand, the gradable predicate "kuai and " çalt/ çaltrak" in Chinese and Turkmen comparatives are arranged in the comparative clause (thÂWmenden çalt(rak)) and they do not display explicit degree markers. In Turkmen morphological degree marker is optional, in most cases, it has an implicit behaviour. The comparative standard is introduced by the standard marker "than", "bi bb" and "чем" in English, Chinese, and Russian, respectively. In Russian, the comparative standard also can be expressed through the genitive case (меня), while in Turkmen, the comparative standard only introduced via the ablative case marker -dAn3 (menden).

The above examples with explicit (English, Russian) and implicit (Chinese, Turkmen) degree markers are referred to as the morphological formation of comparative constructions. However, "-er" in English and "-ее" in Russian is not an available option for all gradable predicates, and in this case the preferable choice is analytic degree markers "more" and "более". Chinese and Turkmen also employ the explicit analytical degree markers "geng M" and "has" respectively, with a corresponding English meaning of "more". Consider the examples below:

(10) Mary is more pretentious than Susan. (COCA).

(11) (CCL)

Dushū bï dagöng gèng xing kú

Studying is more difficult than working.

(12) Но китайский народ - это великий молчун, еще более молчаливый, чем Россия. (RNC)

But Chinese.masc. people this great.masc. silent people, even more silent.masc. than Russia.

But the Chinese people are the silent people ever, even more silent than Russia.

(13) Jemal Jerenden has owadan. (self-built corpus)

J.nom. J.nom.abl. More beautiful

Jemal is more beautiful than Jeren.

In the above examples, the degrees are presented with "more", "geng Ж", "более", "has", which are referred to as an analytic degree marker. However, there is a subtle difference in meaning between "more/ более" and "geng Ж/ has". In English "more" and "более" in Russian are the available choice for the gradable adjectives which display the syntactic prohibition for "-er" and "-ее". While in Chinese "geng Ж" and "has" in Turkmen often revolve around the notions of degree intensifier of gradable adjectives.

In short, the differences in constituent components of comparative constructions in these four languages are that the syntactic surface of the comparative constructions in English and Russian contains explicit analytical and morphological degree markers; while Chinese and Turkmen employ implicit degree features, they only display explicit analytical degree intensifiers "geng M" and "has" with a corresponding English meaning "more".

3.2.2 Differences in Word Order of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

Syntactically, English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen exhibit distinctive characteristics of word order in comparative constructions. The uniqueness of word order is generally presented in terms of the position of gradable predicate and standard marker. By applying our terminology of comparatives from the previous section, we can present the formula of word order of comparative constructions in these four languages (consider Table 2 below).

According to Table 2, in English comparative construction, the gradable predicate is located in the matrix clause followed by the degree marker, and the comparative clause is headed by the standard marker; Russian comparative construction displays the same word order as in English, however, it also can employ distinct word order by utilizing the genitive case; in Chinese comparative construction the gradable predicate is located in the comparative clause, the comparative clause is headed by standard marker; in Turkmen comparative construction the gradable predicate is arranged in the comparative clause same as Chinese, however, it does not rely on a specific standard marker but rather incorporates ablative case marker within the comparative standard.

In brief, the differences in word order of the comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen mainly reflect the various positions of gradable predicates and standard markers. In English and Russian, the gradable predicates take their position in the matrix clause, and the standard markers head the comparative clause; In Chinese and Turkmen the gradablc predicates take their position in the comparative clause. In Chinese the standard marker heads the comparative clause, however, Turkmen only incorporates the ablative case marker within the comparative standard.

4. The Similarities and Differences in Semantics of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

4.1 Similarities in Deletion Phenomena in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen Comparative Constructions

The deletion phenomena are fairly similar in the overall semantics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen. The earlier most notable accounts for comparative deletion have been put forward by linguists such as Bresnan (1973, 1975), Corver (1993; 1997), Izvorski (1995), Lechner (1999, 2004), Kennedy (1997; 1999; 2002), Kennedy & Merchant (1997; 2000), and more recently Luo Qiongpeng (2017), Julia Bácskái-Atkari (2018). Descriptively, Comparative Deletion is a process that eliminates the comparative constituent from the subclause, if it is logically identical to its antecedent in the matrix clause. For example, in English comparative constructions, (14) involves the elimination of the copula from structures such as (14b), as opposed to the one given in (14a):

(14) a. Ralph is more enthusiastic than Jason is. (Julia Bacskai-Atkari, 2018:209)

b. Ralph is more enthusiastic than Jason.

