(Re)considering Determinants of the Inflectional / Periphrastic Alternation Across English

Comparatives & Superlatives

Lawrence Cheung & Longtu Zhang

Department of Linguistics and Modern LanguagesChinese University of Hong Kong

ICLCE5University of Texas, Austin25—29 September, 2013

1

1. INTRODUCTION

2

English Comparatives/Superlatives• Inflectional (or Morphological) -er /-est

• Comparative: faster, happier, remoter• Superlatives: fastest, happiest, remotest

• Periphrastic (or Analytic) more / most• Comparative: more accurate, more beautiful, more remote• Superlatives: most accurate, most beautiful, most remote

3

English Comparatives/SuperlativesInflectional/Periphrastic (I/P) Variation• Some adjectives/adverbs (especially two-syllable ones)

allow both forms to different degree.

• Examples1. remoter/remotest vs. more remote/most

remote2. happier/happiest vs. more happy/most happy

4

I/P Variation (Comparatives)• Remote

• Low rateable values in some of the __________ rural areas also played a part. (BNC-FPR-847)

• Everyone knows how good he is, or nearly is, but somehow he remains a ___________ figure. (BNC-AHK-217)

• Unhappy• Growing thirstier and hungrier and wearier and ___________ , as

the blistering sun edged across the sky. (BNC-G3G-2840)

5

I/P Variation (Comparatives)

• Remote (83 “remoter” vs 171 “more remote”)• Low rateable values in some of the remoter rural areas also played

a part. (BNC-FPR-847)

• Everyone knows how good he is, or nearly is, but somehow he remains a more remote figure. (BNC-AHK-217)

• Unhappy (12 “unhappier” vs 17 “more unhappy”)• Growing thirstier and hungrier and wearier and unhappier, as the

blistering sun edged across the sky. (BNC-G3G-2840)

6

I/P Variation (Superlatives)• Apt

• A theoretician is well prepared to consider what the most apt questions about works of art may be. (BNC-A04-367)

• Unhappy• ‘I am the unhappiest creature in the world, but I shall

fight for my life,’ he said. (BNC-H8G-325)

8

General QuestionsA. What variables determine the choice of the

inflectional vs. the periphrastic form for comparatives and superlatives?

B. What are the relative weights (importance) of the variables?

9

2. PREVIOUS STUDIES

10

Identification of Variables• Most studies focus on the identification of variables that

determines the I/P variation of comparatives.

• ~20 variables (Leech & Culpepper 1997; Lindquist 2000, Mondorf 2003, 2009; Gonzalez-Diaz 2008 among others)

1. Phonological• Number of syllables, Word endings, Consonant cluster, …

2. Syntactic• Predicative vs. Attributive, With than complements, With relative

clause, Modifiers3. Lexical Frequency

11

Monofactorial Approach• Almost all previous studies investigated one variable at a time.

• When the researchers examine whether variable X affect the choice, many will try to control the other potential variables.

• Then the researcher would look at frequency distribution of Inflectional vs. Periphrastic form with respect to X.

12

Mondorf (2003: 263)262 Britta Mondorf

Thus, frequency is by no means one of the more salient factors. It appearsto be easily overridden by other determinants, such as the number of sylla-bles or the complexity of the syntactic environment. However, it is theo-retically possible that retrieving a rare adjective, e.g. apt, might in itself bea difficult process requiring more processing effort, so that once retrievalhas been accomplished, speakers seek to reduce the processing load byusing the easier-to-process more variant.

3.5. Eliminating attributive uses

The following quotation by Quirk et al. (1985: 420) suggests that the mostobvious factor that requires weeding out in the investigation of argumentcomplexity is position. “Adjectives with complementation normallycannot have attributive position but require postposition”. For this reasonattributives were entirely omitted from the count.

3. 6. The eflect ofto-infinitives

Figure 5 attests the effect of the presence of a to-infinitive on the choice ofthe analytic comparative form. Since comparatives can be either analytic orsynthetic, the synthetic percentages are identical to the missing segments ofthe columns. Thus, for apt which has 95% analytic comparatives (moreapt) when not followed by a to-infinitive, the remaining 5% must be syn-thetic (apter). For 9 out of the 12 monosyllabic adjectives investigated, theuse of the more-variant is higher when a to-infinitive immediately followsthe adjective. The three exceptions to the general pattern arefree, right andtrue. While no explanation for the deviant behaviours of free and true isoffered at this stage (but see section 3.7), the pattern for right appears to beattributable to this adjective’s special status in terms of gradability. Theadjective right has already received particular attention in the literature.Jespersen ([1909] 1956: 349) claimed that “right if compared at all wouldtake more and most”. Likewise, Quirk et al. (1985: 461) point out that rightexclusively takes the analytic form. Leech and Culpeper (1997: 356) ob-serve 9 analytic as opposed to 4 synthetic comparatives of right in theirdata. All authors attribute the predisposition towards periphrasis to seman-tic factors. With a ratio of 82% when no infinitive follows, the percentagefor more is always high, disregarding syntactic complexity. The deviantbehaviour of right is attributable to its limited gradability. If right is gradedat all, it requires more-support, no matter whether a to-infinitive furthercomplicates matters or not.

lO,:,% 205 3 8

:-:'\\‘ -1-:

80%70% ~:<;.\;:~:,\ _

alyticComparatives% l\J

517f?

