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