Article Review~

Etika Suzerein
16320009 (Ek)


Article reviewed:
Buzarovska, Eleni, “Equality versus Similarity Constructions in English”, Cyrillus & Methodius University of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, 2005, Vol. 4, ISSN 1475-8989.

The article, “Equality versus Similarity Constructions in English”, by Eleni Buzarovska focuses on the analysis of equality comparative constructions in English with reference to the study of comparison in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Huddleston et al. 2002), where a distinction is made between scalar and non-scalar comparison.
It is clear from the abstract that it is not a simple issue. In fact, the article is fairly confusing for the couple paragraphs. The author proposes a unitary analysis of scalar and non-scalar equality comparisons and interprets the relationships between equality and similarity. The paper also aims to clarify the nature of the mutual relations between as- and -like constructions that has function as predicative and manner complements, and explain the competition of as and like in manner complements.
On Huddleston et al.'s (2002: 1099f) stated that “study of comparison which classifies comparative constructions along two intersecting dimensions of contrast: scalarity vs non-scalarity and equality vs inequality. Scalar comparison involves grading, while non-scalar comparison is concerned with identity and likeness. But as Huddleston et al. (2002: 1100) pointed out "there are grounds for recognising a single contrast applying to scalar and non-scalar comparison alike: as is the main marker of equality comparison, whether scalar or non-scalar". Furthermore, they note that non-scalar equality can be interpreted as similarity or resemblance (Huddleston et al 2002: 1140, 1154).
The paper offers a unified analysis of scalar and non-scalar using the concept of equivalence; equality and similarity. The difference between these two concepts depends on the presence of a quantifying or non-quantifying identity operator in the semantic representation of comparative as- and like-clauses.
There is a relation equivalence in participant and event comparison.
1.      Participant comparison
(1) He runs fast, she runs fast. Two clauses are linked by co-ordination.
Two types of participant equality can be produced by scalar equality(2) and non-scalar similarity(3).
(2) He runs as fast as she does. It shows that the speed of running can be measured.
(3) He runs _ like her.
2.      Event comparison
           It can be realised as sequence of symmetrical simple clause (a) and complex and simple clause (b).
a.         Conjoining two symmetrical simple clause. This results in non-scalar comparison of identity of predication with both activity (4) and state (5).
(4) He runs fast, as she does _ . He runs fast, like her.
(5) He is tall, as/like she is. He is tall, like her
b.         Conjoining a simple clause and a complex. After clause reduction of (12), the comparative clause is formalised as an adjunct of comparison in (13).
(12) He runs fast. I told him to run fast.
(13) He runs fast, as/like I told him _.
(14) He runs _ as/like I told him _.


Taking the standard of comparison as a classification parameter, three types of comparison can be distinguished: state (15), manner (16), and similarity manner comparison (17).
(15) He is as tall as she is. It illustrates comparison between two states in the same degree. Its derivation from two clauses; He is tall. She is tall. Because of the same degree, it can be compared as equality/similarity.
(16) He runs as fast as I do. It illustrates comparison between two dynamic predicate. Its derivation from two clauses, also. He runs fast. I run fast.
(17) He runs as/like I told him.

Depending on the degree of identity of the common property in two compared terms, the equivalence relation can be identified as equality, identity, and similarity comparison.
§  The discussion on the distribution of as and like is based on the assumption that equality as-constructions in (18) and (19) are related to the similarity like-construction in (20) and (21).
(18) He is as tall as she is.
(19) He runs as fast as I do.
(20) He is tall like her.
(21) He runs (fast) like me.

Both ‘like’ and ‘as’ are used to state comparisons. For example:
        Amy takes care of the children in the day care like a mother.
        Amy takes care of the children in the day care as a mother does.
Both sentences are correct. Both the sentences above convey the meaning that Amy takes care of the children “in the same way” as a mother takes care of her children.
Apart from stating comparison, “as” can also be used to state “role” or “function”. For example: John has joined the organization as a researcher.
In this sentence, ‘as’ does not show a comparison. This sentence implies that John is indeed a researcher in the new organization. Notice that per this sentence John has not been compared to a researcher. John is indeed a researcher. So his role has been presented. And hence ‘as’ is used to present role or function of a person.

Overall, the abstract of the paper is already good because the author can describe about the topic which is being discussed. Also, the author gives the examples for each point. Yet, the author should make a clearer explanation by using not-new terms in order to make it understood easily. Furthermore, the paper slightly has some not-understandable embellishments so it is really needed to read over many times just to make sure about the meaning. This paper is not really very straightforward to understand in the beginning  and it is not until the second page which the reader realize where the article is headed from. In order to have more people get engaged and read the whole article, it needs a new more concise introduction.

Reference:




Comments

Popular Posts