English Adjective Comparison: A Historical Perspective (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Volume 299)

English Adjective Comparison AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E.F.K. ...

Author: Victorina Gonzalez-Diaz

81 downloads 1184 Views 2MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

English Adjective Comparison

AMSTERDAM STUDIES IN THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF LINGUISTIC SCIENCE General Editor E.F.K. KOERNER (Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung, Berlin) Series IV – CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY Advisory Editorial Board Lyle Campbell (Salt Lake City) Sheila Embleton (Toronto) Elly van Gelderen (Tempe, Ariz.) Brian D. Joseph (Columbus, Ohio) John E. Joseph (Edinburgh) Manfred Krifka (Berlin) Martin Maiden (Oxford) E. Wyn Roberts (Vancouver, B.C.) Joseph C. Salmons (Madison, Wis.)

Volume 299

Victorina González-Díaz English Adjective Comparison A historical perspective

English Adjective Comparison A historical perspective

Victorina González-Díaz University of Liverpool

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

4-

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data González-Diaz, Victorina. English adjective comparison : a historical perspective / Victorina González-Diaz. p. cm. -- (Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Series IV, Current issues in linguistic theory, ISSN 0304-0763 ; v. 299) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. English language--Adjective. 2. English language--Comparison. I. Title. PE1241.G66 2008 425'.5--dc22 2008023398 ISBN 978 90 272 4815 2 (Hb; alk. paper) © 2008 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 36224 • 1020 ME Amsterdam • The Netherlands John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:13/05/2008; 8:16

F: CI299DE.tex / p.1 (v)

Ángeles, Ramón, Jaime Va por ustedes

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:27

F: CI299CO.tex / p.1 (vii)

Table of contents

Acknowledgements Abbreviations chapter 1 Introduction 1. Three ‘strands’ in the study of English adjective comparison 1 1.1 Standard grammars of English 1 1.2 Formal approaches to adjective comparison 2 1.3 Corpus linguistics and adjective comparison 3 2. Adjective comparison: A synchronic and diachronic account 6 2.1 Theoretical stance 7 2.2 Methodology 9 3. Organisation of the book 12 chapter 2 The origin of English periphrastic comparatives 1. Introduction 15 2. The origin of periphrastic comparatives: A corpus-based study 18 2.1 Analysis of the data 18 2.2 The ambiguity of past participles in Old English 22 2.2.1 Coordination 24 2.2.2 The use of modifiers 25 2.2.3 Latin passive constructions 27 2.2.4 Conclusion 27 2.3 The development of adjectival periphrastic comparison 28 3. The evolution of the periphrastic comparative marker(s) 30 3.1 Introduction 30 3.1.1 Bet 31 3.1.2 Swiþor 32 3.1.3 Ma 33 3.1.4 Conclusion 34

xiii xv

1

15

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:27

F: CI299CO.tex / p.2 (viii)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

4. Latin influence on OE periphrastic comparatives 35 4.1 English periphrastic comparatives: A Latin borrowing? 35 4.2 The Latin comparative system: Some introductory remarks 36 4.3 Analysis of the data 37 4.3.1 The Latin original examples and their English translation 37 4.3.2 Conclusion 41 5. Periphrastic comparison and contact-induced grammatical change 42 6. Motivation for the rise of English periphrastic comparatives 47 7. Concluding remarks 49 chapter 3 French influence and the spread of periphrastic comparatives in English 1. Introduction: French vs. English in medieval times 51 2. Middle English: A creole? 53 3. Linguistic studies on the influence of French on English 56 4. French influence on adjective comparison 58 5. Analysis 61 5.1 Corpus analysis 61 5.2 Individual author’s analysis 65 5.2.1 Ancrene Wisse 65 5.2.2 Malory’s Le Morte Darthur 67 5.2.3 Conclusion 69 5.3 Comparison in a translated text: Dan Michell’s Ayenbite of Inwyt 70 6. Concluding remarks 71 chapter 4 Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in EMode and LMode 1. Introduction 75 2. Adjective comparison: Previous literature 76 3. The data 78 4. Syntactic factors conditioning the choice of comparison 80 4.1 The position of the adjective 80 4.2 Presence of a second term of comparison 83 4.3 Presence of adverbial premodifiers 85 4.4 Presence of complements 86 4.4.1 Infinitival and prepositional complements 87 4.5 Conclusion 88

51

75

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:27

F: CI299CO.tex / p.3 (ix)

