Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:24:00.713Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The English comparative – language structure and language use1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

MARTIN HILPERT
MARTIN HILPERT*
Affiliation:
Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS), Albertstr. 19, 79104 Freiburg i.Br., [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many English adjectives form the comparative in two ways, so that, for instance, prouder occurs alongside more proud. The availability of several forms raises the general questions of when and why speakers choose one variant over the other. The aim of this article is to identify factors of language structure and language use that underlie the comparative alternation and to determine their relative strengths on the basis of data from the BNC through a logistic regression analysis. The results suggest that the alternation is primarily governed by phonological factors, but that syntax and frequency of usage are of importance as well.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , November 2008 , pp. 395 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

References

Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boyd, Jeremy K. 2007. Comparatively speaking: A psycholinguistic study of optionality in grammar. PhD dissertation, UCSD.Google Scholar
Braun, Albert. 1982. Studien zur Syntax und Morphologie der Steigerungsformen im Englischen. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Kraemer, I. & Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
di Sciullo, Anna Maria & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fries, Udo. 1993. The comparison of monosyllabic adjectives. In Jucker, A. H. (ed.), The noun phrase in English: Its structure and variability, 25–44. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne & Garnsey, Susan. 2004. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80 (4), 748–75.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, W. (ed.), Current progress in historical linguistics, 96–105. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey & Goodluck, Helen. 1978. Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster–Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computers. Unpublished document: Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2007. Quantitative methods in linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Koehn, Philipp. 2005. Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation. MT Summit.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, T. & Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 329–52. Helsinki: Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1992. 100 million words of English: The British National Corpus. Language Research 28 (1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Jonathan, Culpeper. 1997. The comparison of adjectives in recent British English. In Nevalainen, T. and Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 353–74. Helsinki: Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Hans. 1998. The comparison of English disyllabic adjectives in -y and -ly in Present-day British and American English. In Lindquist, H. 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. In Kirk, J. M. (ed.), Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English, 125–32. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2003. Support for more-support. In Rohdenburg, G. and Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 251–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2007. Recalcitrant problems of comparative alternation and new insights emerging from internet data. In Hundt, M. et al. (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the Web, 211–32. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Poser, W. J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Sag, I. and Szabolsci, A. (eds.), Lexical matters, 111–30. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2), 149–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohr, Anny. 1929. Die Steigerung des neuenglischen Eigenschaftswortes im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert mit Ausblicken auf den Sprachgebrauch der Gegenwart. PhD dissertation, Universität Giessen.Google Scholar
Webster's unabridged dictionary (The Project Gutenberg etext). 1996. Plainfield, NJ: MICRA Inc.Google Scholar