P-—l3

"'~."-.

\D

1-:-\t"=-;‘ .-\‘~3.§5_1;§. .

60% . 6:Ei"_x\=$:<~1§.;'<>i<\'~" ' ' -* .\ .

I-3-:-'-:2‘ “ >¢.'-.._~_:-\-- .§¥-"1~'§J‘< " ‘ -1-~-:~-it} . ..\:?:I;'-;1;§- - 1.-:'~.\.b;._ _

30%20%10%l]|% f.;._/_.‘../_1,.»1:]1-2uaafai-z=f¢:<:/Z>.<:.:>.'/0,1‘/1.9/2/r//AI’;//2 fl 1; 5'44.’-.<‘T7'*'.'7:':>.‘,'-;.'~1:7 :5,-,-‘»1>.‘Z:,-:5-‘:~;':12: i<1;:-1‘;-f}:§1.'-}'§1i;.1":'}'§

1-I

40% i 1 1 -I, .

50% 1\ ..-"

.-.-;.\

=.‘:I=:-.3:~§'=. -. . < V - -‘-<lI§-.~§?~*=< i.~\,: . . :;.r-1:_<<: . . 111»-'~1-: ‘ * ~ ~ >.-"s;-as - - ;<.-*.r<;: .~\ :.: . . :~ 3-4‘---; ..‘<-:::.-5 r \ §.--qr-.\.~; - - §.\..:> . » Q-'L<‘.‘.‘-2';-I .‘ -:-: . . :=~‘-\.r:=-.:;; " >.'<‘$_~_::-»?r=.-= - -:=i=i1'=I=>.:‘ » . ¥.'<r1:-R: .1 ‘--‘=- $115-”‘=:\~ :<._."s¢.~-;. ‘ * -\¢<‘;~"=.: - - - $§_<ge:=_¢»:;;;-.:--~- _ _ ;--._'-<9 _ §I§._\§~'-'-Q ~ >:::‘.~: - \-,-=_:_.-zq _ . ~-.<.;.\:< \\--\\ . . I :..~.\.\c _ :1 \-_~_->,§§ __ _\ ;\,.x;\\q. _. : ;_§,~_§$‘;_§ _ |,_ I Rx:_

8* 8 g ‘H 3U O 4-1-1 keen proud

rare right sound

e

12

\$'E§>f'§$ ~

'~:-#

Supportfor more-support 263

\.§.\...

-5%?-,f$';'l555.':41-7:2’1:1-11111:’-f_>"-9-1%!-::¢-91:’-j'4.’.<3£:r;»¢:,'1;>17k‘///n///¢;1-15:,’

93$2»:--\.‘=‘<:=$;$?:<'-'$1-\"{T§_\'_~.\

: ._:§: -.\__<7}:>:P;$ 1

-:-:-\-.\\\'' . .

-;--~. \‘T~‘: - -;.-§.:<\§ . .:;\";3'.-:55‘: . .‘

._\_. .-_\\

\-- .\~\

. ._.-.;.;_;“

. 150 475::$-:-::-\ ‘ §;“>§E_‘ -

\2 \ \ \\\\\

% - to-infinitive E % + 10-infinitive

._.§_.§._--§._.».\1-,:->.;~.

~.;s. .~-;;_

\ SR5? ‘ "~ ~ ~ \\~§ § \\§-Q -._._~.9} \

_\;-.\ \~\\<§ ~

:P-_\\- .\~'; '‘-E-:.-D ‘" ~\\~ -313:.‘ -\-.\;~§ -\~.\~ .

=;_;.~. . <5

.\._.

‘QKR '.;.~. -~.\~-.~\ -‘. <\\‘Z“‘ 'E_'~_.) ‘\~.-4~-.~__ . \.§

\\< \ -_ V . ..~}:‘-_<?~;‘: . . =\\§~;~. _: ‘ ‘ 1-§~.\:#-:-1: - \ .." -~ _ :~-::~r-.~ - - "..~>.-:-:+ ._- .»-3: ' 1-“ . . t-:1-"xx ' ‘:‘\‘ - - . . :-.¥~§>;i= _ ‘ r:~:-:I\~:-\ ~ - \ .-.\-1 . . .::\\~.~.~; ‘ \ ‘ <\ ~§.\‘~"->1‘ ~- . _ _. -_, ‘;-> _, ~ - . ' ' =.=IY1?I§%I< " ‘ ‘ ~ lg-.?\"~‘"‘-: - . . i-~$-M5 _-- - ~ . . _ \-:~;-:-.* :1: ~ - - - =‘15:~=-R1-E ~ . ‘ =1:;‘~.<-'-2 ‘ - >.:":=~s~I~: ~ =-.‘<~¢-->.== -. . ~\.<;~;\.\ s ;.-;.__-:3... < - -;;.~._~._\\ . ~ . ,;_~;_~§ . 5 :;-.;._:;¥-; -.

