3.6. Comparative clauses
Comparison is a cognitive act where two entities are compared with each other based on their position on a scale. The scale is provided by a predicate [Syntax - 2.1.1.], which denotes a property. When the respective positions of the compared entities are different from each other on the relevant scale provided by the predicate, a comparison of inequality arises. This cognitive comparison then is expressed in language by comparative constructions. When the respective positions of the compared entities are the same, comparison of equality arises. This cognitive understanding of equality, in turn, is expressed in language by equative constructions.
There are four different structural ways of expressing comparative clauses across languages. These are exceed comparatives, location comparatives, conjoined comparatives and subordinated comparatives. Of these four possible linguistic structures, TİD employs Conjoined Comparatives and Locational Comparatives.
Conjoined comparatives are biclausal structures [Syntax - 3.], which include two juxtaposed clauses with parallel structures but without any overt signs of conjunction [Lexicon - 3.9.1.]. The predicate of these clauses can be either an adjective (tall, short) or a verb (scared). The subject of the first clause is called the standard and the subject of the second clause is called the comparee.
[girl dog scared] [man dog more scared]
Standard Comparee
‘The girl is scared of the dog. The man is more scared of the dog.’
(Özsoy and Kaşıkara 2018a: 16)
When the two clauses in a conjoined comparative construction have an adjectival predicate, the construction expresses absolute gradability which is expressed by using antonyms, as shown below.
[two men] [[one tall] [one short]]
‘(There are) two men. One is tall. One is short.’
(Özsoy and Kaşıkara 2018a: 14)
Absolute gradability can also be expressed by negating the second sentence with not [Syntax - 1.5.]:
[two people] [[one old] [one old not]]
‘Two people. One is old. One is not old.’
(Özsoy and Kaşıkara 2018a: 14)
The two strategies mentioned above can be combined for expressing absolute gradability. Below, the second sentence [hot not] cold] is negated and it also includes the antonym predicate of the first sentence.
[two water] [[[water ix] hot] [[hot not] cold]]
'(There are) two (glasses of) water. This water is hot. (This water) is not hot. (It is)
cold.
(Özsoy and Kaşıkara 2018a: 15)
When the conjoined construction has a verbal predicate such as scared as in the example below, it expresses scalar gradability which compares two entities on a scale of a property. By using the conjoined construction with a verbal predicate, two possible comparisons can be made. First, two different subjects can be compared with respect to a single object:
[girl dog scared] [man dog more scared]
‘The girl is scared of the dog. The man is more scared of the dog.’
(Özsoy and Kaşıkara 2018a: 16)
Second, two different objects (cat and dog, below) can be compared with respect to a single subject.
[self girl cat see] [scared] [dog see] [more scared]
‘The girl sees the cat and is scared. (She) sees the dog and is more scared.’
(Özsoy and Kaşıkara 2018a: 17)
There are two properties of scalar gradable comparisons. First, non-manuals and signing space are used to express comparison. Namely, the standard is on the contralateral side and is assigned a locus by indexing and/or body/head shift while the comparee is on the ipsilateral side. The comparee is also assigned a locus by indexing and/or body shift/head shift. Second, the parameter marker, (more, most, less) which expresses superiority or inferiority, occurs in the clause where the comparee is expressed.
The second structural way of expressing comparison is by locational comparatives. They express scalar gradability of adjectival predicates. The locational comparatives employ a special kind of index, ix(comp) (index of comparison), to express the relation between two NPs.
ix(comp)
Expression of a comparison with ixcomp includes three steps: Step 1 is assigning a locus to the standard; step 2 is assigning a locus to the comparee. Assigning loci to the compared items may be done in different ways. First, there can be an optional topic phrase [Pragmatics - 4.2. and Syntax - 2.3.3.] specifying the participants to be compared. Second, the localization of the two participants in the signing space can be expressed by indexing or body shift. Step 3 for the expression of a comparison with ixcomp is arc movement from the locus of the standard to the locus of the comparee. Eye gaze parallels the direction of the arc movement of the hand. ix(comp) expresses the comparative relation between the standard and the Comparee.
eg:a-to-b
[[cat ixa] [other lionb]] [aix(comp)b more brave]
Step-1 Step-2 Step-3
‘The lion is braver than the cat.’
(Özsoy and Kaşıkara 2018a: 22)
In the case of adjectives whose signs are double-handed, the arc movement of ix(comp) from the locus of the comparee to the locus of the standard is produced simultaneously with the expression of the parameter of comparison, as shown in the following example. [abiggerb] involves movement from locus a to locus b.
[[two ball]] [green ixa] [blueb] [abiggerb]
‘Two balls. The blue is bigger than the green.’
(Özsoy and Kaşıkara 2018a: 23)
By locus assignment, the participants in the comparative structure are assigned to the opposite sides of the signing space. The standard is located in the contralateral side, which is where a signer's non-dominant hand is and the comparee is located in the ipsilateral side, which is the side of the signer’s dominant hand. Even when the standard is not stated explicitly, the comparee is still assigned to the ipsilateral side. Below, [two ball] is in topic position and one understands that there is another ball that is compared to the blue ball. Nonetheless, this standard is not expressed but the comparee blueb is assigned to the ipsilateral side of the signing space. ‘we’ stands for widened eyes.
we
re
[two ball] [[blueb] abiggerb]
‘Two balls. The blue is bigger.’
(adapted from Özsoy and Kaşıkara 2018a: 25)
There are three distinct signs of degree of gradability used with locational comparatives in TİD: comparative marker more, superlative marker most and inferiority marker less. While producing more, all the fingers of the dominant hand are selected and there is a wrist twist. The orientation changes from palm-down to palm-up. Simultaneous with the manual sign, expression of augmentation [ Morphology– 2.2.1.] involves widened-eyes and raised eyebrows.
more
The sign most is articulated with 3-Handshape. The unselected fingers are closed. Again, the orientation is palm-up and there are non-manuals, squinted eyes, eyebrow lowering and lip bite, used while producing this sign.
most
The sign less is articulated with thumb and index finger. The index finger is extended and makes a narrow opening with thumb. Also, there are two non-manuals: squinted eyes and eyebrow lowering.
less
more can incorporate into some adjectival predicates. In the articulation of big, two hands are involved and they are open. All the fingers are extended and the hands are held apart from each other in the neutral space. Instead of signing more+big for the expression of bigger, the hands are pulled further apart, the eyes are open wider and the eyebrows are raised further. big and bigger in TİD are shown below.
bıg bıgger
The comparative morpheme can be incorporated into the predicate thin as well. However, there is semantic opposition between big and thin which is reflected in articulation. thin is also articulated with both hands. The selected fingers of both hands are the thumb and the little finger. Unselected fingers are closed and the two hands are held close to each other in the neutral space. One hand is placed under the other. When thin is inflected with the comparative morpheme, the sign involves movement in which the two hands cross each other even further. This time eyes are squinted and eyebrows are furrowed. thin and thinner are shown below.
thin thinner
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant Agreement No 693349.