Luo Qiongpeng (2017) believes that Chinese comparative constructions with bi bb have an underlying structure as shown in (15). In this construction, [tpi[comparative target [gradable predicate]]] forms a matrix clause, [tp2[comparative standard [gradable predicate]]] forms a comparative clause. The gradable predicate in the matrix clause undergoes a deletion process under the identity of the gradable predicate in the comparative clause, and the standard marker bi bb indicates the comparison between matrix and comparative clauses, as shown below:

(15) [tPI [comparative target yfe [gradable predicate RJ ]] tb [tP2[comparative standard 31 [gradable predicate R ]] 2017:331)

From the above example can be seen, the deletion on a gradable predicate in Chinese comparatives occurs in the matrix clause under the semantic identity of the comparative clause and expresses the comparative meaning as "Liáng long Ы bàwang long gâo (Diplodocus is taller than Tyrannosaurus rex).

The elliptical analysis for Russian comparatives was first conducted by Pancheva (2006). Russian linguists Grashchenkov&Lyutikova (2017) in their work assume that, the comparative clause with "чем" conjunction forcibly undergoes the operation of deletion. Consider the examples below:

(16) А. Вася был умнее, чем Петя. (Grashchenkov & Lyutikova, 2017, p. 131)

Вася был умнее, чем Петя был умный.

V. nom was smart.comp. Than P.nom. Was smart.masc.

Vasya was smarter than Petya.

In the above examples, the VP+AP (был умный) in the comparative clause is deleted under an identity with its matrix clausal antecedent.

Deletion in Turkmen similar to other languages, eliminates the comparative constituents from the matrix clause under identity to the comparative clause. For example:

(17) Ol aýal doganyny [gowy gcrýär]-dan erkek doganyny (has) gowy gör ýär.

He sister.3poss.acc [love.present]abl. brother.sg.3poss.acc (more) love.present.

He loves his brother (more) than [he loves] his sister.

In the above example, a semantically equivalent component in the matrix clause "gowy g örmek" (to love) has undergone the deletion phenomena.

As can be proven from the examples in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, the deletion phenomena occur under the identity of semantic equivalence of matrix and comparative clause, in which two semantically equivalent components are deleted in the phonological form to meet the requirements of the simplification of construction (Takahashi & Fox, 2005). The reason is that languages strive for a more economical overall semantics in comparative constructions.

In sum, the deletion phenomena are fairly similar in the overall semantics of English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen comparative constructions with subtle differences on their syntactic surface. Comparative deletion is triggered in the comparative clause in English and Russian comparatives, while in Chinese and Turkmen, it takes place in the matrix clause.

4.2 Differences in Degree Semantics of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen

The significant differences in comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen are mainly manifested in their semantic type of degrees. The degree semantics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen can be displayed in two ways: explicitly and implicitly. English and Russian comparatives mainly utilize the explicit semantic type of degrees, while Chinese and Turkmen comparatives mainly involve the use of an implicit semantic type of degrees.

In recent years, with the development of degree semantics, the study of comparatives receive increasing attention from the academic community (Kennedy, 1999; Kennedy, 2002; Kennedy, 2009; Heim, 2000; Schwarzchild, 2008; Bhatt & Takahashi, 2011; Luo Qiongpeng, 2017). According to the theoretical assumed views, gradable adjectives are predicates that express a relation between individuals and degrees. A gradable adjective like "tasty", for example, is assigned the following denotation:

(18) [[tasty]] = XdXx.tasty(x) > d

On the other hand, the function of the degree marker is to establish the relationships between two or more objects in some degrees with respect to a particular gradable predicate g<d,ct>:

(19) [[-er/moredegree]] = XdXg<d,et>Xx.max(g)(x) > d

Coming back to the English and Russian comparatives, they ultimately contribute an explicit semantic type of degrees, the gradable adjectives in the matrix clause overtly bear degree markers. Consider the explicit degree types in English (20) and Russian (21) examples respectively:

(20) A. John is smarter, than Bob. (COCA)

В. I'm more interested in music than sport. (COCA)

(21) А. Состав нашей команды был несомненно сильнее чем у других. (RNC) constituent our.gen team.gen. was undoubtedly strong.comp. than in other.pl.gen.

The constituent of our team was undoubtedly stronger than others.

В. Вообще, валютный рынок более стабильный, чем фондовый. (RNC)

In general foreign exchange market more stable than stock market.

In general, the foreign exchange market is more stable than the stock market.

In the above examples, the gradable predicates with explicit degree markers "smarter" and "more interested" display the comparative relationship in some degrees between the individuals "John" and "Bob", "music" and "sport" in English; and "сильнее" (stronger) and "более стабильный" (more stable) exhibit the comparison in some degrees between the participants "наша команда" (our team) and "другие" (others), "валютный рынок" (foreign exchange market) and "фондовый рынок" (stock market) in Russian.

