Comparing Comparative Correlatives: The more languages, the better

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

How does human cognition shape synonymous constructions across typologically distinct languages? Following up on the results of an initial study that focused on English only, the present project tries to contribute an answer to this question by carrying out a cross-linguistic study of the Comparative Correlative (CC) construction in English, (e.g. The more I read, the more I understand), Spanish (Cuanto más leo, tanto más entiend.), and Slovak (Čím viac čítam, tým viac rozumiem.). CCs consist of two clauses (referred to as C1 and C2), each of which consists of lexically fixed clause-initial elements (the…the…, cuanto…tanto…, čím...tým…), an obligatory slot for a comparative phrase (more…more…, más…más…, viac…viac…) as well as an optional clausal slot (…I read, … I understand, … leo, … entiend, … čítam, … rozumiem). Semantically, the construction is characterized by asymmetric properties (the conditional relationship between protasis C1 and apodosis C2: as you read more -> so you understand more) as well as symmetric properties (the parallel computation of semantic differentials during a time period in which more and more is being read (C1) and more and more is being understood (C2)).Combining corpus and experimental methods, the project will now investigate CC constructions in three languages that are located at different points on the typological analytic-synthetic cline. Adopting a Usage-based Construction Grammar approach, the study will explore to what degree domain-general principles affect the construction in these three typologically different languages. Moreover, it aims to explore the language-specific idiosyncrasies of the construction and explain these in the light of typological system of the respective construction networks.The findings of the present research project will thus not only contribute to our understanding of the syntax of English, Spanish as well as Slovak, but it will also test Construction Grammar’s “aspirations toward universal applicability” (Fried 2017: 249), filling a gap in constructionist research that has been described as “a striking absence of cross-linguistic generalizations” (Boas 2010: 2).