Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T10:39:02.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Determinants of the synthetic–analytic variation across English comparatives and superlatives1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2016

LAWRENCE CHEUNG  and
LONGTU ZHANG
LAWRENCE CHEUNG
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages G/F, Leung Kau Kui Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong [email protected], [email protected]
LONGTU ZHANG
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages G/F, Leung Kau Kui Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some English adjectives accept both synthetic and analytic comparative and superlative forms (e.g. thicker vs more thick, happiest vs most happy). As many as 20+ variables have been claimed to affect this choice (see Leech & Culpeper 1997; Lindquist 2000; Mondorf 2003, 2009). However, many studies consider one variable at a time without systematically controlling for other variables (i.e. they take a monofactorial approach). Further, very little research has been done on superlatives. Following Hilpert's (2008) multifactorial study, we investigate the simultaneous contribution of 17 variables towards comparative and superlative alternation and further measure the strength(s) of the predictors. On the whole, phonological predictors are much more important than syntactic and frequency-related predictors. The predictors of the number of syllables and final segments in <-y> consistently outrank other predictors in both models. Important differences have also been identified. Many syntactic variables, such as predicative position and presence of complements, are weak or non-significant in the comparative model but have stronger effects in the superlative model. Further, higher frequency of an adjective leads to a preference for the synthetic -er variant in comparatives but the analytic most variant in superlatives. The study shows that generalizations about comparatives do not straightforwardly carry over to superlatives.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 3: Support strategies in language variation and change , November 2016 , pp. 559 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We want to express our gratitude to Britta Mondorf, Javier Pérez-Guerra and three anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. An earlier version of the article was presented at the 5th International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English (ICLCE 5), University of Texas, Austin, 25–29 September 2013. We want to thank the audience for their comments. Last but not least, thanks go to Mercy Wong and Carleon Mendoza for their hard work and patience with the annotation of the examples. All remaining errors are ours.

References

Allison, Paul D. 2012. Logistic regression using SAS: Theory and application. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Aston, Guy & Burnard, Lou. 1997. The BNC handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Burnard, Lou (ed.). 2007. Reference guide for the British National Corpus (XML edition). Research Technologies Service at Oxford University Computing Services. www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG Google Scholar
Burns, Robert P. & Burns, Richard. 2008. Logistic regression. In Business research methods and statistics using SPSS, chapter 24. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Extra online chapter: www.uk.sagepub.com/burns/chapters.htm)Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2007. The superlative in spoken English. Language and Computers 62, 128–67.Google Scholar
Field, Andy & Miles, Jeremy. 2010. Discovering statistics using SAS. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
González-Díaz, Victorina. 2008. English adjective comparison: A historical perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1991. Englishes: Studies in varieties of English, 1984–8 (Varieties of English around the World 9). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The English comparative: Language structure and language use. English Language and Linguistics 12 (3), 395–417.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Romaine, Suzanne. 1997. Competing forms of adjective comparison in Modern English: What could be more quicker and easier and more effective? In Nevalainen & Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), 329–52.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Romaine, Suzanne. 2000. Adjective comparison and standardization processes in American and British English from 1620 to the present. In Wright, Laura (ed.), The development of Standard English 1300—1800: Theories, descriptions, conflicts, 171–94. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Culpeper, Jonathan. 1997. The comparison of adjectives in recent British English. In Nevalainen & Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), 353–73.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Hans. 1998. The comparison of English disyllabic adjectives in -y and -ly in Present-day British and American English. In Hans Lindquist et al. (eds.), The major varieties of English. Papers from MAVEN 97, 205–12. Växjö: Acta Wexionensia.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Hans. 2000. Livelier or more lively? Syntactic and contextual factors influencing the comparison of disyllabic adjectives. Language and Computers 30, 125–32.Google Scholar
Menard, Scott. 2011. Standards for standardized logistic regression coefficients. Social Forces 89 (4), 1409–28.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2003. Support for more-support. In Rohdenburg & Mondorf (eds.), 251–304.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2014. (Apparently) competing motivations in morpho-syntactic variation. In MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej & Moravcsik, Edith (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage, 209–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terrtu & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena (eds.). 1997. To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 1998. Morphological haplology in a constraint-based morpho-phonology. In Kehrein, Wolfgang & Wiese, Richard (eds.), Phonology and morphology of the Germanic languages, 199–215. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik. 1914. A grammar of late modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149–82.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.). 2003. Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic grammar: The influence of rhythm on grammatical variation and change in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. [1891] 1968. A new English grammar: Logical and historical. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-linguistic analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1 (1), 113–50.Google Scholar
Thomson, Audrey J. & Martinet, Agnes V.. 1980. A practical English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tonidandel, Scott & LeBreton, James. 2011. Relative importance analysis: A useful supplement to regression analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology 26 (1), 1–9.Google Scholar