- . , ~..~‘.1. ‘ ' ~ __:_‘;~~‘.‘ \\\\\"" 5x-'x\.-.'\ _., ~ ‘_ "\\-.-

\ H’.;.\.- :-\"1'$‘'.\<_

33:-:3‘.-1\‘: \ ‘.7.

N _ - ~ ?_5;;."'<.=§§ . . _ _ ‘ , - :~§~;E:§:‘§-IQ._ ,._\_.\.\ §;,x.,._:: kg ‘flu I.“

W. r ‘ *."'u" pm \ I0‘\ 4"!

-.\-.- \.1-.-.~-\-.1 -.

is ii\“\-

fln S5“-:=;r - .-\ "§§-51% .\ .I

SUI‘

._._\._.\.~I \: Q \~\ .\._x \sw-§\\.-:_;5.-x\.\:-§.~<;\'_-.§\‘S"§IE. _ _

r-\Q\~>.'\‘ \‘\\.\:_\ \-,

;.;-:\}\\-=:=>R§:\-;.q1~ -~.E1=s>’.-*-i\?:\\§=\<\:§l$'~'1r..‘\\ \\ -\

4//,>m'/">1//M/

U5S-1+-»

Figure 5. Analytic comparatives of monosyllabic adjectives in non-attributive position +/-to-infinitive in the extended corpus (N,1_,,,1y,,c = 1821)

Among the 12 disyllabic adjectives ending in <-y>, four adjectives <16-crease their use of more when a to-infinitive follows and one is indifferentto the presence of a to-infinitive. For this group the presence of absence ofa to-infinitive does not appear to exert any influence on the choice of thecomparative variant.

100% -VTJV -’° ss347" . -:‘-J% 7 5‘?-.3-:_<;!. .

\'v'v"\.":\\: \ .

mparatives% 21Q29\9

--70% — - -

§;;.=z.;= . .1% - .---.-\_-:; . . 2-:-:-:. .

9%—m§

rtitp-A-Q

(3c:JC‘)

LL .’-4/'_ff¢‘,f,f£<Z-Z,'_£4€_/A

////»;»;<,;‘:3’./>?.‘E-37:91:15?

// 1-,V-1-,.1E. //i

/

/

‘I

\~.-.\-‘_;__.;\ “ ':,<;:;‘.-.-::< - -:~::=.-:1: ~ ~

1% - 1 I-;~.-1'%— .it‘-3

Analytic I92-‘ '% ..

0 “ . ‘. * . - . -'5 1l 0 — ~ . N51§i‘I$‘T\‘?. ' . ‘ §§:§R‘.?‘§i. ‘ ‘ lg -~-.\'§\\\ \. _\..§\~" ' _\\_._‘;‘;;.§lb=\--\\: ‘ ' $.5{:~.*I\ - ~ $1-¢>._\, _-~.\~,~;_\\_\ . . -.\.,._\ ~ _. _ ,-\_,\-_ . _S:;§w=s$ - ~ - - '9.j 0 \\~.\~.\.-.\ ~ _\ ;\§;;.;._¢ ;. . ;\~\\§;‘¢\;§ R ;

ly y

81N: I‘I?Ixx: ‘I-I~\_\_..-.;.-._ - _

é“ 'F>'~i§ 0'09\\\<{\\l-Q1-‘#1:: "I C~l‘. I

§'§'@-0 0-.\\‘-:.\\\~ I;Q :l

- \

\\-. .-\

~-.|

.-"‘$5 171ta _ae

33473W 14

292913 48fir?"$5i;~;rr.<;¢ "Q Q"&*§¥$§§ ."!“;\Q:;_!_:§ - ':-:\.“-‘.\.\‘<\' Q ‘‘l~ 3'-'.'.'¢'.u I1$91i'~‘i-*1\\ - ~§ -r-:<=~\I:T=.S *,¢,¢,~E0 u-~01§:__‘_;:\_':{;: ‘U C

-'a“¢‘\.._. .' . ‘1'11":

\~:;'¢ I .|‘.‘|

I-I-.‘Ex; I n |§‘\I;;_ i ‘\ l..‘|

a I-I-.g _¢.E‘-=.»‘I¢1:‘€ u~ I 1\.7$iS$$\ i‘ -‘-$§:§:¥'$ u 01;\.'\“{\';$ :‘;§-

agi'11‘"KI-‘:\.I~I“‘-Q ~ 4-4 3.\.\.~\_5'-"I" 0%‘=3.-§s1§§'§~iQ.*IN.‘§

. I I

I//

§'a:9-w.um,.0_u\\\

\ 4.1.Pg‘-

\ < §¢'§\ 5'0‘\ . ' .1

Q U'0?l I5'1\.\_. .\ :¢‘O,

- .ax‘:-§$ i".=8-"C.am: 919.:

