342
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.61.01.34
How to Cite:
Leleka, T., Prykhodko, V., Plakhotniuk, N., Stakhmych, Y., Chukhno, T. (2023). Peculiarities of translation of comparative
constructions in English-language popular science discourse. Amazonia Investiga, 12(61), 342-347.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.61.01.34
Peculiarities of translation of comparative constructions in
English-language popular science discourse
Peculiaridades de la traducción de construcciones comparativas en el discurso de
divulgación científica en lengua inglesa
Received: January 20, 2023 Accepted: February 24, 2023
Written by:
Tetiana Leleka146
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6134-4435
Viktoriia Prykhodko147
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8171-9823
Natalia Plakhotniuk148
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7018-5299
Yuliia Stakhmych149
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4661-8220
Tetiana Chukhno150
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4112-7388
Abstract
The paper examines the grammatical
phenomenon of comparative constructions in
English on the examples of popular science
discourse. The linguistic phenomenon of
comparative constructions is analyzed in terms of
correlation with the word order and sentence
combination features and in a comparative way
in the context of English/French. The chosen
methodology made the following scientific
hypotheses: comparative constructions are
endowed with correlations with causal word
order; the main types highlighted are: locative
construction with subtypes, admission
construction, and conjunction construction; such
constructions are widely repeated in different
languages belonging to different groups. This
study goes beyond classical theoretical grammar
robotics in a number of important aspects. A
more detailed classification is presented: we
distinguish between two types of constructions a
primary comparative construction and a
146
Ph.D. in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Translation, Applied and General Linguistics, the Faculty of the Ukrainian
Philology, Foreign Languages and Social Communications Volodymyr Vynnychenko Central Ukrainian State University, Kropyvnytskyi,
Ukraine.
147
Ph.D. (Philology), Associate Professor, Associate Professor Foreign and Ukrainian Philology Department, Faculty of Digital,
Educational and Social Technologies, Lutsk National Technical University, Ukraine.
148
PhD in Pedagogics, Associate Professor of the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics State University “Zhytomyr
Politechnic”Ukraine.
149
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas, Institute of Humanities and Public
Administration, Department of Philology, Interpreting and Translation Studies, Ukraine.
150
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of Foreign Philology, Translation and Professional Language Training Department, Faculty
of Economics, Business and International Relations, University of Customs and Finance, Ukraine.
Leleka, T., Prykhodko, V., Plakhotniuk, N., Stakhmych, Y., & Chukhno, T. / Volume 12 - Issue 61: 342-347 / January, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 61
/ January 2023
343
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
secondary one, where the comparison parameter
is conveyed by both the expressed predicate and
the locative type. The study reveals a number of
new universals: no language lacks a degree
marker and a standard comparison marker, and
almost no language lacks a standard marker, even
if an asymmetric comparison degree marker is
present. It is also found that there is a whole
variety of comparative constructions than is
represented in typological theoretical grammar
and that quite a few languages do not fit into any
of the types described.
Keywords: comparative construction marker,
predicate type, locational type, causal word
order.
Introduction
Studies concerning comparative constructions
abound, whether they deal with different
dimensions of comparison or focus exclusively
on certain aspects. This is true, for instance, of
works on so-called comparative equations and
similarities. Among the studies elaborated, some
take an areal orientation or a more or less
extended typological perspective, while others
focus on a particular language. Sometimes they
are grouped into grammatical currents, whose
peculiarity may be to present languages not
hitherto described, with or without an oral
tradition, or, in any case, languages for which the
field of comparison has hitherto been little or no
explored. All these contributions prove to be
valuable sources of information, improving our
knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the
processes involved in the expression of
comparison. In scholarly works dealing with the
question of comparative constructions in
English, scholars have touched on the
coordination and subordination of sentence parts.
It is often difficult to distinguish coordination
from subordination (Suhrob & Vasila, 2022).
