Comparative Constructions in Zhoutun from a Language Contact Perspective

: The paper describes comparative constructions in Zhoutun, a Chinese variety that was heavily influenced by Amdo Tibetan and spoken in Guide County, Qinghai Province. There are five comparative constructions (Cxn), based on the type of comparative marker, in Zhoutun, namely (1) the xa ‑Cxn; (2) the pi ‑Cxn; (3) the ‘look’‑Cxn; (4) the ‘and’‑Cxn; and (5) the hybrid Cxn. The five constructions illustrate features from both Chinese and Amdo Tibetan, and their co‑existence demonstrates the mixed nature of the comparative constructions, as well as the grammar system of Zhoutun due to language contact. This paper also argues that the “comparative subject” should be further subcategorized into “comparative subject” and “attributive subject”, and that the “com‑ parative result” should be divided into “abstract measurement” and “concrete measurement” in the typological study of comparative constructions.


Introduction
Comparing two objects is a common mental act, and in typological study, the linguistically encoded constructions that express the comparison of inequality are known as comparative constructions (Stassen 2013). A typical comparative construction consists of four components: the comparative subject (CS), the standard (St), the comparative marker (CM), and the comparative result (CR), as shown in (1), where CS = John, St = Ben, CM = than, and CR = taller.
The above-mentioned variables have been deemed to be the loci of interest in typological studies on comparative constructions. (See, among others, Dixon 2012). However, there are still some variables that merit further attention. This study provides evidence that the CS can be further sub-classified into comparative subject and attributive subject, and the CR can be further differentiated into concrete measurement and abstract measurement. This paper investigates the comparative constructions in Zhoutun. Zhoutun is a Chinese dialect spoken by 800-900 native speakers living in Zhoutun Village, Guide County, Hainan Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Qinghai Province, P.R. China.
Zhoutun Village has a population of 882 residents, of whom 85% are Han, 10% are Tibetan, and 5% are Monguor/Tu. These demographic data are based on official statistics from 2014. The majority of the Han population, approximately 750 individuals, regularly use Zhoutun in their daily discourse. The current level of bilingualism among the Tibetan and Monguor/Tu communities in the village is not well documented and remains to be investigated. Based on my observations, the Monguor/Tu population tends to use Zhoutun when communicating with the Han population in the village, while the Tibetans predominantly use Tibetan. It is worth noting that the data collected in this study were limited to the Han population.
The OV-pattern is without a doubt the result of prolonged and intensive contact with the nearby Amdo Tibetan (Zhou 2019a(Zhou , 2019b(Zhou , 2020a. A number of other syntactic behaviors in Zhoutun, such as the "N+Num" structure (Zhou 2020b), the "locutor-referential pronoun" (Zhou 2021), and the copular system (Zhou 2022a), are also suggested to be induced by the contact with Amdo Tibetan. For a systematic description of Zhoutun, one can refer to Zhou (2022b). In this paper, we demonstrate once more the deep influence of Amdo Tibetan on Zhoutun by illustrating the situation of comparative constructions in Zhoutun. Moreover, we expect that the case study of Zhoutun (together with Chinese and Amdo Tibetan) will offer a theoretical contribution to the typological study of comparative constructions.
In addition to Zhoutun, there are a number of Chinese dialects (referred to as "Gan-Qing dialects" henceforth) that have been influenced by the surrounding Amdo and Altaic languages (Mongolic: Santa, Bonan, and Mongghul, and Turkic: Western Yugur and Salar) in northwest China, particularly in the west of Gansu, the east of Qinghai, and the border between the two provinces. This area is known as Gan-Qing linguistic area (also referred to as "Qinghai-Gansu Sprachbund" and "Amdo Sprachbund" in the literature, e.g., Slater 2003 andSandman 2016, respectively). Numerous scholars (Dwyer 1995;Slater 2003;Sandman 2016;Xu 2017;Peyraube 2018;Xu and Peyraube 2018;Zhou 2019a; among others) argue that language contact plays a role in the explanation of a given phenomenon in languages or dialects in this area.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes five comparative constructions in Zhoutun. Section 3 demonstrates that the comparative constructions in Zhoutun, on the one hand, have features from both Amdo Tibetan and Chinese, and, on the other hand, have a feature that is distinct from both Amdo Tibetan and Chinese, which is the result of contact between the two languages. Section 4 makes a conclusion. We suggest that the typological study of comparative constructions should take into account two parameters: the distinction between comparative subject and attributive subject, and the measurement of the result, which can at least be divided into abstract measurement and concrete measurement.
The data pertaining to Zhoutun presented in this study were acquired through a series of my fieldwork excursions conducted over the course of approximately five months, between September 2014 and October 2020, in the village of Zhoutun. Two distinct sources of data were utilized: structured interviews and naturally occurring discourse. The latter comprised a diverse range of communicative genres, including topic-specific interviews, storytelling, and casual conversations.