99 Q,1 ii i ii

*-‘.‘§~t 3"‘-=' ~ -*;‘1$§ U Q ‘ - " '\ “\i§r::"~:;:\ - ~

I

":1‘<‘ _ ’ _ ‘- \§'\=:§- - -

-~=-1-fix .11 ,

% - to-infinitive E % + to-infinitive

20-I:-T1‘-3‘l§3.=i!§<-.~'-?<=".<.*§§<\: ~:

§}_:\_.\\:?\:§~2§:i1~‘rl\\"\'§§¥{=*§%3Ne-." Y.\‘-I~>l\~\\‘

..._.s\

:::31§\§\I\\

1

cost cos crazy handy hungry lucky ready risky sexy sillytrendy tricky

148

\.:\‘- \

um;Q90;flu.-5~=\‘-\\§ ‘I ' I~\v=.r\= -‘i ~

\\.$;:,_\k\\‘-\\§ \ -

Figure 6. Analytic comparatives of disyllabic adjectives ending in <-y> in non-attributiveposition +/- to-infinitive in the extended corpus (1\I,i_,,,,,,,;,, = 1684)

Her observation is that monosyllabic adjectives in the non-attributive position are more likely to acquire periphrastic comparatives when they are followed by to-infinitives.

13

Leech & Culpeper (1997: 370) 370 Geoffrey Leech and Jonathan Culpeper

Table 13. Frequency of inflectional and periphrastic superlatives: 'emphatic' adjectives and adjectives followed by of + Noun Phrase.

I Inflectional I Periphrastic I Totals I

SYNTACTIC FUNCTION I I I I I I

Superlative premodifying in 182 61.7% 113 38.3% 295 NP - .* Superlative + of + NP 30 76.9% 9 23.1% 39 Other 22 55% 18 45% 40

SEMANTIC FUNCTION I I I 'Emphatic' superlative 81 78.6% 22 21.4% 103 Other 153 56.5% 118 43.5% 27 1

TOTAL IN SAMPLE 234 140

4. Conclusion

It is clear that there is more detailed research to be done on both the ques- tions addressed by this paper:

(a) What factors determine the ability of an English adjective to take in- flectional and/or periphrastic comparison? A large corpus such as the BNC provides an unprecedented source of quantitative data to test earlier hypotheses regarding this question, but our conclusions remain tentative, and there is plenty more data in the BNC we have not investigated. Tentative conclusions of the present study are:

Monosyllabic adjectives are highly likely to take inflectional compari- son; adjectives with three or more syllables are highly likely to take periphrastic comparison. Contrary to the generalisations above: real and like are examples of monosyllabic adjectives which tend to take periphrastic comparison, and 2) trisyllabic adjectives with the un- prefix (particularly unhappier) are attested with inflectional comparison. Disyllabic adjectives ending in -1y may be shifting towards periphrastic comparison over time.

The comparison of adjectives in recent British English 371

Whether or not a disyllabic adjective is stressed on the final syllable is not a watertight indicator of comparative type. A number of disyllabic adjectives with final stress tend to take periphrastic comparison, par- ticularly if they are loanwords and highly marked as such. A number of disyllabic adjectives (e.g. common, remote, likely, severe) which have been thought to vacillate between inflectional or periphrastic comparison, or even to be predisposed towards inflectional comparison, are strongly attested with periphrastic comparison. This may hint at a shift towards periphrastic comparison.

(b) What factors determine the preference of one form rather than another in actual usage? Here again, there is much work to be done. Tentative con- clusions are:

@ Inflectional comparatives are more likely to have an attributive function, and periphrastic comparatives a predicative function. Periphrastic comparatives are more likely to be modified by degree adverbs than are inflectional comparatives. Preserving parallelism in coordination is a factor which influences the choice between inflectional and periphrastic comparatives. Inflectional superlatives are more strongly associated with the 'em- phatic' use of the superlative than are periphrastic forms.

Quantitative evidence is still lacking for the definitive investigation of dia- chronic trends in the use of the two forms of comparison. Existing corpora need to be investigated further both regarding the choice of comparison with individual words and word types, and the extent to which medium and text type influence the choice (an important area of investigation we have omitted).l4 Nevertheless, this study has at least indicated interesting direc- tions in which future research can profitably go.

Notes

1. The exact figures are Written: 89,74094, and Spoken: 10,365,464;Total: 100,106,008. 2. The exact figure for the LOB (tagged version) is 1,013, 737. At the time of concor-

dancing, the only available version of the core written BNC represented 90.4% of the whole core written BNC and consisted of some 920,650 words. The missing 9.6% was spread evenly over the various text-types.

370 Geoffrey Leech and Jonathan Culpeper

Table 13. Frequency of inflectional and periphrastic superlatives: ‘emphatic’ adjectivesand adjectives followed by of+ Noun Phrase.