Sometimes scholars suggest parsing a
construction as syntactically coordinated and
semantically subordinated or vice versa. Croft
(2022) gives an analysis of comparative
correlatives (CC) in English. In this respect, the
work aimed to conduct a comparative analysis in
the English/French context, because they belong
to different groups and the results seem to be
novel. In French, comparative constructions as
syntactic coordination are even more inconsistent
than in English, because, unlike in English, the
use of conjunctions is possible here. The aim of
the paper draws out the objectives: to analyze the
arguments showing that semantic subordination
does exist, which in turn indicates that syntax is
not the same in the two languages; to examine the
internal structure of each sentence, finding the
initial phrase, and then move on to the
construction itself. Given this argument, it can be
shown that in English there is also syntactic
subordination. In French, according to Ivorra
Ordines (2020), there are two possible types of
sentence parsing with comparative constructions:
one asymmetrical, similar to English, the other
more like a coordinated construction. Even more
interesting is the HPSG analysis based on the
notion of comparative construction (which
allows the grouping idiosyncratic or not strictly
non-compositional properties) (Balaţchi, 2020).
This approach allows, on the one hand, to take
into account the properties that these
constructions inherit from other languages and
their specificities; on the other hand, to indicate
what is common between two languages and
specific to each language in particular (Prescod
& Jeannot-Fourcaud, 2020).
Theoretical Framework or Literature Review
The characterization of the types of comparative
constructions involved in the linguistic
expression of comparison is a polemical issue. In
this work, we pay special attention to studies
describing the morphological, syntactic, and
semantic influences on the languages involved in
their genesis and pointing out the identities or
differences of different language groups. In
general, to compare is to mentally perform a
certain operation on broadcast objects. For
philosophers, the comparison is the operation by
which two or more objects are brought together
in a single act of thought in order to reveal
344
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
similarities or differences (Jackiewicz &
Pengam, 2020). For psychologists, it is a
perceptual or logical activity indicating the
identification of differences and similarities
(Marcuse, 2020). For linguists, it is the
intellectual act of combining two or more
animates, concrete or abstract inanimate of the
same nature to highlight their similarities and
differences (Spaëth, 2020). Among these very
similar definitions, let us solidarize with the idea
that comparison is a cognitive operation, which
consists in comprehending together with the
mind several (usually two) objects, comparing
them to see what their similarities and differences
are. Comparison requires a common ground,
which conditions the very possibility of mentally
approaching the objects we wish to compare.
This is called tertium comparationis (Hohaus &
Bochnak, 2020). The need for such a common
ground is illustrated by a correlative pattern
constructed using two types of correlated
grammatical markers (Beck, 2019). On the one
hand, a parameter marker indicating an unequal
degree or equality between two corresponding
magnitudes of a value. On the other hand, a
comparison marker, introducing a contracted
sentence, usually elliptical and reduced to a
comparison (Bowler, 2020). Comparison can
operate at any level of categorization if the
comparators share the property (Mueller,
Nicolai, Petrou-Zeniou, Talmina & Linzen,
2020). Sometimes the structure of a comparative
sentence is incomplete and requires
reconstruction from context. Thus, comparisons
can be a single entity duplicated under a variable
point of view (temporal or otherwise): the entity
is compared to itself, viewed in a certain way in
two different mental spaces (Bochnak, Bowler,
Hanink & Koontz-Garboden, 2020).
Beck (2019) analyzes comparative constructions
as conditional, where the first sentence functions
as a condition and the second as a consequence.