Table of contents

5. Inflectional vs. periphrastic comparatives: A semantic-pragmatic analysis 89 5.1 Previous literature on the topic 89 5.2 Frequency 90 5.3 Coordination 91 5.4 The position of the adjective: A semantic interpretation 93 5.4.1 Attribution and predication in positive adjectives 93 5.4.2 Attribution and predication in comparative adjectives: Some theoretical remarks 95 5.5 Establishment in discourse 97 6. The influence of adverbial intensifiers on comparatives 99 6.1 Much 100 6.2 Far 101 6.3 Conclusion 102 7. Determinants of adjective comparison: Variable rule analysis 103 8. Concluding remarks 106 chapter 5 Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in Present-day English 1. Introduction 109 2. The data 109 3. Syntactic and semantic factors conditioning the choice of comparison 110 3.1 The position of the adjective 110 3.2 Presence of a second term of comparison 111 3.3 Presence of adverbial premodifiers 111 3.4 Presence of complements 112 3.5 Establishment in discourse 113 3.6 Determinants of comparative variation in PDE: Variable rule analysis 114 4. Adjective comparison and semantic scales 116 4.1 Cruse’s model of antonymy 116 4.2 Cruse’s true- and pseudo-comparative constructions 119 4.3 Semantic-pragmatic differences between inflectional and periphrastic comparatives 123 4.3.1 The system 123 4.4 Analysis of the data 130 4.4.1 Conclusion 132 5. Concluding remarks 133

109



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:27



F: CI299CO.tex / p.4 (x)

English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

chapter 6 Double periphrastic comparatives in English: Linguistic development 1. Introduction 135 2. The origin of double periphrastic comparatives 137 3. Double periphrastic comparatives in cross-linguistic perspective 138 4. Double periphrastic comparatives: An analysis 141 4.1 Second term of comparison 142 4.1.1 Distribution across periods 144 4.2 Establishment in discourse 146 4.2.1 Distribution across periods 147 4.3 Adverbial premodifiers 147 4.3.1 Distribution across periods 148 4.4 Linguistic distribution of double comparatives: Concluding remarks 151 5. The influence of even on the development of double periphrastic comparatives 154 5.1 Analysis of the data 155 5.2 Conclusion 157 6. Concluding remarks 157 chapter 7 Double periphrastic comparatives: A socio-stylistic analysis 1. Introduction 159 2. Double comparatives in Old English 160 3. Double comparatives in Middle English 162 3.1 Introduction 162 3.2 Double comparatives in Le Morte Darthur 165 3.2.1 Extant manuscripts: General background 165 3.2.2 The Winchester Ms 165 3.2.3 Caxton’s Le Morte Darthur 169 3.3 Concluding remarks 172 4. Double comparatives in Early Modern English 172 4.1 General background 172 4.2 Socio-stylistic distribution of double comparatives in EModE 4.2.1 Analysis of the data 176 4.2.2 Double comparatives in EModE grammars 189 4.2.3 The social downgrading of double forms: Some suggestions 192 4.3 Concluding remarks 195

135

159

175

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:27

F: CI299CO.tex / p.5 (xi)

Table of contents

5. Double comparatives in Late Modern English 196 5.1 General background 196 5.2 Socio-stylistic distribution of double comparatives in LModE 197 5.2.1 1700–1800 197 5.2.2 1800–1900 200 5.3 Conclusion 205 6. Double comparatives in Present-day English 205 6.1 General background 205 6.2 Social distribution of double comparatives in Present-day English 207 6.2.1 Written BNC 207 6.2.2 Spoken BNC 208 7. Concluding remarks 210 chapter 8 Comparatives and beyond 1. Introduction 215 2. Chapter 2: Internal v. external factors of change, gradience issues 3. Chapter 3: Language contact, complexity issues 218 4. Chapter 4 and Chapter 5: Iconicity issues 220 5. Chapter 6 and Chapter 7: Double marking of degree, linguistic purism 221 6. Further research 223

215 216

References

227

Index

249



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:5/08/2008; 9:13

F: CI299AC.tex / p.1 (xiii)

Acknowledgements

Adiós, ríos; adiós, fontes; adiós, regatos pequenos; adiós, vista dos meus ollos: non sei cando nos veremos. (...) amoriñas das silveiras que eu lle daba ó meu amor, caminiños antre o millo, ¡adiós, para sempre adiós!