- _ 1- _ - Itlflsstisnal __ .!?@riPhtaSti2.. 1._Tsia1SSYNTACTIC FUNCTION 1 1Superlative premodifyingin 1s2 61.7% ‘ 113 3s.3% ‘ 295NP inn _ .Superlativp -I-of+pNP _ A _30: 76.9_%p _ W 2* _ 23.1% 39Other ’ 3; 55%, T _1s 415%, _ 40

SEMANTIC FUNCTION 1

‘Emphatig’ superlative fig 81 78.6% 21.4% 103Other 5 153 56.5% 11s 43.5% 1 2"/1

TOTAL IN SAMPLE 234 140

4. Conclusion L

It is clear that there is more detailed research to be done on both the ques-tions addressed by this paper:

(a) What factors determine the ability of an English adjective to take in-flectional and/or periphrastic comparison? A large corpus such as the BNCprovides an unprecedented source of quantitative data to test earlierhypotheses regarding this question, but our conclusions remain tentative,and there is plenty more data in the BNC We have not investigated.Tentative conclusions of the present study are:

0 Monosyllabic adjectives are highly likely to take inflectional compari-son; adjectives with three or more syllables are highly likely to takeperiphrastic comparison.

1' Contrary to the generalisations above: 1-) real and like are examples ofmonosyllabic adjectives which tend to take periphrastic comparison, and2) trisyllabic adjectives with the tm- prefix (particularly unhappier) areattested with inflectional comparison.

Q Disyllabic adjectives ending in -ly may be shifting towards periphrasticcomparison over time.

The comparison of adjectives in recent British English 371

0 Vllhether or not a disyllabic adjective is stressed on the final syllable isnot a watertight indicator of comparative type. A number of disyllabicadjectives with final stress tend to take periphrastic comparison, par-ticularly if they are loanwords and highly marked as such.

0 A number of disyllabic adjectives (e.g. common, remote, likely, severe)which have been thought to vacillate between inflectional or periphrasticcomparison, or even to be predisposed towards inflectional comparison,are strongly attested with periphrastic comparison. This may hint at ashift towards periphrastic comparison.

(b) What factors determine the preference of one form rather than anotherin actual usage? Here again, there is much work to be done. Tentative con-clusions are:

v Inflectional comparatives are more likely to have an attributive function,and periphrastic comparatives a predicative function.

v Periphrastic comparatives are more likely to be modified by degreeadverbs than are inflectional comparatives.

Q Preserving parallelism in coordination is a factor which influences thechoice between inflectional and periphrastic comparatives.

0 Inflectional superlatives are more strongly associated with the ‘em-phatic’ use of the superlative than are periphrastic forms.

Quantitative evidence is still lacking for the definitive investigation of dia-chronic trends in the use of the two forms of comparison. Existing corporaneed to be investigated further both regarding the choice of comparisonwith individual words and word types, and the extent to which medium andtext type influence the choice (an important area of investigation We haveomitted). 14 Nevertheless, this study has at least indicated interesting direc-tions in which future research can profitably go.

Notes V

1. The exact figures areWritten: 89,740,544, and Spoken: l0,365,464;Total: 100,106,008.The exact figure for the LOB (tagged version) is 1,013, 737. At the time of concor-dancing, the only available version of the core written BNC represented 90.4% of thewhole core written BNC and consisted of some 920,650 words. The missing 9.6%was spread evenly over the various text-types.

370 Geoffrey Leech and Jonathan Culpeper

Table 13. Frequency of inflectional and periphrastic superlatives: ‘emphatic’ adjectivesand adjectives followed by of+ Noun Phrase.

- _ 1- _ - Itlflsstisnal __ .!?@riPhtaSti2.. 1._Tsia1SSYNTACTIC FUNCTION 1 1Superlative premodifyingin 1s2 61.7% ‘ 113 3s.3% ‘ 295NP inn _ .Superlativp -I-of+pNP _ A _30: 76.9_%p _ W 2* _ 23.1% 39Other ’ 3; 55%, T _1s 415%, _ 40

SEMANTIC FUNCTION 1

‘Emphatig’ superlative fig 81 78.6% 21.4% 103Other 5 153 56.5% 11s 43.5% 1 2"/1

TOTAL IN SAMPLE 234 140

4. Conclusion L

It is clear that there is more detailed research to be done on both the ques-tions addressed by this paper:

(a) What factors determine the ability of an English adjective to take in-flectional and/or periphrastic comparison? A large corpus such as the BNCprovides an unprecedented source of quantitative data to test earlierhypotheses regarding this question, but our conclusions remain tentative,and there is plenty more data in the BNC We have not investigated.Tentative conclusions of the present study are:

0 Monosyllabic adjectives are highly likely to take inflectional compari-son; adjectives with three or more syllables are highly likely to takeperiphrastic comparison.

1' Contrary to the generalisations above: 1-) real and like are examples ofmonosyllabic adjectives which tend to take periphrastic comparison, and2) trisyllabic adjectives with the tm- prefix (particularly unhappier) areattested with inflectional comparison.

Q Disyllabic adjectives ending in -ly may be shifting towards periphrasticcomparison over time.

The comparison of adjectives in recent British English 371

0 Vllhether or not a disyllabic adjective is stressed on the final syllable isnot a watertight indicator of comparative type. A number of disyllabicadjectives with final stress tend to take periphrastic comparison, par-ticularly if they are loanwords and highly marked as such.

