1. The English comparative: Phonology and Usage Martin Hilpert, ICSI Berkeley / Rice University, hilpert@icsi.berkeley.edu 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: easy99.2% morphological cheesy69.5% morphological queasy4.9% morphological 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, 125–32. 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. factors on the word-level length, characteristics of the final segment VARIABLESOURCETENDENCY # of syllablesQuirk et al. (1985)periphrastic # of morphemesMondorf (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-clusterMondorf (2003)periphrastic final stressLeech and Culpeper (1997)periphrastic 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. what’s 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? factors beyond the word level VARIABLESOURCETENDENCY to-inf complementMondorf (2003) periphrastic attributive useLeech and Culpeper (1997)morphological predicative useLeech and Culpeper (1997)periphrastic premodificationLindquist (2000)periphrastic weak gradabilityMondorf (2003)periphrastic positive frequencyBraun (1982)morphological How can we determine the relative strength of each factor? 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 R 2 of.341: INCLUDED VARIABLESEXCLUDED VARIABLES BetatSigBetatSig # syl.87612.738.000# mor-.015-.378.706 final /i/-.437-6.844.000final /r/.022.715.475 CP-ratio-.176-5.801.000final /l/.0561.663.097 final /li/.1193.836.000 fin stress.3143.663.000 fin clust.1133.017.003 posfr-.094-2.97.003 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. ADJMORPH PERIPHRRATIOLOG (10) able1,19927,414.0437-1.36 bright273,6987,19838.0241.58 correct5428,864.0018-2.73 great10,100,44310,099100.143.00 But what about those syntactic factors? 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. 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: ADJECTIVEATTRPREDTOPREMOD ready0,150,010,680.09 spicy0,780,110,000.14 untidy0,000,250,000.18 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 R 2 of.509: INCLUDED VARIABLESEXCLUDED VARIABLES BetatSigBetatSig # syl.96910.572.000fin /i/-.003-.029.977 CP-ratio-. 392-9.122.000premod.010.237.813 fin stress.5505.942.000pred.021.497.620 to-inf.1132.626.009attr-.055-1.212.226 fin clust.1122.511.013 # mor.0821.387.167 final /l/.1092.480.014fin /li/.0661.454.147 fin /r/.0851.937.054 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. conclusion Both structural phonological factors and factors of language use govern the alternation – but much variance still needs to be explained.