Farewell, rivers; farewell fountains farewell, little streams; farewell, beloved view: I don’t know when we will see each other again sweet berries from the bramble patches which I used to give to my beloved paths across the wheat fields farewell, forever farewell! (Rosalía de Castro, Cantares Gallegos 15)

In the poem from which this extract was taken, Rosalía de Castro bids farewell to Padrón (Galicia) before emigrating to Castilla. Her goodbye is sad and gloomy; full of that morriˇna (‘melancholy’) that is so much ingrained in the Galician character. My words here also constitute a farewell – although stemming from a completely different frame of mind, as I am unashamedly happy to say adiós para sempre, adiós to the work contained in the following pages. However, like Rosalía, before emigrating to new research projects I would like to acknowledge those who, directly or indirectly, helped me through the writing of my PhD thesis and its subsequent adaptation into a research monograph. First and foremost, I owe enormous thanks to Sylvia Adamson. She is, and always will be, my point of reference. Her generosity while I was her research student, and her help in all things linguistic and personal afterwards have been invaluable. What more can I say except that, without her, this book would have never happened. I would also like to go back in time to acknowledge those who elicited my interest in historical linguistics and guided, advised, and encouraged me all the way: Javier Pérez-Guerra, Dolores González-Alvarez, Eduardo Varela and David Denison. I still fondly remember Eduardo’s live declamation of bits of Beowulf during his Old English classes and the landwige sandwidge sessions on Tuesdays afternoons in Manchester.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:5/08/2008; 9:13

F: CI299AC.tex / p.2 (xiv)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Moving now from past to present, thanks also go to my colleagues of the School of English at the University of Liverpool, in particular to the School’s Research Committee for having granted me a period of research leave during which this book got its final shape. In this shaping process, the expert comments of Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Teresa Fanego-Lema, Belén Méndez-Naya, Susan Pintzuk, Terttu Nevalainen and, above all, Olga Fischer, proved invaluable. Similarly, Chris Routledge and Anke de Looper duly deserve a mention for their care in making this manuscript tidy. Last but not least, muchas gracias are due to my family and friends for supporting me during my particular longa noite de pedra. Anita, Nuria, Ana, Filomena, Paulo, Claire and especially Iria were always there for me. I have had many a laugh and quite a number of good nights in and out with the Carnatic Crew (Thomasz, Phil, Ji, John, Tim and Jenny) and the Red Cross Mersey Group (Neil, Duff and Adamski). Finally, Neil Clark cannot be forgotten. It takes more than patience and good will to let me listen to There’s a light that never goes out for thirty consecutive times without losing the will to live. Liverpool, January 2008

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:5/08/2008; 9:14

Abbreviations

.

General

Ch. Ed. FG. Gmc. LAT. MED OF OED Pt.

Chapter Edition/edited Functional Grammar Germanic Latin Middle English Dictionary Old French Oxford English Dictionary Part

. Grammatical Adj. Adv. AJC Comp. IC Infl. MOD MTD Pass. Perip. PC V.

Adjective Adverb Comparative adjective Comparative construction Infinitival Complement Inflectional Comparative Modifier Morphological Doubling Theory Passive Periphrastic Comparative Prepositional Complement Verb

. Historical periods OE2 OE3 OE4 HM1 HM2 HM3 HM4

Old English 2 (850–950) Old English 3 (950–1050) Old English 4 (1050–1150) Middle English 1 (1150–1250) Middle English 2 (1250–1350) Middle English 3 (1350–1420) Middle English 4 (1420–1500)

F: CI299ABB.tex / p.1 (xv)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:5/08/2008; 9:14



F: CI299ABB.tex / p.2 (xvi)

English adjective comparison: A historical perspective EOE LOE EME LME EModE LModE PDE

Early Old English ( –950) Late Old English (950–1150) Early Middle English (1150–1350) Late Middle English (1350–1500) Early Modern English (1500–1700) Late Modern English (1700–1900) Present-day English (1900–present-day)

. Corpora ARCHER. BNC. CED. CEEC. CMEPV. EMODD. HEL. LAMP. LMODF. PPCME2. TOR.

A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers British National Corpus Corpus of English Dialogues Corpus of Early English Correspondence Corpus of Middle English Pose and Verse Early Modern English Drama Corpus Helsinki Corpus Lampeter Corpus Late Modern English Fiction Corpus Penn-Helsinki parsed Corpus of Middle English Toronto Corpus

. Authors AELF. AELR. ANON. AUST. BEDE. BOUC. BOYL. BRINS. CAXT. CHAU. DEFO. DEKK. DICK. FCOR. FIEL. FLET. GAY. GOLD. GREG. HEYW. JON.