0 A number of disyllabic adjectives (e.g. common, remote, likely, severe)which have been thought to vacillate between inflectional or periphrasticcomparison, or even to be predisposed towards inflectional comparison,are strongly attested with periphrastic comparison. This may hint at ashift towards periphrastic comparison.

(b) What factors determine the preference of one form rather than anotherin actual usage? Here again, there is much work to be done. Tentative con-clusions are:

v Inflectional comparatives are more likely to have an attributive function,and periphrastic comparatives a predicative function.

v Periphrastic comparatives are more likely to be modified by degreeadverbs than are inflectional comparatives.

Q Preserving parallelism in coordination is a factor which influences thechoice between inflectional and periphrastic comparatives.

0 Inflectional superlatives are more strongly associated with the ‘em-phatic’ use of the superlative than are periphrastic forms.

Quantitative evidence is still lacking for the definitive investigation of dia-chronic trends in the use of the two forms of comparison. Existing corporaneed to be investigated further both regarding the choice of comparisonwith individual words and word types, and the extent to which medium andtext type influence the choice (an important area of investigation We haveomitted). 14 Nevertheless, this study has at least indicated interesting direc-tions in which future research can profitably go.

Notes V

1. The exact figures areWritten: 89,740,544, and Spoken: l0,365,464;Total: 100,106,008.The exact figure for the LOB (tagged version) is 1,013, 737. At the time of concor-dancing, the only available version of the core written BNC represented 90.4% of thewhole core written BNC and consisted of some 920,650 words. The missing 9.6%was spread evenly over the various text-types.

14

DescriptionSource Tendency

Category Variable

Phonological

Syllable number 1 Quirk et al. (1985) inflectionalSyllable number >1 Quirk et al. (1985) periphrasticFinal /i/ Kyto & Romaine (1997) inflectionalFinal /l/ Kyto & Romaine (1997) inflectionalFinal /r/ Mondorf (2003) periphrasticFinal /li/ Lindquist (1998) periphrasticFinal consonant cluster Mondorf (2003) periphrasticFinal stress Leech & Culpeper (1997) periphrasticInitial stress of right collocate Mondorf (2003) inflectionalNumber of morphemes Mondorf (2003) periphrastic

Syntactic

Coordination John M Carroll & Hennessey (1975)

Attributive Leech & Culpeper (1997)Claridge (2007) inflectional

Predicative Leech & Culpeper (1997)Claridge (2007) periphrastic

to-infinitive complementationMondorf (2003)Claridge (2007)Gonzalez-Diaz (2008)

periphrastic

A following than (comparative set) Lindquist (1998)Gonzalez-Diaz (2008) periphrastic

Relative Clause Claridge (2007) periphrasticPremodification Lindquist (1998) periphrastic

LexicalPositive frequency Quirk et al. (1985) inflectionalComparative/positive ratio Mondorf (2003) inflectional

15

Problems of monofactorial approach1. Suppose we know that 5 variables can affect

the I/P variation and we want to study the 6th variable. It is quite impossible to control all 5 variables at the same time.

2. Even if we put aside variable control issue aside, the monofactorial approach cannot really compare the relative strength (or importance) of variables.

16

(B) Relative Importance of Factors

• “…it would be desirable to know not only whether a given

factor has a tangible effect, but also how it compares in

strength to other factors…” (Hilpert 2008)

• Hilpert (2008) conducted a Logistic Regression analysis

that allows him to compare the relative strength of the

variables.

• Phonological > Syntactic | Lexical Frequency

17

Variables for the comparative alternation (Hilpert 2008)

18

Research Gaps• Our study can be seen as an extension of Hilpert’s (2008).• Several research gaps are identified:• Comparatives1. Reservation about the limited impact of lexical

frequency reported in Hilpert (2008).2. Variables reported in the literature but not considered in

Hilpert (2008)• Superlatives3. Previous I/P alternation research focuses mostly on

comparatives; little has been said about superlatives.

19

3. METHODOLOGY

Data preparation

Identification of variables

Logistic regression analysis

20

Data preparation1. Corpus: British National Corpus (BNC)

1. Search for all inflectional and periphrastic uses of comparatives and superlatives in BNC

• “_AJC” / “_AJS” ßBNC tags• “more *_AJ0” / “most *_AJ0”

2. (i) Identify only adjectives that show I/P variation in BNC, and (ii) extract all their comparative and superlative examples

3. Remove irrelevant cases• Determinative use of “more” and “most”• Mis-tagged cases

21

Data UsedSteps Comparatives Superlatives

Search “_AJC” / “_AJS” And “more *_AJ0” / “most *_AJ0” 324,005 141,641

Examples of I/P variation 191,251 17,468

Sampling20,000

(from ~10% of BNC)

17,468 (No Sampling)

(Removal of) irrelevant cases and mistagged cases -6,076 -786

Data actually used 13,924 10,382Inflectional vs. Periphrastic 95 : 5 81 : 19No. of adjective types involved 112 174# of Syllable (1 vs. 2 vs. 3) 89.7 / 10.3 / 0.0% 53.4 / 44.3 / 2.3%