In contrast to prior analyses, the author proposes
to consider not the comparison between the first
and second clauses, but the consequence between
the two comparisons. More precisely, he
analyzes each initial comparison as a quantifier,
which may refer to individuals, degrees, times, or
possible worlds, but always in pairs. In such an
analysis, however, there is a comparison in every
sentence, but with an implicit term. This explains
why it is not possible to introduce an explicit
comparison term or a complement of dimensions
(Rett, 2020). In this aspect, Hoffmann (2019)
suggests that syntax reflects this impossibility by
assuming that the place of the comparison term
is exactly what the initial elements occupy, such
as in English or German. For example, the
warmer would have the same syntactic structure
as three degrees warmer. 3 moments where the
first sentence is interpreted as conditional, the
second sentence is the semantic head of the
whole, and we understand that this is what
determines its polarity. In French, such a contrast
can be constructed by means of repetition due to
negative polarity: А рlus vite le médecin
travaillera, plus vite il n'aura plus personne à
voir, et sa secrétaire non plus.
Chircu (2020) looks at the internal structure of
comparative constructions in Romance
languages in terms of their syntactic relations. If
the interpretation of comparative constructions
resembles that of conditional sentences, one
should ask whether from a syntactic point of
view the first sentence resembles a hypothetical
contractual sentence. For English, in both cases
it would express the impossibility of the future,
but not for French. In both languages, the
hypothetical contractor is movable, and the order
of contracting is fixed in the construction
(Haruta, Mineshima & Bekki, 2020). Hoffmann
(2020) argues that in a hypothetical system, the
main may be ordered or interrogative sentences.
Goldberg & Approach, C. A. C. G. M. (2020), in
a perspective where syntactic structure
necessarily reflects the interpretation, propose to
analyze the first part of a comparative
construction as a relative (without background),
as an assistant to the second part (which has the
status of a semantic load carrier). It is worth
noting Romero (2019) who considers
comparative constructions as movable,
hypothetical contractual sentences that do not
prevent the main sentence from having its own
modalities. In English, there are possible cases of
dependency at a distance with semantic blocking
because of these limitations (Zhan & Traugott,
2020).
Methodology
The methods chosen for the work were
observation, complex comparative analysis of
syntactic structures of units on the examples of
English and French, the method of typological
analysis, the method of thematic classification,
and quantitative processing of scientific literature
related to the topic of work. The study presents a
comparison of identity and difference
(symmetry/asymmetry) between comparative
constructions of two languages belonging to
different language groups. In its canonical action,
the symmetry/asymmetry scheme is a correlative
scheme between a predicate parameter and a
comparative construction. We understand the
following types of comparison in the key to the
Volume 12 - Issue 61
/ January 2023
345
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
extended paradigm, which corresponds to the
ontological category of homogeneous elements.
We analyze the schema of comparative
constructions that can abolish the possibility of
relative quantification by establishing
heterogeneity between comparisons. We
distinguish two types of comparative
constructions: primary and secondary (denying
the existence of a real comparator and resorting
to the comparator “paragon”). Both have the
effect of comparative construction on the
syntactic parameter.
Results and Discussion
This study focuses on comparative constructions
in English, in particular on the syntactic and
semantic aspects related to the means that are
used to explain the cognitive operation that is
comparison. A comparison is a thinking act that
can be considered universal, since it can be
observed in any speaker, regardless of their
language. This act comes from the need to
combine and distinguish entities or actions in
order to better conceptualize them by being
aware of their similarities and differences (Beck,
2019). However, the linguistic operations used to
express similarities and differences are not
universal, as the existing literature on the subject
shows. In English, syntactic asymmetry is clearly
evident. In context, the primary and secondary
comparison is possible. The context imposes a
contractual relationship and allows different
syntactic variants of comparative constructions
(Table 1):
Table 1.
Comparative constructions with possible subtypes widely repeated in different languages belonging to
different groups
Example
Explanation
1. It is important that the more Ann eats, the more she
weights.
2. I ask that the more Ann eats, the more she weights.
3. I ask that the more Ann eats, the more she weight.
An auxiliary clause is not possible in the sentence Possible in the second sentence.
Inversion is usually forbidden in contractual sentences,
but it is possible.
4. If I learn more, then I realise more.
5. Then I realise more if I learn more.
Here the argument against syntactic subordination is
the fact that the order of the two sentences is fixed (for
this interpretation). The corresponding stiffness is possible in conditional
structures.