Comparative Constructions in Zhoutun
Prior to further discussion, I will introduce two pairs of terms used in this paper. The first pair of terms are "comparative subject (ComS)" and "attributive subject (AttS)". These two subjects are further subcategorizations of the CS mentioned previously. The ComS corresponds syntactically to the St, while the AttS is the semantic subject of the adjective in the CR. The second pair of terms are "abstract measurement (AbsM)" and "concrete measurement (ConM)". These two terms are further subcategorizations of the CR, where AbsM is a concrete numerical measurement, and ConM is an abstract degree of the measurement. This will be illustrated with examples from Mandarin Chinese: In (3a), toufa 'hair' is identified as the AttS as it serves as the semantic subject of the CR expressed by chang 'long' (one can say toufa chang 'the hair is long'). Wo 'I' is classified as the ComS due to its syntactic equivalence with the St ni 'you', forming a matching relationship. Analogously, in (3b), jiage 'price' is designated as the AttS and zhe jia shangdian "this shop" as the ComS. Yixie 'a litttle' in (3a) is categorized as the AbsM, while wu kuai 'five yuan' in (3b) is considered as the ConM.

xa-Cxn
xa-Cxn stands for the comparative construction employing the dative-accusative xa (and its allophone a) as the CM. As a multifunctional case marker, xa serves as a means of marking not only the St but also a variety of semantic roles, including patient, recipient, beneficiary, addressee, possessor, and experiencer. This is demonstrated in (24) of Section 3. Xa may have originated from the Chinese locative xia 'down' (Zhou 2019b xa-Cxn is the most common and grammaticalized comparative construction in Zhoutun. Its St-CR word order is in harmony with that of an OV language (Dryer 1992).
In typological studies on comparatives, CS and CR are two essential parameters (Dixon 2012;Stassen 2013;Stolz 2013). xa-Cxn presents two features on these two parameters that merit additional discussion. First, xa-Cxn involves two categories of comparative subject, which are referred to, following Liu (2012), as "comparative subject" (ComS) and "attributive subject" (AttS) in this paper. The two sorts of subjects can be identical, as seen by k7 'this' in (3): k7 and ku7 1 , the St, are both demonstrative pronouns, i.e., they have the same syntactic status, and k7 is the subject of the adjective ta 'big' (one can say k7ta 'this is big'). However, in xa-Cxn, the ComS and AttS can be distinct. In (5), for example, the ComS is ŋ7 'I' (syntactically corresponds to the St ni 'you'), while the AttS is su1fu 'age', given that it is su1fu rather than ŋ7 that serves as the semantic subject of the adjective ta in su1fu ta 'the age is old' 2 . In a number of instances, the ComS could be omitted, resulting in the AttS and the St being the objects being compared. See (6). (6) has no ComS. If there were a ComS, it should be ni 'you' that syntactically corresponds to the St ŋ7 'I'. The AttS is ni t7xε 'your shoes' (as in ni t7xε ta 'your shoes are big'). This "AttS-St" is ungrammatical in many languages. In English, for example, it would be ungrammatical to convert the English translation in (6) to the "AttS-St" frame ( * your shoes are one size bigger than me, in which AttS= your shoes and St= me).
In typological studies, the distinction between ComS and AttS has received little attention. This distinction is not addressed in works examining comparative constructions from a typological perspective, such as those by Dixon (2012), Stassen (2013), andStolz (2013). However, this phenomenon is pervasive in Chinese and Tibetan; see Section 3.
Another feature of xa-Cxn is that the measurement of the CR can be further subdivided into the "abstract measurement" (AbsM) and the "concrete measurement" (ConM). The semantic distinction between the two types of measurement is inherent, while Zhoutun distinguishes them linguistically: the AbsM follows the adjective of the CR, whereas the ConM precedes it. For example, in (4) the ConM sã su1 'three years' precedes the adjective ta 'old', while in (5) the AbsM tu7 'much' occurs after ta as a complement. Note that the English translations reveal that the two types of measurement are all placed before the adjective in English, as in three years/ much older. In Mandarin Chinese, both types of the measurement come after the adjective. See (7) In Section 3, I will argue that the different position of ConM and AbsM in Zhoutun reflects the hybrid feature of Chinese and Tibetan and represents an "incomplete" transition from the former to the latter. A preliminary observation shows that languages prefer to place the two types of measurement in the same position relative to the adjective. This is a potential explanation for why previous typological studies did not distinguish between ConM and AbsM. In this light, the data in Zhoutun are worthy of consideration. The style of your clothes is better than mine, and the price of mine is cheaper than yours.' Some essential properties of (8b), (9), and (10)  On the one hand, both of the ConM i su1 'one year' in (8b) and the AbsM tu7 'much' in (9) follow the adjective. On the other hand, the AttS can be distinguished from ComS, as shown in (10) where the AttS is iùÃt7iAtsi 'cloth's style' and tCiak7 'price', and the ComS is ni t7 'yours' and ŋ7t7 'mine' in the first and second clause, respectively. (11) demonstrates that the parallel pi constructions are also seen in Mandarin Chinese. Contrary to Mandarin Chinese pi comparatives, however, the ConM in Zhoutun's pi-Cxn can also be placed before the adjective, as shown in (8a). This performance can be viewed as the effect of contact with Amdo Tibetan, where the ConM comes before the adjective; see Section 3.