Ælfric A. de Rievaulx Anonymous J. Austen Bede D. Boucicault R. Boyle J. Brinsley W. Caxton G. Chaucer D. Defoe T. Dekker C. Dickens F. Cornwallis H. Fielding J. Fletcher J. Gay O. Goldsmith Gregory the Great T. Heywood B. Jonson

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:5/08/2008; 9:14

F: CI299ABB.tex / p.3 (xvii)

Abbreviations  MIDD. MITC. ROBE. ROW. SHAK. SMOL. THCK. TOUR. WULF.

T. Middleton D. Mitchel T. W. Robertson W. Rowley W. Shakespeare T. Smollett W. M. Thackeray G. of La Tour Landy Wulfstan

. Works AB.ML. AELF.HO. AELF.LIV. AELF.ME. AELR.DI. ANON. NI. ANON.AW. ANON.BO. ANON.EMA. ANON.HALI. ANON.MA. ANON.MR. ANON.OT. ANON.TK. ANON.YP. APUL.HB. AUST.MP. BEDE.EH. BOUC.FS. BOYL.EM. BRINS.LL. CAXT.MD. CHAM.LT. CHAU.ME. CHRD.RU. CHRO.A. CHRO.E. CLA.WII. DEFE.LS. DEFO.FM. DEFO.RC. DEKK.LO. DEKK.NS. DEKK.SA.

A.B’s Letter of Advice Concerning Marriage Catholic Homilies (Ælfric) Lives of Saints (Ælfric) Memories of Saints (Ælfric) De Institutione Inclusarum (A. de Rievaulx’s translation) Life of St. Nicholas (anon.) Ancrene Wisse (anon.) OE Bounds (anon.) England’s Monarchy Asserted (anon.) Hali Meidenhad (anon.) Mandeville’s Travels (anon.) Marianus (1641, Corpus of English Dialogues, anon.) Old Testament (anon.) Three Kings of Cologne (Anon.) The York Plays (anon.) Herbarium Apuleii Mansfield Park (J. Austen) Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum (Bede) Flying Scud (D. Boucicault) Electricity and Magnetism (R. Boyle) Boethius (J. Brinsley, EModE) Le Morte Darthur (W. Caxton) Chamberlain letters (Estival 1989) Tale of Melibee (G. Chaucer) Rule of Chrodegang (anon.) Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (MsA) Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Peterborough Chronicle E) Laws (II, Cnut) Defensor’s Liber Scientiarum The Fortunate Mistress (D. Defoe) Robinson Crusoe (D. Defoe) London’s Tempe (J. Fletcher) The Noble Souldier (T. Dekker) Satiro-Mastix (T. Dekker)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:5/08/2008; 9:14

F: CI299ABB.tex / p.4 (xviii)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective DICK.BH. DICK.DA. DICK.GE. DICK.LD. DICK.NN. DICK.OC. DICK.OT. DICK.PP. DICK.PP. EADW.CP. FARM.RW. FCOR.LET. FIEL.AA. FIEL.JO. FIEL.TJ. FLET.CC. FLET.ML. FLET.TH. FLET.WP. GAY.MH. GOLD.GM. GREG. BO. GREG.CP. GREG.D. GREG.OR. HAMI. HEYW.MW. JON.EM. MESS.LET. MIDD.FG. MIDD.IN. MIDD.VA. MIDD/ROW.WTT. MITC.AY. ROBE.CA. SHAK.2H4. SHAK.AC. SHAK.AW. SHAK.AYL. SHAK.CO. SHAK.H5. SHAK.H8. SHAK.HA. SHAK.JC. SHAK.KJ. SHAK.KL. SHAK.LLL. SHAK.MM. SHAK.MN.