This is the type of question which the sooner you 6.
solve (it), the more easily you‘ll satisfy the colleagues
up at corporate main office. The colleagues up at corporate main offices are the 7.
sort of folks who the sooner you solve this question,
e easily you‘ll satisfy.the mor
It is possible to extract the construction from each
sentence separately.
With this extraction, the design seems artificial and
incomprehensible.
Source : Authors' own development
We propose to analyze the first sentence as a
syntactic contractual (special type) in English.
This analysis allows us to explain that sentences
with the same initial comparative syntagmatic
can act as contractual or ordinary, outside of
comparative constructions. The second example
of a comparative construction is a case where
syntactic and semantic subordination go hand in
hand. The third construction allows for the non-
compositional aspects of comparative
constructions, particularly the fact that the whole
can appear independently while each sentence
does not. The fourth example shows that
correlative constructions are binary structures of
finite mode (i.e., indicative or contractive). The
fifth construction is a subtype of correlative
constructions. The sixth example shows that
correlated phrases are analyzed as uncorrelated
with immediate constituents (branches) denoted
by a sign if they begin with a union. The seventh
example shows that comparative constructions
can include any number of constituents but
containing the use of a union is less likely. A
conjunctive sentence always allows it to appear
in the same environments as phrases without
conjunction (Figure 1).
346
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Figure 1. Symmetric and asymmetric comparative constructions.
Source : Authors' own development
Consequently, the constraints in comparative
combustive constructions are provided by the
joint use of features between the constituents. For
native speakers, comparative constructions
endowed with a syntagma are normal to perceive,
while a native speaker of another language, e.g.,
French, subconsciously requires an additional
restriction of syntactic parallelism, in particular
concerning its withdrawal function because this
language is inherent in the existence of complete
syntactic parallelism, connected or not with
lexical parallelism, between matrix and subject.
Very often the adventive elements present in the
matrix and/or the contracting sentence question
this absolute parallelism, however, this
construction allows its semantic understanding,
for the tendency to gradually disappear when the
anaphoric elements are replaced, in the
contracting sentence, by lexical components or
when the contracting sentence contains an
additional component to which no component in
the matrix corresponds is logical for Romance
languages.
Conclusions
The contrastive analysis of comparative
constructions in the English/French section
showed that they are closer than one might
assume at first sight, since both languages (being
representatives of different groups) are based on
asymmetric construction from a semantic point
of view. They are also similar in that they involve
a comparative phrase at the beginning of each
sentence. But syntactically in English, they
should be parsed as asymmetrical, with the first
sentence as a contracting sentence (i.e., with the
function of syntactic addition), whereas in
French there are two systems: some speakers
analyze them as syntactically consistent with all
the limitations of parallelism; while others
analyze them as syntactically asymmetrical, with
the first as a complement and a possible
difference of mode. Therefore, one cannot claim
that comparative constructions have the same
syntax in all languages. A detailed analysis of the
data provides a distinction of (at least) two
possible types of syntax. The model of
asymmetric comparative constructions can show
both what is specific about these constructions,
and what they have in common, with less
peripheral constructions in English or with the
same constructions in other languages. Prospects
for further analyses are to find out whether the
interpretation of comparative constructions is
exactly the same when they belong to different
syntactic types.
Bibliographic references
Balaţchi, R. N. (2020). (Meta)discursive markers
and translation strategies: say so and let’s say
to the test of literary
translation. CONCORDIA DISCORS vs
DISCORDIA CONCORS: Researches into
Comparative Literature, Contrastive
Linguistics, Cross-Cultural and Translation
Strategies, 14, 137-149.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-
detail?id=1039871
Beck, S. (2019). Comparison
constructions. Semantics-Lexical Structures
and Adjectives, 415.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626391
Conjungtive construction:
initial (symmetric)
comparative construction
Connective construction:
secondary (asymmetric)
comparative construction
Locative type
Predicative type
Syntactic adding
No paralelism
Volume 12 - Issue 61
/ January 2023
347
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Bochnak, M. R., Bowler, M., Hanink, E. A., &
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2020). Degreefulness
is the result of functional inventory, not a
parameter. Handout from Sinn und
Bedeutung, 25.