pi-Cxn
In general, pi-Cxn is employed less frequently than xa-Cxn to convey comparative meaning. However, the author's empirical observation suggests that the frequency of usage is on the rise. A comparison of the author's fieldwork in 2014 and 2020 indicates that the utilization of pi-Cxn has become more prevalent and intuitive 3 . This is likely due to the increasing influence from Mandarin Chinese nowadays. It is unknown whether pi-Cxn will eventually exceed and supplant xa-Cxn. Nonetheless, it is evident that the language contact is not static and is ongoing.

'look'-Cxn
'look'-Cxn uses the verb khã 'look' to introduce the St, forming the structure "St-khã, CS-CR". For example, The literal meaning of 'look'-Cxn is "(If) looking at X, Y is Adj", and it implicates the comparative meaning "Y is Adj than X". The conditional ùi (time>when>if) is optional. Moreover, no instance is found within which the CS splits into ComS and AttS: they are identical in 'look'-Cxn (at least in my data). In the data I also find no example dealing with the measurement of the CR. Instead, bare adjective is used in this construction.

'and'-Cxn
'and'-Cxn refers to the structure "X-and-Y(-verb), X/Y-CR", conveying the comparative meaning "X/Y is adjective than Y/X". This construction is similar to 'look'-Cxn in that both of them consist of two clauses, and the first clause provides the object(s), and the second clause shows the comparative result. For example: Although comparable to 'look'-Cxn in some respects, 'and'-Cxn differs significantly from 'look'-Cxn and the other two comparative constructions, namely, xa-Cxn and pi-Cxn. That is, 'and'-Cxn is a loosely structured comparative strategy rather than a dedicated comparative construction. First, in the structure "X-and-Y(-verb), X/Y-CR", the subject of the CR cannot be determined until the second clause appears. Changing iAõW 'mutton' in the second clause of (14) to taõW 'pork' would result in the sentence 'Pork is more delicious than mutton', in which 'pork' becomes the subject, as opposed to the original version, where 'mutton' is the subject. Second, since 'and' is not a comparative marker, the coordinating construction in the first clause does not necessitate further comparison in the second clause.
In (17), for instance, the coordination ŋ7tε tùaCi 'I and Zhaxi' functions as the agent of the verb tChi 'go' in the second clause, and no comparative sense is indicated. Nevertheless, 'and'-Cxn is taken into account while discussing comparative expressions for two reasons. First, this construction is a common and natural manner of conveying comparative meaning in Zhoutun. Moreover, there is a possibility that 'and'-Cxn will evolve into a dedicated comparative construction (such a process can be found in Wu dialects, as discussed in Section 3). Second, 'and'-Cxn can be used to compare VPs, which is not possible with any of the aforementioned constructions. This is evidenced by (16). The two objects compared in (16) are the NPs within the VP, i.e., m7m7 'steamed bread' and miãphiε 'noodle'. This function, i.e., comparing NPs within the VP, cannot be satisfied by xa-Cxn, pi-Cxn, and 'look'-Cxn, and is actually prohibited in Mandarin Chinese pi comparatives. Let us examine pi comparatives in Mandarin in (18) In fact, the topic-domain restriction is observed not only at the clause level, but also in the VP that is before the adjective CR. As evidenced by (20) steamed.bread CONJ noodles steamed.bread eat COMP more 'I eat more streamed bread than noodles (lit. between steamed bread and noodles, I eat more steamed).
The "steamed bread" and "noodles" in (22a) are located in the predicate domain (after the verb), making the clause ungrammatical. By simply omitting the verb, (21b) becomes grammatical, as the two NPs are identified as the topic.
In contrast to Mandarin, Zhoutun 'and'-Cxn permits a direct comparison between two NPs within the VP. Comparing (16)

