Stassen 1985: Comparison and Universal Grammar #
@cite{stassen-1985}
Stassen's central claim is that the typology of comparative constructions is determined by the typology of temporal chaining constructions. Comparatives are not autonomous constructions but are "modelled upon" or "borrowed from" temporal chains (p. 105). The link runs through a diachronic pathway: "X is tall; Y is not tall" → "X is taller than Y".
Chaining strategies (Ch 4) #
Languages encode temporal chains (consecutive and simultaneous action) using one of two basic strategies (§4.3.1, p. 76):
- Balancing: both predicates retain the same structural rank (coordination); both are finite main verbs.
- Deranking: one predicate is structurally reduced to a non-finite subordinate form (participle, gerund, converb, infinitive).
Deranking further subdivides (§4.4, pp. 83-94):
- Conditional: deranking only when chain subjects are identical.
- Absolute: deranking regardless of subject identity.
The Principle of Parallel Chaining (p. 99): a language selects parallel options for consecutive and simultaneous chains — balancing languages balance both.
The seven chaining-based universals (§5.2, pp. 106-108) #
| Universal | Comparative type | → Chaining type |
|---|---|---|
| 1A | derived-case | balancing |
| 1B | fixed-case | deranking |
| 2A | exceed | conditional deranking |
| 2B | adverbial (sep/all/loc) | absolute deranking |
| 3A | separative | abs. deranked anterior consecutive |
| 3B | allative | abs. deranked posterior consecutive |
| 3C | locative | abs. deranked simultaneous |
| 4 | conjoined | balanced simultaneous |
Particle comparatives are modelled on balanced chains (either simultaneous or consecutive), confirming Universal 1A (p. 108).
This file #
We formalize Stassen's chaining type system, assign chaining types to our sample languages, state the universals as implications, and verify them over the sample. Fragment bridge theorems connect Fragments ↔ Typology ↔ chaining types across three layers.
Basic structural strategy for encoding temporal chains (§4.3.1, p. 76).
Balancing: both predicates in the chain retain coordinate structure (same structural rank, both finite).
Deranking: one predicate is reduced to a non-finite subordinate form (participle, gerund, converb, dependent mood, infinitive).
- balancing : ChainingStrategy
- deranking : ChainingStrategy
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
For deranking languages: whether deranking is restricted to same-subject chains or applies unconditionally (§4.4, pp. 83-94).
- conditional : DerankedConditionality
Deranking only when the two predicates share a subject.
- absolute : DerankedConditionality
Deranking regardless of subject identity.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
For absolutely deranked consecutive chains: which predicate in the chain is deranked. Correlates with basic word order (§4.4.4, p. 94).
- anterior : DerankedDirection
The anterior (earlier, leftmost) predicate is deranked. Typically SOV languages.
- posterior : DerankedDirection
The posterior (later, rightmost) predicate is deranked. Typically VSO languages.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Stassen's language type in temporal chaining (§4.7, pp. 98-101).
The Principle of Parallel Chaining (p. 99) restricts the 12 theoretical combinations to 3 attested language types.
- balancing : ChainingLanguageType
Balancing language: coordination for both C-chains and S-chains. No word-order preference.
- conditionalDeranking : ChainingLanguageType
Conditionally deranking: deranking under subject identity only. Typically SVO.
- absoluteDeranking : ChainingLanguageType
Absolutely deranking: deranking regardless of subject identity. SOV languages derank the anterior predicate; VSO languages derank the posterior predicate.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
The chaining strategy for a language type.
Equations
- Phenomena.Comparison.Studies.Stassen1985.ChainingLanguageType.balancing.strategy = Phenomena.Comparison.Studies.Stassen1985.ChainingStrategy.balancing
- Phenomena.Comparison.Studies.Stassen1985.ChainingLanguageType.conditionalDeranking.strategy = Phenomena.Comparison.Studies.Stassen1985.ChainingStrategy.deranking
- Phenomena.Comparison.Studies.Stassen1985.ChainingLanguageType.absoluteDeranking.strategy = Phenomena.Comparison.Studies.Stassen1985.ChainingStrategy.deranking
Instances For
Universal 1A: derived-case comparative implies balancing chaining.
"If a language has a derived-case comparative, then that language is balancing." (p. 106)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Universal 1B: fixed-case comparative implies deranking.
"If a language has a fixed-case comparative, then that language is deranking." (p. 106)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Universal 2A: exceed comparative implies conditional deranking.
"If a language has an Exceed Comparative, then that language has conditional deranking." (p. 106)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Universal 2B: adverbial comparative implies absolute deranking.
"If a language has an adverbial comparative, then that language has absolute deranking." (p. 106)
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Universal 1A and 1B are contrapositives: every 1985 type has exactly one case-assignment value, so the two universals partition the space.
Particle and conjoined are the only derived-case types.
Adverbial types are exactly the spatial triad (sep, all, loc).
Separative comparatives use ablative spatial case markers.
Non-spatial types have no spatial case.
Japanese Fragment standard case matches 1985 spatial case prediction.
Korean Fragment standard case matches 1985 spatial case prediction.
Turkish Fragment standard case matches 1985 spatial case prediction.
Japanese Fragment standard marker matches Typology profile.
Korean Fragment standard marker matches Typology profile.
Turkish Fragment standard marker matches Typology profile.
All three separative Fragment entries use fixed case assignment.
All three separative Fragment entries use adverbial encoding.
Separative languages lack degree morphology (p. 28: degree marking is irrelevant to comparative-type choice).
Japanese: Fragment (ablative) ↔ 1985 type (separative) ↔ chaining type (absolute deranking). All three layers agree.
Korean: three-layer consistency.
Turkish: three-layer consistency.
Stassen's absolute deranking predicts that medial verbs are non-finite. For our languages also in the ClauseChaining sample, the medial verb form should be converbal (non-finite), not fully finite.