The English comparative: Phonology and Usage

1
The English comparative Phonology and Usage
Martin Hilpert, ICSI Berkeley / Rice University,
hilpert_at_icsi.berkeley.edu
factors beyond the word level VARIABLE SOURCE T
ENDENCY to-inf complement Mondorf (2003)
periphrastic attributive use Leech and Culpeper
(1997) morphological predicative use Leech and
Culpeper (1997) periphrastic premodification Lindq
uist (2000) periphrastic weak
gradability Mondorf (2003) periphrastic positive
frequency Braun (1982) morphological
factors on the word-level length,
characteristics of the final segment VARIABLE SOU
RCE TENDENCY of syllables Quirk et al.
(1985) periphrastic of morphemes Mondorf
(2003) periphrastic final /i/ Kytö and Romaine
(1997) morphological final /li/ Lindquist
(1998) periphrastic final /r/ Mondorf
(2003) periphrastic final /l/ Kytö and Romaine
(1997) morphological final C-cluster Mondorf
(2003) periphrastic final stress Leech and
Culpeper (1997) periphrastic
prouder and more proud Many English adjectives
form the comparative in two ways. Some
alternating adjectives have a clear preference
(?more easy), while others alternate quite
freely easy 99.2 morphological cheesy 69.5
morphological queasy 4.9 morphological
whats been said Previous analyses (e.g. Leech
and Culpeper 1997, Mondorf 2003) hold that
factors of phonology, morphology, syntax, and
semantics govern the comparative alternation.
However, an integrated account is missing the
relative importance of these factors has not been
determined. Also, the role of frequency has not
been sufficiently explored.
When and why do speakers choose one variant over
the other?
How can we determine the relative strength of
each factor?
results Word length measured in syllables, but
not morphemes, strongly affects the alternation.
The measured effects of final /i/and /li/,
final stress, and final clusters corroborate
earlier work. Final /r/, /l/, and sibilants have
no significant effect. Factors of usage, such as
the ratio of positives and comparative and the
frequency of the positive form, affect the
alternation.
a first pass using the n-gram
corpus All bigrams of the form -er than are
retrieved. The corresponding uninflected
adjectives followed by than are also retrieved,
yielding 730 types. The LOG of the observed
morphological/periphrastic-ratio serves as the
dependent variable for a multiple linear
regression. ADJ MORPH PERIPHR RATIO LOG
(10) able 1,199 27,414 .0437 -1.36 bright 273,
698 7,198 38.024 1.58 correct 54 28,864 .0018
-2.73 great 10,100,443 10,099 100.14 3.00
a usage-based approach It is assumed that usage
(quantitative patterns in large amounts of
naturally produced language) reflects grammar and
vice versa. A corpus analysis can establish the
morphological/periphrastic-ratio of alternating
adjectives and determine which of the above
factors best predict this ratio.
analysis Using the word-level characteristics,
the ratio of comparatives and positives, and the
frequency of the positive form as variables, the
analysis yields an adjusted R2 of .341 INCLUDED
VARIABLES EXCLUDED VARIABLES Beta t Sig Beta
t Sig syl .876 12.738 .000
mor -.015 -.378 .706 final /i/ -.437 -6.844 .000
final /r/ .022 .715 .475 CP-ratio -.176 -5.801 .0
00 final /l/ .056 1.663 .097 final
/li/ .119 3.836 .000 fin stress .314 3.663 .000
fin clust .113 3.017 .003 posfr -.094 -2.9
7 .003
conclusion Both structural phonological factors
and factors of language use govern the
alternation but much variance still needs to be
explained.
analysis Again, the LOG of the observed
morphological/periphrastic-ratio serves as the
dependent variable. Using all previously used
variables and the subcategorization
probabilities, the analysis yields an adjusted R2
of .509 INCLUDED VARIABLES EXCLUDED VARIABLES
Beta t Sig Beta t Sig syl .969 10.572 .000
fin /i/ -.003 -.029 .977 CP-ratio -.
392 -9.122 .000 premod .010 .237 .813 fin
stress .550 5.942 .000 pred .021 .497 .620 to-inf
.113 2.626 .009 attr -.055 -1.212 .226 fin
clust .112 2.511 .013 mor .082 1.387 .167 fina
l /l/ .109 2.480 .014 fin /li/ .066 1.454 .147
fin /r/ .085 1.937 .054
results As in the first analysis, length in
syllables, comparative-positive ratio, final
stress and consonant cluster influence the
alternation. Final /l/ is found to be
significant. Of the syntactic variables, only
to-infinitive complements show a significant
effect. Final /i/and /li/do not show an
independent effect in this analysis neither does
the frequency of the positive form.
But what about those syntactic factors?
second try using the BNC All comparative
adjective forms are retrieved, yielding 272
types. The four syntactic variables are encoded
as subcategorization probabilities for each
adjective ADJECTIVE ATTR PRED TO PREMOD ready 0
,15 0,01 0,68 0.09 spicy 0,78 0,11 0,00 0.14 unti
dy 0,00 0,25 0,00 0.18
selected references Kytö, Merja and Suzanne
Romaine. 1997. Competing forms of adjective
comparison in Modern English what could be more
quicker and easier and more effective? In T.
Nevalainen and L. Kahlas-Tarkka (eds), To explain
the present Studies in the changing English
language in honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki
Memoires de la Societe Neophilologique de
Helsinki, 329-52. Leech, Geoffrey N. and
Jonathan Culpeper. 1997. The comparison of
Adjectives in Recent British English. In T.
Nevalainen and L. Kahlas-Tarkka (eds), 353-74.
Lindquist, Hans. 2000. Livelier or more lively?
Syntactic and contextual factors influencing the
comparison of disyllabic adjectives. In J. M.
Kirk (ed.), Corpora galore. Amsterdam Rodopi,
12532. Mondorf, Britta. 2003. Support for
more-support. In G. Rohdenburg and B. Mondorf
(eds), Determinants of grammatical variation in
English. Berlin Mouton de Gruyter,
251-304. Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney,
Leech, Geoffrey and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A
comprehensive grammar of the English language.
New York Longman.