Hybrid Cxn
Some of the mentioned constructions can be used simultaneously, forming what we term the "hybrid construction". There are two common hybrid constructions. First, the hybrid of 'and' and xa. For example: In sum, the comparative constructions in Zhoutun can be concluded as in Table 1.

Hybrid Features in Comparative Constructions of Zhoutun
Comparative constructions in Zhoutun exhibit both Tibetan and Chinese characteristics. The hybrid features provide an intriguing illustration of how Zhoutun's grammar has been shaped by language contact. We will discuss each one individually.
Since Altaic languages are nominal-accusative and Tibetan is ergative-absolutive, some believe that xa in Gan-Qing dialects was formed due to the influence from Altaic languages (e.g., Zhang 2013). However, this theory fails to account for the following two crucial performances: (1) while Altaic languages lack dative-accusative syncretism 5 , all Gan-Qing dialects utilize xa as a dative-accusative marker; and (2) only Tibetan uses dative to mark the experiencer (i.e., the subject who experiences particular feelings such as 'hot' and 'angry'). I argue that contact with Tibetan is the cause of the emergence of xa, the case marking system, and the SOV order in Gan-Qing dialects 6 ; for details, see Zhou (2019aZhou ( , 2019bZhou ( , 2020a. xa-Cxn conforms to the typical word order of comparative constructions in OV languages, namely St-CR (Dryer 1992). This OV-feature of xa-Cxn is a result of contact with Tibetan. In Amdo Tibetan, the word order of a comparative construction is identical to that of xa-Cxn (without considering the abstract measurement; see below), as shown in (25). (25) tsheRWŋ wsonam-ma-wtina lo tChe-gW. C S-dat-cm age old-aux Cairang is elder than Sunnanmu. (Shao 2012, p. 29) In addition to the general word order of xa-Cxn, another feature of the Tibetan type is that the CR's concrete measurement precedes the adjective. See (4) in Zhoutun (repeated in (26a)) and (26b) Shao, p.c.) In contrast, the concrete measurement of the CR should follow the adjective in a Chinese comparative construction; see (7a) and (27) However, when it comes to the abstract measurement of the CR, the scenario changes: the abstract measurement in Zhoutun, which is placed after the adjective, maintains the same position as in Chinese (28a), but differs from Tibetan (28b).
ŋa FtùaChi=Pa Fti=na jәrzәk=kә rәŋ=ŋgә. 1 Z=ALL look=COND much=ERG rәŋ=ŋgә. 'I am much taller than Zhaxi.' (Shao, p.c.) As demonstrated by the aforementioned examples, with regards to the position of AbsM and ConM, the differences between comparative constructions in Chinese and Tibetan are reflected in the type of word order, with Chinese exhibiting a mirror image of Tibetan in this aspect. Specifically: Chinese: CS-St-CR-AbsM/ConM Tibetan: CS-St-AbsM/ConM-CR.
Interestingly, the performance of xa-Cxn in Zhoutun in this regard is not entirely comparable to either Chinese or Tibetan. The word order of xa-Cxn generally reflects the Tibetan type in that it has St-CR order, with the ConM preceding the CR. In terms of the position of AbsM, however, xa-Cxn retains a Chinese feature in that the abstract measurement follows the adjective as a complement. That is: Zhoutun: (1) CS-St-CR-AbsM; (2) CS-St-ConM-CR Second, pi-Cxn. It is evident that pi-Cxn corresponds to its Chinese counterpart, which we refer to as "pi comparatives". First, both pi-Cxn and pi comparatives put abstract and concrete measurement after the adjective of the CR. Second, they both distinguish ComS and AttS. The only difference between the two is that in pi-Cxn, the concrete measurement could also be put before the adjective, as shown by (8a). This feature is distinct from the pi comparatives and has to do with Amdo Tibetan, in which concrete measurement occurs before the CR. The word order between St and CR in pi-Cxn is the same as in Chinese, namely St-CR. Interestingly, this "Chinese type" word order itself is in accordance with OV. In fact, the order of St-CR in Chinese pi comparatives is abnormal compared to the typical CR-St in VO languages (Dryer 1992). Given that Zhoutun had changed its basic word order into SOV, the original "abnormal" word order of pi comparatives in Chinese 7 became "normal" in Zhoutun pi-Cxn.
The contrast between the comparative subject (ComS) and the attributive subject (AttS) is a significant feature shared by both the xa-Cxn and the pi-Cxn. The distinction between these two types of subject, according to Liu (2012), shows the topic prominence of Chinese comparative constructions. As a topic-prominent language (Li and Thompson 1981), the topic in a Chinese sentence may not have an "argument relationship" with the predicate (i.e., the topic is not an argument of the predicate), so long as some relevance exists, even if it is blurred. See the renowned example in (29) 房子他比我贵。 fangzi ta bi wo gui. house 3 CM 1 expensive 'His house is more expensive than mine (/ * me/ * I).' ( * He house is more expensive than I/ * House, he is more expensive than I.) Regardless of the position, fangzi 'house' and ta 'he' are separated in (30). As the argument of the adjective gui 'expensive', fangzi is the AttS, whereas ta is the ComS that is syntactically compared to the St wo 'I'. ComS and St cannot serve as the subject of the adjective, as in * ta/wo gui 'he/I expensive'. Note that in English, the ComS should also be the AttS, that is, both roles should be represented by one and the same NP. The English translation in (30) illustrates this performance clearly: his house is the ComS in the sense that it is the argument of the adjective expensive, and it is the AttS in the sense that it is syntactically compared to the St mine.