Bleak House (C. Dickens) David Copperfield (C. Dickens) Great Expectations (C. Dickens) Little Dorrit (C. Dickens) Nicholas Nickleby (C. Dickens) The Old Curiosity Shop (C. Dickens) Oliver Twist (C. Dickens) The Pickwick Papers (C. Dickens) The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club (C. Dickens) Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter Farman’s Rusworth Gospel Letter to Lady J. Bacon (F. Corwallis) Amelia (H. Fielding) Jonathan Wild (H. Fielding) Tom Jones (H. Fielding) The Custome of the Countrey (J. Fletcher) The Mad Lover (J. Fletcher) Thierry and Theodoret (J. Fletcher & P. Massinger) Women Pleas’d (J. Fletcher) The Mohocks (J. Gay) The Good Natur’d Man (O. Goldsmith) Boethius (Gregory the Great) Cura Pastoralis (Gregory the Great) Dialogues (Gregory the Great) Orosius (Gregory the Great) Hamilton 1778 The Fair Maid of the West (T. Heywood) Every Man out of his Humour (B. Jonson) Jane Messyndyne’s letters (CEEC) Your Fiue Gallants (T. Middleton) An Invention (T. Middleton) The Nice Valour (T. Middleton) The World Tost at Tennis (T. Middleton and W. Rowley) Ayenbite of Inwyt (D. Mitchel) Caste. An Original Comedy. (T. W. Robertson) King Henry IV (part 2) (W. Shakespeare) Anthony and Cleopatra (W. Shakespeare) All’s Well That Ends Well (W. Shakespeare) As You Like It (W. Shakespeare) Coriolanus (W. Shakespeare) King Henry V (W. Shakespeare) King Henry VIII (W. Shakespeare) Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (W. Shakespeare) Julius Caesar (W. Shakespeare) King John (W. Shakespeare) King Lear (W. Shakespeare) Love’s Labour’s Lost (W. Shakespeare) Measure for Measure (W. Shakespeare) A Midsummer Night’s Dream (W. Shakespeare)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:5/08/2008; 9:14

F: CI299ABB.tex / p.5 (xix)

Abbreviations  SHAK.MV. SHAK.OH. SHAK.TA. SHAK.TC. SHAK.TE. SHAK.TNK. SMOL.LA. SMOL.RO. THCK.BA. TOUR.KN. WMS.MD. WULF. PO. WULF.HO.

The Merchant of Venice (W. Shakespeare) Othello (W. Shakespeare) Timon of Athens (W. Shakespeare) Troilus and Cressida (W. Shakespeare) The Tempest (W. Shakespeare) The Two Noble Kinsmen (W. Shakespeare & J. Fletcher) The Life and Adventures of Sir Launcelot Greaves (T. Smollett) Roderick Random (T. Smollett) The Memoirs of Barry Lyndon (W. M. Thackeray) Book of the Knight of La Tour Landy (G. of La Tour Landy) Le Morte Darthur (Winchester Ms) Institutes of Polity (Wulfstan, bishop of Worcerster) Homilies (Wulfstan, bishop of Worcerster)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14

F: CI29901.tex / p.1 (1)

chapter 

Introduction

.

Three ‘strands’ in the study of English adjective comparison

. Standard grammars of English The following passage illustrates the standard account of English adjective comparison: Comparison in relation to a higher degree is expressed by the inflected forms in -er (. . .) or their periphrastic equivalents with more (. . .): Anna is {cleverer/more clever} than Susan (. . .)

The choice between inflectional and periphrastic comparison is largely determined by the length of the adjective. a. Monosyllabic adjectives normally form their comparison by inflection: low ∼ lower ∼ lowest (. . .)

b. Many disyllabic adjectives can also take inflections, though they have the alternative of the periphrastic forms: Her children are politer/more polite (the) politest, (the) most polite (. . .)

c. Trisyllabic or longer adjectives can only take periphrastic forms: beautiful ∼ more beautiful [BUT NOT: *beautifuller] (. . .)

d. Participle forms which are used as adjectives regularly take only periphrastic forms: interesting ∼ more interesting ∼ most interesting (. . .)

Most adjectives that are inflected for comparison can also take the periphrastic forms with more and most. With more, they seem to do so more easily when they are predicative and followed by a than clause: John is more mad than Bob is (Quirk et al. 1985: 458, 461–463)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14



F: CI29901.tex / p.2 (2)