23

Logistic Regression

• Logistic Regression

1. a statistical method that allows us to study how an outcome categorical variable (i.e. I vs. P) is

determined by a range of predictor variables (continuous or categorical)

2. the statistical model determines the relative weight

(importance) of the variables in the choice

• Strengths

1. Quantification of “importance”

2. Simultaneous consideration of variables of very

different nature, e.g. phonological, syntactic, lexical

frequency, …

• LR is also used in Hilpert (2008)

28

Variables Used (Comparatives)Phonological Syntactic Lexical1. Syllable number 1. With to infinitive

complement1. Comparative Frequency

2. Consonant cluster 2. With than complement3. Word ending -l/-ly 3. With relative clause*4. Word ending -le/-er 4. Pred. vs. Attrib5. Word ending –y* 5. Determiner types*6. Initial stress of right collocate7. Haplology*

29

N.B. Variables marked with * are those not covered by Hilpert (2008).

Variables Used (Superlatives)

30

Phonological Syntactic Lexical1. Syllable number 1. With to infinitive

complement1. Superlative Frequency

2. Consonant cluster 2. With relative clause3. Word ending -l/-ly 3. Postmodifier4. Word ending -le/-er 4. Pred. vs. Attrib5. Word ending -y 5. Determiner types6. Word ending -ful7. Initial stress of right collocate8. Haplology

• Consonant cluster• If <-pt, -kt,-ct> occur at the end of an adjective, to avoid the

difficulty of pronunciation, people tend to use periphrastic form in superlatives. (Mondorf, 2009)

• “strict, prompt, apt, kempt rapt correct, corrupt erect, intact, abject, abrupt, adept”, etc.

• Initial stress of right collocate• The -er suffix can function as a buffer between two adjacent

stressed syllables (e.g. a prouder candidate), so as to make the construction adhere to the principle of rhythmic alternation… , whereas “a more proud candidate” produces a sequence of three primary stresses. (Mondorf 2003)

• Haplology (Mondorf 2009)• Adjectives ending in ⟨-r, re⟩ tend towards the periphrastic

comparative to avoid /-rər/ sequences. • Adjectives ending in ⟨-st⟩ tend towards the periphrastic superlative

to avoid /-stIst, -stəst/ sequences.

31

Choice:Infl. vs. Perip.

Var 1 Var 2 Var 3 Var 4 Var 5

32

Choice:Infl. vs. Perip.

Var 1

Var 2 Var 3Var 4 Var 5

33

Results• Four sets of results1. Comparatives

• Replicating Hilpert (2008)• Variables not covered by Hilpert (2008)• Frequency variable

1. Superlatives

34

1. Replicating Results in Hilpert (2008)

We largely replicated Hilpert’s results on (i) the significance and (ii) the relative strengths of the variables. Our dataset and methodology are comparable with Hilpert (2008).

Variables B Sig. Exp(B)1 Syllablenumber1 -8.064 .000 .0002 Syllablenumber2 -2.180 .011 .1133 Consonantcluster 2.394 .000 10.9564 Initialstressofrightcollocate 3.116 .000 22.5525 Wordending-l/-ly 4.391 .000 80.7476 Wordending–le/-er .656 .003 1.9277 Withto infinitive complement -.748 .000 .4738 Predicativevs.attributive -.717 .000 .4889 With than clause -.659 .090 .51810 Base formfrequency .000 .000 1.000

35

2. Variables not covered by Hilpert (2008)

1. Word ending –y (Leech & Culpepper 1997; Mondorf2009)

2. Haplology (Mondorf 2009)• Adjectives ending in ⟨-r, re⟩ tend towards the periphrastic

comparative to avoid /-rər/ sequences. • Adjectives ending in ⟨-st⟩ tend towards the periphrastic superlative

to avoid /-stIst, -stəst/ sequences.

3. Relative clause (Claridge 2007)4. Determiner Types (Claridge 2007)

• the, this, no determiner

37

2. More Variables for Comparatives

Variables B Sig. Exp (B)

1 Wordending –y(Leech&Culpepper1997;Mondorf 2009) -1.472 0.000 0.230

2 Haplology (Mondorf 2009) 0.396 0.332 1.4853 Relativeclause(Claridge 2007) -15.883 0.999 0.0004 Determiner types(Claridge 2007) 0.000

Determinerthe (1) 1.451 0.000 4.266Otherdeterminers(2) 0.978 0.102 2.658

Nodeterminer(3) 1.022 0.098 2.779

#1 and #4 are significant.

38

3. Impact of Lexical Frequency• Hilpert (2008): Lexical frequency is a significant factor but

the impact is limited. But syntactic and frequency variables are comparable.

Variables B Sig. Exp(B)1 Syllablenumber1 -8.064 .000 .0002 Syllablenumber2 -2.180 .011 .1133 Consonantcluster 2.394 .000 10.9564 Initialstressofrightcollocate 3.116 .000 22.5525 Wordending-l/-ly 4.391 .000 80.7476 Wordending–le/-er .656 .003 1.9277 Withto infinitive complement -.748 .000 .4738 Predicativevs.attributive -.717 .000 .4889 With than clause -.659 .090 .51810 Base formfrequency .000 .000 1.000

39

3. Impact of Lexical Frequency• “With continuous variables, odds ratios are to be

interpreted in a slightly different way, which prohibits easy comparisons to the odds ratios of categorical variables.” (Hilpert 2008: 408)

• Worsen by the large variation of frequency [continuous value ranging from 49 for choosy to 148,357 for new].