Following Liu, Shao (2012) observed that the ComS and AttS are also splitable in the comparative constructions in Amdo Tibetan. For example, (31) HgoRmo cç h o-a-wtina ŋa ïoŋ-ngW, x h iwCa cç h o-a-wtina ŋa maŋ-ngW. money 2-DAT-CM 1 less-AUX knowledge 2-DAT-CM 1 more-AUX 'My money is less than yours; my knowledge is more than yours.' (lit. As for money, I have less than you; as for knowledge, I have more than you.) In earlier research, I had believed that the distinction between the ComS and the AttS in comparative constructions of Zhoutun was a Chinese reservation. However, Shao's research reveals that Amdo Tibetan has this characteristic. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that Tibetan has impacted it. Regardless of its origin, the distinction between the two types of subject in Sino-Tibetan languages is an important topic deserving of more study. Researchers of Sino-Tibetan languages can investigate if other Sino-Tibetan languages share this characteristic; typologists can include ComS and AttS in cross-linguistic studies of comparative constructions. Now we turn to 'look'-Cxn. 'look'-Cxn is found not just in Zhoutun, but also in other Gan-Qing dialects, as well as Amdo Tibetan and Altaic languages in the Gan-Qing linguistic area, as discussed in Sandman and Simon (2016 They assert that, at first glance, the 'look' comparatives are derived from Amdo Tibetan, as Tibetan is what they refer to as the "model language" and has a significant impact on both Altaic languages and Gan-Qing dialects in the same area in a number of respects. However, as 'look' comparatives are not found in any Tibetan language outside of the Gan-Qing linguistic area, Sandman and Simon believe that 'look' comparatives are an independent development of the Gan-Qing linguistic area and their source "remains unclear" (p. 112). The development of comparative markers from "look" in language is well documented, as one of the reviewers pointed out, Korean being a case in point. According to Rhee (2022), the grammaticalization source of the Korean comparative marker "pota" is "look".
Although the synchronic evidence in Gan-Qing linguistic area may not lead to a definitive conclusion regarding the origin of 'look' comparatives, diachronic data offer a clue. Shao (2012) illustrates the presence of 'look' comparatives in classic Tibetan, as in (33) Shao (2012) proposes that the widespread use of 'look' comparatives in contemporary Amdo is a remnant of classic Tibetan. I argue, based on his convincing evidence, that the 'look'-Cxn in Zhoutun is formed due to the contact with Amdo. A minor distinction between Zhoutun and Amdo is that in Zhoutun, the COND morpheme, namely ùi, is optional.
The fourth construction that should be discussed is the 'and'-Cxn. As mentioned, it is better to consider the 'and'-Cxn in Zhoutun as a strategy rather than a grammaticalized construction to convey comparative meaning. The strategy consists of the frame "A and B, A/B is ADJ", which is pragmatically interpreted as the comparative "A/B is more ADJ than B/A". This strategy represents the topic prominence in Chinese, and the same strategy can be found in Wu dialects that have a higher degree of topic prominence than Mandarin. See the example from Shaoxing Wu (Yimin Sheng, p.c. (34) in Shaoxing Wu, like the 'and'-Cxn in Zhoutun, uses the coordination "A and B" as a comparison scope for two objects with the potential to be compared, and the following clause "A/B is ADJ" completes the comparison between A and B. With the usage of the topic marker, "A and B"-"A/B is ADJ" in Shaoxing Wu constitutes an obvious topic-comment pair. Although there is no topic marker in 'and'-Cxn in Zhoutun, the frame "A and B"-"A/B is ADJ" is probably likewise a topic-comment structure. This topic-comment structure in Shaoxing Wu further developed into a grammaticalized construction, as seen in (35a)  It is not impossible that the 'and'-Cxn in Zhoutun would undergo the same process to become a dedicated comparative construction in the future, although this has not yet occurred.
The last type of comparative construction that should be discussed is the hybrid Cxn. In this kind of construction, we can see the hybrid features from both Tibetan and Chinese more straightforwardly, as shown by the co-existence between 'and' (Chinese) and xa (Tibetan), and between 'look', xa (Tibetan) and pi (Chinese).