The passage features a general description of how the different comparative types (inflectional – friendlier; periphrastic – more friendly) are formed, followed by a report of the factor(s) that govern the selection of one or the other strategy (note that a morphological factor, i.e. the length of the adjective, is considered the main determinant in the choice of comparative strategy).1 Similar descriptive accounts of comparison were offered in the grammars of the early twentieth century (e.g. Jespersen 1909–1949; Poutsma 1914; Curme 1931). While accurate, these analyses are perhaps too general to be taken as more than a good starting point for a study of how the English comparative system works. A further problem associated especially with the early twentieth-century grammars is that they are based on the intuitions and/or the selective (and often limited) textual choice of the linguist. Some of these issues are addressed by more recent grammars of English. For instance, Biber et al. (1999) is not only a corpus-based work, but also – probably because of its corpus-based nature – it acknowledges the existence of double comparative constructions (e.g. worser, more lovelier). However, grammars are broad in terms of the number of the topics they cover, which in its turn precludes the possibility of an in-depth treatment of the nature of comparative constructions. . Formal approaches to adjective comparison Scholarly interest in comparative constructions grew in the second half of the twentieth century, especially in works couched within the generative tradition. From a syntactic point of view, these generative studies were mainly devoted (a) to determining the transformations undergone by comparatives from deep to surface structure and finding a suitable way of representing them in phrase markers, (b) to ascertaining whether comparatives are derived from one or two base strings (Huddleston 1967; Campbell & Wales 1969) and (c) to analysing the syntactic status of the particle than (Hankamer 1973). With respect to semantics, their research focused on the relation between positive and comparative adjectives,2 the general meaning of the comparative construction (Cresswell 1976; Klein 1980, 1982; Hellan 1981; von Stechow 1984) and the polarity of the particle than (Joly 1967; Mittwoch 1974; Napoli & Nespor 1976; Hoeksema 1983). I observed above that the account of comparison provided by the grammars of the early twentieth century was not completely satisfactory because of the gen. Huddleston & Pullum (2002: 1582–1584) offer a very similar view to the one reproduced above. . Some scholars considered positive adjectives the source of comparative constructions (Stassen 1984); whereas other linguists claimed that comparatives were the primary adjectival structures and therefore, that positive adjectives had to be interpreted against the comparative degree (Bartsch & Vennemann 1972; Gnutzmann, Ilson & Webster 1973).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14

F: CI29901.tex / p.3 (3)

Chapter 1. Introduction

eralised nature of their statements. The opposite shortcoming may be attributed to these generative studies: although they constitute a valuable contribution to the field, they focus on very specific aspects of comparison that can only marginally lead us to a better understanding of the functioning and the characteristics of the system as a whole. Moreover, they adopt a sentence-based, introspective approach which, as previous literature suggests (cf. for instance Noël 2003), is controversial on two counts: firstly, the examples are deprived of a context, which is often an essential factor for the correct interpretation of the linguistic structure under consideration. Secondly, de-contextualised, made-up data may be easily manipulated to suit the claims of the researcher. With this, of course, I am not implying that formally-oriented linguistics systematically avoids the analysis of data (cf. among others, Kroch & Taylor 2000; Haeberli 2000; Pintzuk 2002; Pintzuk 2005) – although, to the best of my knowledge, no corpus-based formalist study on adjective comparison has been carried out. . Corpus linguistics and adjective comparison The third approach to the study of comparison that I would like to deal with here is corpus linguistics. The first modern corpus of texts was the Survey of English Usage (compiled in the 1960s). However, the possibilities offered by computers soon brought about the development of the first electronic corpora, namely, the Brown University Corpus (1964), the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (1978) and the London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English (the electronic version of the Survey of English Usage, 1980). The use of computerised corpora as a research tool became a very productive practice at the end of the 1980s (when the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts was completed) and, as a result, the production of electronic corpora both synchronic and diachronic notably increased in the following decades – e.g. the Lampeter Corpus of Early English Tracts (1991), the British National Corpus (1992) the ARCHER (1993) and the Corpus of English Dialogues (2006; see Section 2.2 below for a brief description of each of these corpora). The availability of larger quantitative data represented by these electronic corpora drew scholars’ attention to issues that either had not been studied before or that, having been studied, had not produced the expected results due to lack of statistically significant amounts of empirical support; among them, the suggestion that English is shifting towards being an analytic (as opposed to synthetic) language (e.g. Potter 1969: 146–147; cf. also Barber 1993: 274).3 The analysis-synthesis debate, in its turn, led to a greater interest in comparative constructions, for scholars considered . See Vincent (1997) for a critique of the (widespread) tendency to apply the labels analytic/synthetic to languages in general (cf. also Ch. 2, Section 6 below).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14



F: CI29901.tex / p.4 (4)


