Stable Comparisons, Punctuation, and Usage

Abstract

This study offers an analysis of the methods of punctuation marking for stable comparisons in the punctuation practice of the 20th and 21st centuries. The research material comprises a micro-corpus, which includes more than 200 contexts of usage for stable comparisons, semantically similar free comparative constructions, as well as occasional transformations of stable comparisons. Punctuation actions involving stable comparisons are conceptualized as a distinct punctuation experiment, wherein diverse punctuation responses are formulated contingent upon the intrinsic nature of the stable comparisons themselves and the conditions governing their use. It is demonstrated that the punctuation practice of the 20th and 21st centuries reflects a trend towards punctuation differentiation not only between stable comparisons and free comparative constructions but also within stable comparisons themselves. The analysis of punctuation facts leads to the conclusion that the punctuation marking of stable comparisons is determined by derivational, pragmatic, and context-syntactic factors, which are taken into account by writers in their punctuation actions. It is shown that while derivational and context-syntactic factors prompt punctuation marking of stable comparisons, pragmatic factors merely render the use of delimiting commas more preferable. It is emphasized that adequate punctuation codification in the realm of stable comparisons cannot be achieved without reference to the evidence of punctuation practice.