40

3. Impact of Lexical Frequency• Instead, we classify frequency of comparatives into 6

groups according to frequency. • i.e. continuous variable à categorical variable

• The tweak allows use to compare the frequency variable more directly with other categorical variables.

• Help us understand the impact of lexical frequency better.

41

Hilpert (2008) with Frequency GroupsVariables B Sig. Exp (B)

1 Syllablenumber1 -5.382 0.000 0.0052 Syllablenumber2 -0.162 0.853 0.8503 Consonantcluster 1.802 0.001 6.0644 Initialstressofrightcollocate 1.673 0.000 5.3305 Wordending–l/-ly 3.907 0.000 49.7366 Wordending–le/-er -0.591 0.029 0.5547 Withto infinitivecomplement -0.725 0.001 0.4848 Predicative vs.attributive -0.840 0.000 0.4329 Withthan clause -0.975 0.025 0.37710 ComparativeFrequencyGroup 0.000

C.Freq.Group(1) 3.630 0.000 37.701C.Freq.Group(2) 3.469 0.000 32.110C.Freq.Group(3) 2.657 0.000 14.256C.Freq.Group(4) 0.303 0.484 1.354C.Freq.Group(5) 1.088 0.022 2.967C.Freq.Group(6) -0.155 0.703 0.856

43

B-value: -ve à inflectional -ve à periphrastic

Low frequency adjectives are more likely to be rendered periphrastically. Its strength

is rather strong.

4. Superlatives (1)PhonologicalVariables B Sig. Exp(B)

1 Syllablenumber1 -8.484 .000 .0002 Syllablenumber2 -3.977 .000 .0193 Syllablenumber3 -1.832 .004 .1604 Consonantcluster 6.154 .000 470.5255 Initialstressofrightcollocate .153 .423 1.1656 Wordending–l/-ly 1.342 .000 3.8257 Wordending–le/-er -2.102 .000 .1228 Wordending-ful -2.052 .168 .1299 Wordending-y -2.252 .000 .10510 Haplology -.781 .000 .458

44

4. Superlatives (2)SyntacticVariables B Sig. Exp(B)

13 Withcomplement -.266 .002 .76714 Attributivevs.Predicative -.700 .001 .49715 Withcomparisonset .032 .803 1.03316 Relativeclause -.148 .566 .86217 Withdeterminer the -.060 .529 .94218 Postmodifiers .264 .435 1.303

LexicalFrequency B Sig. Exp(B)19 SuperlativeFrequencyGroup .000

SFreq Group (1) 5.667 .000 289.118SFreq Group (2) 5.487 .000 241.604SFreq Group (3) 4.284 .000 72.556SFreq Group (4) 3.795 .000 44.470SFreq Group (5) 2.956 .000 19.224SFreq Group (6) 5.430 .000 228.213

45

Conclusion I -- Variables SharedVariables Comparatives Superlatives

1 Syllablenumber ✓ ✓2 Consonantcluster ✓ ✓3 Initialstressofrightcollocate ✓ ✗4 Wordending–l/-ly ✓ ✓5 Wordending–le/-er ✓ ✓6 Wordending-y ✓ ✓7 Haplology ✗ ✓8 Withcomplement ✓ ✓9 Attributivevs.Predicative ✓ ✓10 Withdeterminer ✓ ✗11 FrequencyGroup ✓ ✓

46

The variables in yellow are the important variables that determines the I/P variation of both comparatives and superlatives.

Conclusion I -- Variables

• Variables that are insignificant to superlatives• >> -ful, Withcomparisonset,Postmodifiers

47

Conclusion II – Relative Strengths

Comparatives:• Phonological | Lex. Frequency > Syntactic

Superlatives:• Phonological | Lex. Frequency >> Syntactic

48

References1. Claridge, Claudia. (2007). The superlative in spoken English. Language and Computers

62: 128–167.

2. Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The English comparative - language structure and language use. English Language and Linguistics 12(3): 395–417.

3. 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 TerttuNevalainen and Leena Kahlas-Tarkka. (eds.) To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language. pp. 329-52. Helsinki: Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.

4. Leech, Geoffrey N. and Jonathan Culpeper. (1997) The comparison of adjectives in recent British English. In To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Mémoires de la Société néophilologique de Helsinki (52). Memoires de la Societe Neophilologique de Helsinki, Helsinki, pp. 353-373.

5. Lindquist, H. (2000) Livelier or more lively?: Syntactic and contextual factors influencingthe comparison of disyllabic adjectives. In John Kirk. (ed.) Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English, p. 125—132. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

6. Mondorf, Britta. (2003) Support for More-Support. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.) Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 251-304. (Topics in English Linguistics 43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

49

50

51