that the overall tendency of the language would be reflected in the distribution of the inflectional and periphrastic forms in comparative adjectives – note, in this connection, Strang’s (1970: 58) observation about the “lack [of] precise numerical information” about the distribution of PDE inflectional and periphrastic comparative structures. Brook (1973: 180) observed that “comparison of adjectives with more and most is gaining on the use of -er and -est”. A similar statement can be found in Barber (1964: 131, 1997: 146–147). Barber also suggested that the analytic tendency in adjectives can nowadays be clearly appreciated “in a group of disyllabic adjectives (like cloudy, common, cruel, pleasant, quiet, simple) which a few years ago were normally compared with -er/-est, but which are now usually compared with more/most” (Barber 1997: 146, see also 1993: 274). Brook’s (1973) and Barber’s (1993, 1997) intuitive impressions were, to a certain extent, supported by Bauer’s (1994) analysis of (a number of) disyllabic adjectives in Present-day British and American newspapers. Bauer’s study reveals “a tendency for periphrastic comparison to be used later in the century than the suffixed comparison” (1994: 54), especially with disyllabic adjectives ending in -ly. Nevertheless, he does not interpret the tendency towards analyticity in disyllabic comparatives as a structural shift, but as the result of the gradual regularisation of the comparative system in disyllabic adjectives (Bauer 1994: 58). More recently, Denison has reported that “the general tendency over the recorded history of English has been for syntactic [i.e. periphrastic] comparison to expand at the expense of morphological [i.e. inflectional] comparison” (1998: 128). However, Denison’s (1998) own corpus analysis of superlative constructions in the ARCHER corpus (1675–1900) does not seem to support the (supposed) drift of forms towards periphrastic parameters, as it shows that there is “no any clear frequency change” between inflectional/periphrastic superlative constructions in LModE (ibid.). A stronger challenge to the (supposed) analytic drift of English is represented by the diachronic corpus-based studies of comparison carried out by Kytö (1996) and Kytö & Romaine (1997). These works chart the distribution of inflectional and periphrastic comparatives in British English from LME to PDE, showing that it is in fact the inflectional rather than the periphrastic mode of comparison that has been on the increase in the Modern period. Kytö & Romaine (2000) offers a contrastive study of the distributional tendencies of comparative forms from the wider perspective of both British and American English throughout the modern and present-day periods, arriving at the same conclusion. The other corpus-based studies of comparison deal almost exclusively with syntactic matters: Leech & Culpeper (1997), Lindquist (2000), Mondorf (2002) and Suematsu (2004) concentrate on an analysis of the syntactic features that determine (or, at least, favour) the deployment of inflectional vs. periphrastic forms in simple adjectival forms in LModE and PDE, while Mondorf (2000) investigates

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14

F: CI29901.tex / p.5 (5)


the choice of comparison in PDE adjectival compounds. The only exception to this trend is Mondorf (2003, 2007), which explores some cognitive and semantic determinants of comparative variation. One may argue that these corpus-based studies are more comprehensive than the accounts of comparison mentioned above (i.e. standard grammars and formalist works) in that their results are backed up by an analysis of a representative amount of (contextualised) data. There is nonetheless still room for further research. For instance, Kytö (1996) spearheads the use of computerised corpora in the study of adjective comparison, showing that in LME and EModE (simple) inflectional comparatives are generally more frequent than the periphrastic ones and that “the inflectional uses thrive in matter-of-fact text types such as handbooks and language written to reflect spoken or colloquial registers” (Kytö 1996: 130). However, the historical, linguistic or social reasons underlying the preference for inflectional over periphrastic forms in the period as a whole, why periphrastic comparatives are dispreferred in “colloquial registers”4 or whether there is any interconnection between these two facts (i.e. the increase of inflectional forms and their being preferred in colloquial environments) do not receive much attention. Similarly, Lindquist (2000) presents his work as a follow-up study of Leech & Culpeper (1997), concentrating on the distribution of comparative strategies for -ly adjectives. His contribution tests against the data the same syntactic factors examined by Leech & Culpeper’s (1997) study (which already included a number of -ly disyllabic adjectival types) and confirms their results; however, it does not fully explain why the presence of those syntactic factors (e.g. adverbial intensifiers/presence of a second term of comparison) would skew the results towards one or the other comparative strategy. A noticeable shortcoming of the corpus-based approach to comparison is that, with the exception of Kytö (1996), Kytö & Romaine (1997) and Suematsu (2004) all the studies that have appeared to date are synchronically oriented. The preference for this kind of research may to a certain extent be understood in the light of the larger amount and greater availability of synchronic data (in both spoken and written media) and the fact that detecting syntactic correlates of (synchronic) variation is relatively straightforward. At any rate, diachronic and non-syntactic synchronic research questions on the comparative degree remain largely unexplored. With regard to the diachronic study of comparison, it is interesting to observe that the Cambridge history of the English language (1992–1999) – currently considered the standard work of reference for the study of the history of English – devotes very little space to comparative constructions. In fact, if their treatment of . See Biber et al.’s (1999: 521–525) corpus-based grammar for some comments on the distribution of the comparative modes across registers in PDE.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14