However, the phenomenon in which the gradable predicate does not bear a comparative degree at all is a very common strategy for expressing comparison in the world's languages (Ultan, 1972; Bobaljik, 2012). For example, in Turkmen comparatives the standard is marked by the ablative case marker "-dAn" (which can be glossed as "than" or "from"), but the gradable predicate in most cases is unmarked (even though, in Turkmen exists the degree marker "-rAk"), in which comparison is encoded entirely in the ablative case marker. Consider the example below:

(22) Merjen Zy ýadadan uzyn/uzynrak.

M.Nom Z.NomABL tall/ tall.COMP

Merjen is taller than Ziyada.

In the above example, the degree marker "-rAk" is the condition of being optional, and its existence or absence does not affect the semantic meaning of comparison, therefore it is mostly utilized implicitly in Turkmen comparative constructions.

The corresponding comparatives in Chinese also lack overt degree marker and instead indicate comparison via the standard marker "bi bb" (the categorial status of which is a subject of some debate; see Liu 2011, Xiang 2003,2005, Guo Jie 2015). According to some Chinese linguists, the standard marker "bi bb" represents the asymmetric sequential relationship between two degrees (Luo Qiongpeng, 2017, p. 330). Luo Qiongpeng (2017) assumes that the standard marker "bi bb" obtains the semantic formula as shown below:

(23) [[bb]] = Wi <d,t> XD2<d,t>. MAX(Di) > MAX(D2) (Luo Qiongpeng, 2017:331)

Drawing on the ideas of Kennedy(2002), Takahashi & Fox(2005), Luo Qiongpeng (2017) believes that Chinese comparative constructions with "bi ЬЬ " indicate the degree (maximum value) between the comparative target and comparative standard. For example:

(24) [W] bĽо (COCA)

The above example shows that the degree (maximum value) referred by "ping guo exceeds the degree (maximum value) referred by "xiang jiao with respect to the gradablc predicate "gui Ж ". The degree-based relationships between the comparative target and comparative standard are connected by the standard marker "bi tL".

In brief, the semantic differences of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen arc mainly manifested in their semantic type of degree expressions. English and Russian comparatives mainly utilize the explicit semantic type of degree features, while Chinese and Turkmen comparatives incorporate with implicit semantic type of degrees.

5. Conclusion

This article conducts a contrastive analysis of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, delving into their similarities and differences in pragmatics, syntax, and semantic characteristics. Based on the analysis of massive online English, Chinese, and Russian corpora, respectively COCA, CCL, RNC, and self-built Turkmen corpus data, the similarities are mainly manifested in the pragmatics of morphological and analytical comparatives, high degree of asymmetrical syntactic distribution of comparative items, deletion phenomena in the overall semantics of comparative constructions in these four languages. The differences are mainly manifested in the pragmatic frequency of morphological and analytical comparative constructions, the syntactic surface and word order of comparative constructions, and explicit and implicit degree semantics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen. The pragmatic frequency level of morphological comparative constructions among English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen is Russian>English>Turkmen> Chines e; The pragmatic frequency level of the analytic form of comparative constructions among English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen is Chinese>Turkmen>English>Russian. The total pragmatic frequency of morphological comparative constructions in Russian shows the highest frequency level among the languages. The total frequency of analytical forms of comparative constructions in Chinese exhibits the highest frequency level among the languages. The syntactic surface of the comparative constructions in English and Russian contains explicit analytical and morphological degree markers; while Chinese and Turkmen employ implicit degree features, they only display explicit analytical degree intensifiers "geng and "has" with a corresponding English meaning "more". The differences in word order of the comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen mainly reflect the various positions of gradable predicates and standard markers. In English and Russian, the gradable predicates take their position in the matrix clause, and the standard markers head the comparative clause; In Chinese and Turkmen the gradable predicates take their position in the comparative clause. In Chinese the standard marker heads the comparative clause, however, Turkmen only incorporates the ablative case marker within the comparative standard. The degree semantics of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen can be displayed in two ways: explicitly and implicitly. English and Russian comparatives mainly utilize the explicit semantic type of degrees, while Chinese and Turkmen comparatives mainly involve the use of an implicit semantic type of degrees.

As can be seen, each of these languages exhibits unique linguistic features in conveying comparative meaning. By exploring the pragmatic, syntactic, and semantic similarities and differences of comparative constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen, we gain valuable insights into how languages encode comparative meanings and reflect cultural and linguistic diversity.

Sidebar

How to cite this paper: Annagul Annamyradova. (2024). Contrastive Study on Pragmatics, Syntax, and Semantics of Comparative Constructions in English, Chinese, Russian, and Turkmen. The Educational Review, USA, 8(3), 369-378.

