COMPARATIVE FORMATION IN MONOSYLLABIC ADJECTIVES

Узданица XXII-III (2025) (стр. 107-118)

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S):Jelena M. Josijević Mitić Ivana B. Palibrk

Download Full Pdf   

DOI: 10.46793/Uzdanica22.3.107JM

САЖЕТАК / ABSTRACT:

The system of comparative and superlative formation in English relies on both synthetic (i.e., inflectional) and analytic (i.e., periphrastic) means. Numerous studies have analyzed how a wide repertoire of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors impacts the choice of a comparison strategy (e.g. Leech, Culpeper 1997; Lindquist 2000; Mondorf 2009; GonzalezDiaz 2009). However, with a few exceptions, they focus solely on disyllabic adjectives that manifest more diversity in terms of the preferred comparison strategy. Since monosyllabic adjectives are considered more stable, they have been rarely subjected to such studies (e.g. Smeds 2007). This paper aims to revisit comparative formation strategies in monosyllabic adjectives and does so by analyzing the prevalence of both comparison strategies in 192 different lexemes. Drawing on techniques familiar from quantitative morphological typology (Greenberg 1960; Szmrecsanyi 2012, 2016), the analysis uses syntheticity and analyticity indices as the main indicators of frequency of both free (more) and bound (-er) comparative morphemes. The quantitative data are retrieved from the Corpus of Contemporary American English. The results will demonstrate that monosyllabic adjectives are not a uniform class. The attributed feature of being inclined toward synthetic comparison does not apply to all members of this class, or at least not to the expected level.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS:

synthetic comparison, analytic comparison, disyllabic adjectives, American English.

ПРОЈЕКАТ / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

ЛИТЕРАТУРА / REFERENCES:

  • Bauer, L., Lieber, R., Plag, I. (2015). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cheung, L., Zhang L. (2016). Determinants of the synthetic-analytic variation across English comparatives and superlatives. English Language and Linguistics, 20(3), 559–583.
  • Downing, A., Locke, P. (2006). English Grammar: University Course. London, New York: Routledge.
  • Eastwood, J. (2002). Oxford Guide to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Gonzalez-Diaz, V. (2009). English Adjective Comparison: A Historical Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Greenberg, J. H. (1960). A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. International Journal of American Linguistics, 26(3), 178–194.
  • Hilpert, M. (2008). The English comparative – language structure and language use. English Language and Linguistics, 12, 395–417.
  • Josijević, J. (2023). Comparative formation in disyllabic adjectives ending in /ɪ/. Philologia Mediana, 15, 399–411.
  • Kytö, M., Romaine, S. (1970). Competing forms of adjective comparison in modern English: What could be more quicker and easier and more effective?. In: T. Nevalainen, L. Kahlas-Karkka (Eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Mattie Rissanen. Helsinki: Societe Neophilologique, 329–352.
  • Leech, G., Culpeper, J. (1997). The comparison of adjectives in recent British
  • English. In: T. Nevalainen, L. Kahlas-Karkka (Eds.), To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Mattie Rissanen. Amstard: Rodopi, 125–132.
  • Lindquist, H. (2000). Livelier or more lively? Synthactic and contextual factors influencing the comparison of disyllabic adjectives. In: J. Kirk (Ed.), Corpora Galore: Analysis and Techniques in Exploring English. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 125–132.
  • Mondorf, B. (2003). Support for More-Support. In: G. Rohdenburg, B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Topics in English Linguistics.
  • Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 251–304.
  • Mondorf, B. (2006). Rewriting English grammar books: Factors constraining the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. In: C. Houswitschka, G. Knappe, A. Müller (Eds.), Proceedings of the Anglistentag. Bamberg: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 587–607.
  • Mondorf, B. (2009). More support for More-Support. The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms (Studies in Language Variation). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Mondorf, B. (2014). (Apparently) competing motivations in morphosyntactic variation. In: B. Macwhinney, A. Malchukov, E. Moravicsik (Eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 209–228.
  • Park, H., Jeon, M. (2011). A corpus-based analysis of inflectional and periphrastic comparatives in English disyllabic adjectives. English Language Teaching, 23(1), 169–181.
  • Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
  • Scrivner, O. (2010). The white is more firm and the yolk is rounder: comparative variation in American English. Proceedings of New Ways of Analysing Variation (NWAV), 39.
  • Smeds, F. (2007). Adjective Comparison in Contemporary British English: A Corpus Study of More than One Hundred Adjectives. Karlstads: Estetisk-filosofiska fakulteten, Karlstads universitet.
  • Szmrecsanyi, B. (2012). Analyticity and Syntheticity in the History of English. In: T. Nevalainen, E. Closs (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. New York: Oxford University Press, 654–665.
  • Szmrecsanyi, B. (2016). Аn Analytic-Synthetic Spiral in the History of English. In:
  • E. Van Gelderen (Ed.), Cyclical Change Continued. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 93–112.
  • Zandvoort, R. W., Van Ek, J. A. (1975). A Handbook of English Grammar. London: The English Language Book Society.