https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/
margit.bowler/Bochnak-et-al-SuB-25.pdf
Bowler, M. (2020). Cross-linguistic variation in
conjoined comparatives. In Sinn und
Bedeutung (Vol. 25).
https://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/
margit.bowler/SuB25-Bowler-Handout.pdf
Chircu, A. (2020). THE ROMANTIC
LANGUAGES BETWEEN UNITY AND
DIVERSITY. Studies of the Babes-Bolyai
University-Philology, 65(4), 7-8.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-
detail?id=906224
Croft, W. (2022). Morphosyntax: constructions
of the world's languages. Cambridge
University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316145289
Goldberg, A. E., & Approach, C. A. C. G. M.
(2020). Argument structure (Vol. 23, p. 59).
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Haruta, I., Mineshima, K., & Bekki, D. (2020).
Logical inferences with comparatives and
generalized quantifiers. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2005.07954.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.07954
Hoffmann, T. (2019). English comparative
correlatives: Diachronic and synchronic
variation at the lexicon-syntax interface.
Cambridge University Press. Doi:
10.1017/978II08569859
Hoffmann, T. (2020). Marginal Argument
Structure constructions: the [V the Ntaboo-
word out of]-construction in Post-colonial
Englishes. Linguistics vanguard, 6(1).
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0054
Hohaus, V., & Bochnak, M. R. (2020). The
grammar of degree: Gradability across
languages. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6,
235-259. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
linguistics-011718-012009
Ivorra Ordines, P. (2020). About the translation
of stereotype comparisons according to
construction grammar. The case of “alt com
un sant Pau” in La plaça del Diamant and its
translations. Linx. Journal of linguists from
the University of Paris X Nanterre, 13.
https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.3903
Jackiewicz, A., & Pengam, M. (2020, July). A
model for the study of emerging nominations.
Notion of identification to grasp the
modalities of semantic and discursive
adjustment. In 7th World Congress of French
Linguistics (Vol. 78, p. 12004).
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02942223
Marcuse, H. (2020). Philosophy and critical
theory. In Critical Theory and Society A
Reader (pp. 58-74). Routledge.
Mueller, A., Nicolai, G., Petrou-Zeniou, P.,
Talmina, N., & Linzen, T. (2020). Cross-
linguistic syntactic evaluation of word
prediction models. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2005.00187.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2005.00187
Prescod, P., & Jeannot-Fourcaud, B. (2020).
Study of comparative constructions. Open
edition Journals, 37(1-2).
https://journals.openedition.org/etudescreole
s/374
Rett, J. (2020). Separate but equal: a typology of
equative constructions. In Interactions of
degree and quantification (pp. 163-204).
Brill.
Romero, C. (2019, March). Comparer pour
intensifier: structures linguistiques et types de
comparaison en français. In Comparaison
(s) (Vol. 2019, pp. 355-382). JATEPress,
Université de Szeged, Hongrie.
https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02542006
Spaëth, V. (2020). A laboratory of didactics of
French as a foreign language: the direct
method put to the test of otherness (1880-
1900). French language, 208(4), 63-78.
https://www.cairn.info/revue-langue-
francaise-2020-4-page-63.htm
Suhrob, E., & Vasila, K. (2022). Parts of speech
and sentence structure in english
grammar. Galaxy International
Interdisciplinary Research Journal, 10(7),
156-160.
https://www.giirj.com/index.php/giirj/article
/view/2557
Zhan, F., & Traugott, E. C. (2020). A study of the
development of the Chinese correlative
comparative construction from the
perspective of
constructionalization. Diachronica, 37(1),
83-126.
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18025.zha