Conclusions
This paper investigated the comparative constructions in Zhoutun, a Chinese variety that is heavily influenced by Amdo Tibetan. In Zhoutun, there are five comparative constructions: xa-Cxn, pi-Cxn, 'look'-Cxn, 'and'-Cxn, and hybrid Cxn. Zhou (2022a) notes that in general Zhoutun possesses hybrid characteristics of Chinese and Tibetan, namely, Chinese phonology and Tibetan syntax. This paper indicated that Zhoutun syntax also expresses the hybrid characteristic. Regarding comparative constructions, this hybrid characteristic might be viewed in the following ways. First, five types of comparative constructions are utilized simultaneously, including xa-Cxn and 'look'-Cxn, which are clearly influenced by Amdo Tibetan, and pi-Cxn and 'and'-Cxn, from which one can discern the Chinese trace. Second, although the xa-Cxn and pi-Cxn are generally more Tibetan-like and Chinese-like, respectively, they also contain traces of the other language. For instance, the xa-Cxn, which corresponds in word order with Amdo Tibetan, retains a Chinese performance in terms of the position of abstract measurement of the adjective; in contrary, despite the fact that the pi-Cxn corresponds to Chinese pi comparative in many respects, the Tibetan influence can be discerned from the position of the concrete measurement of the adjective. The distinction between concrete and abstract measurement reflects the transition between Chinese and Tibetan and gives comparative constructions in Zhoutun their own syntactic behavior.
This paper proposed to differentiate between comparative subject and attributive subject, as well as abstract and concrete measurement, thus enhancing our comprehension of comparative constructions in typological studies. Liu (2012) posits that the distinction between ComS and AttS reflects the topical attributes of the Chinese pi-comparatives. As a variant of Chinese, Zhoutun also exhibits this characteristic, which highlights the prominence of its topic structure. Tibetan, as a language with developed topic structure, also displays this feature. According to a reviewer's suggestion, Japanese and Korean, also topic-prominent, seem to display similar features. Hence, the distinction between ComS and AttS could serve as a relevant variable in future cross-linguistic studies on comparative constructions. The distinction between AbsM and ConM, however, has not yet been found in other languages, but the case of Zhoutun suggests that the two could be differentiated in terms of position. This suggests that further attention could be paid to this issue when studying other languages.

Funding:
The key project of Chinese National Social Science Fund (19AYY004).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.