Received: March 7, 2024

Accepted: March 30, 2024

Published: April 28, 2024

Corresponding author: Annagul Annamyradova, College of Foreign Languages, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, Hunan, China.

Footnote

1 We capitalize underspecified segments that adapt to vowel harmony; A stands for {a, a} in Turkmen.

2 For more details about the Deletion Approach to comparatives, see Bresnan (1973, 1975).

3 We capitalize underspecified segments that adapt to vowel harmony; A within -dan stands for {a,e}in Turkmen.

References

References

Alrenga, P., Kennedy, C., and Merchant J. (2012). A New Standard of Comparison. In N. Arnett and R. Bennett (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Sommerville, MA, pp. 32-42. Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Bhatt, R. and Pancheva, R. (2007). Degree Quantifiers, Position of Merger Effects with their Restrictors, and Conservativity. In C. Barker and P. Jacobson (Eds.), Direct Compositionality, pp. 306-355. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bhatt, R. and Takahashi, S. (2007a). Direct Comparisons: Resurrecting the Direct Analysis of Phrasal Comparatives. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 17, 19-36.

Bresnan, J. (1973). Syntax of the Comparative Clause Construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 4: 275-343.

Bresnan, J. W. (1975). Comparative Deletion and Constraints on Transformations. Linguistic Analysis, 1(1), 25-74.

Dixon, R. M. W. (2005). A Semantic Approach to English Grammar (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language (pp. 40-70). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Guo Jie. (2015). A Study on the Component Structure of Comparative Sentences in English [J], Foreign Language Teaching and Research, (3) 355-367.

Haspelmath, M. (1998). Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe.

Haspelmath, M. (2017). Chapter 1. Equative constructions in world-wide perspective: A cross-linguistic perspective. Similative and Equative Constructions (pp.9-32)

Kennedy, C. (1999). Projecting the Adjective: The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland Publishing.

Kennedy, C. (2002). Comparative Deletion and Optimality in Syntax. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 20: 553-621.

Kennedy, C. (2007). Vagueness and grammar. The semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30: 1-45.

Kennedy, C. (2007a). Modes of Comparison. In M. Elliott, J. Kirby, O. Sawada, and E. Staraki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS), Chicago, Ill., pp. 141-165. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Kennedy, C. (2007b). Standards of Comparison. In Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique de Paris, Paris. Ecole Normale Supérieure.

Li Lan. (2003). Word Order Types of Differential Sentences in Modem Chinese Dialects. Dialects, (3): 214-232.

Luo Qiongpeng. (2017a). Syntactic and Semantic Issues in Chinese Comparative Sentences with the Character " th". Modem Foreign Languages, (3): 324-335.

Luo Qiongpeng. (2017b). Comparative Structure Research between English and Chinese from the Perspective of Degree Semantics, Journal of Tianjin International Studies University, (3): 30-38.

Luo Qiongpeng. (2021). Semantic research on the hierarchical phenomenon of English and Chinese. Journal of the PLA Foreign Language Institute, (6): 65-73.

Makri M.-M. (2018). Aspects of Comparative Constructions Comparative Syntax. Semantics & LI-acquisition. University of York.

Matushansky, O. (2013). More or better: on the derivation of synthetic comparatives and superlatives in English. In Matushansky, O. and Marantz, A. (Eds.), Distributed morphology today: morphemes for Morris Halle, pp. 59-78. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

McNabb, Y. & Kennedy, C. (2011). Extraction and deletion in Palestinian Arabic comparatives [J]. In E. Broselow & H. Ouali (eds.), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (Vol. 317, pp. 149-166). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Pancheva, R. (2009). More students attended FASL than ConSOLE [J]. In W. Browne (Ed.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics 18: The Cornell Meeting, 2009, New York, NY, pp. 382-399. Cornell University: ACM Digital Library.

Schwarzschild, R. (2005). Measure phrases as modifiers of adjectives. Recherches Linguistiques de Vincennes, 35: 207-228.

Schwarzschild, R. (2010). Comparative Markers and Standard Markers. In Erlewine, M. Y. and Sudo, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the MIT workshop on comparatives, Cambridge, MA, pp. 87-105. MIT: MITWPL.

Stassen, L. (1985). Comparison and universal grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Journal of Linguistics, Pp. x + 373.

Treis, Y. (2018). Comparative Constructions: An Introduction. Linguistic Discovery, 2018 - hal.science.

Ultan, R. (1972). Some features of basic comparative constructions. Working Papers on Language Universals, (Stanford), 9:117-162. Language Universals Project Stanford University.

Zhang, L., & Ling, J. (2021). The semantics of comparatives: A difference- based approach. Journal of Semantics, 38: 249-303.