F: CI29901.tex / p.6 (6)


comparative forms is collectively considered, the overall view of its development is rather patchy. Traugott (1992: 262–264) discusses the morphological and syntactic characteristics of comparative clauses in Old English (henceforth OE). Lass (1992: 116, 1999: 155–156, 158) and Denison (1998: 128) comment on the historical establishment of the length of the adjective as the rule for the selection of comparative strategy as well as linking the disappearance of double comparative forms to the prescriptivist attitudes of eighteenth century grammarians.5 Finally, Adamson (1998: 552) briefly refers to the stylistic use of double comparative forms in the Renaissance. Concerning double comparatives (e.g. more better, worser) Adamson’s (1998) remarks are an exception to the overall tendency, in studies on comparison, to ignore them. At most, they are mentioned in passing in the grammars of English (see, for instance Curme 1931: 503 or, more recently, Biber et al. 1999: 525). No reference to double forms is found in any of the formal studies mentioned above.6 As for the corpus-based works, both Kytö (1996: 124) and Kytö & Romaine (1997: 331, 2000: 173) explicitly acknowledge the existence of this third mode of comparison, and indeed some double comparatives are attested in their data. However, neither they nor subsequent (corpus-based) scholarship investigates any aspect of the use of double forms – probably, as Kytö & Romaine (1997: 337) suggest, due to their (relative) infrequency in the corpora.

. Adjective comparison: A synchronic and diachronic account The present work intends to contribute to a better understanding of the English system of degree by means of a study of a number of aspects of the evolution of adjective comparison that have either been considered controversial or not been accounted for in previous literature. My main interest is thus, diachronic. Nevertheless, as will be shown in the following chapters, the diachronic aspects analysed will also have synchronic implications. Furthermore, unlike previous synchronic and diachronic accounts of adjective comparison, the present work does not concentrate on the ‘standard’ comparative strategies (i.e. inflectional and periphrastic forms) only but also deals with double periphrastic comparatives, thus providing an analysis of the whole range of comparative structures. . Note also Denison’s (1998) comment on the distribution of inflectional and periphrastic forms in LModE mentioned above. . One may suppose that formal linguists would justify their exclusion of double forms by pointing to the fact that they are only interested in the study of well-formed sentences. Obviously, sentences showing ‘ungrammatical’ forms such as double comparatives cannot but be considered deviant structures, and therefore, unsuitable for their investigation.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14

F: CI29901.tex / p.7 (7)


. Theoretical stance Without committing to any particular model, the theoretical stance that will be adopted in this book is a broadly functional one (cf. Van Valin 2003: 329 for a summary of different functional approaches to the study of language). Firstly, I observed above that, although I will consider synchronic issues, the main concern of this work is the evolution of comparative constructions. And it is in functional approaches that diachrony plays a key role in explaining language change (Nettle 1999: 447). As Mithun (2005 [2003]: 553) puts it, in functional approaches to language, “synchronic systems are understood as historical products of sequences of individual events.” In connection to this, one should also pay attention to the fact that, while “formal theory is not interested in the actual behaviour of speakers but only in the general properties of the language use of the individual speaker in ideal situations” (Fischer 2007: 55), functional approaches make performance the central focus of their investigation. Secondly, against formal frameworks, functionalism rejects the idea that syntax is a self-contained component of grammar (Anderson 1999: 111; Croft 1995: 491). Functionalism postulates that language is an instrument of social interaction (Dik 1989: 3) and as such, that its structure and organisation is determined “by the communicative and interactional functions which it serves, and the full cognitive, social and psychological properties of the human user” (Thompson 1992: 37; cf. also Mithun 2005 [2003]: 552; Van Valin 2003: 336). In other words, functional approaches reject the idea that change is driven by languageinternal structural factors only and advocate a model where language-external considerations (i.e. social or cultural changes) are also accommodated (Newmeyer 1999: 470–471; Mithun 2005 [2003]: 552).7 Moreover, to a functionalist, languageinternal factors are not restricted to considerations of structure but also include cognitive/semantic factors (e.g. desire for expressiveness, maintenance or development of iconicity, avoidance of ambiguity). Further precision should be added at this point. In their jointly edited volume Determinants of grammatical variation in English, Rohdenburg and Mondorf (2003: 1) claim that scholars working within the functional paradigm have traditionally focused on semantically-motivated functional differences. They (Rohdenburg & Mondorf 2003: 1) however, argue for a broader approach to studying form/function variation, where not only semantic but also “major extrasemantic and largely neglected factors determining grammatical variation” should . It should be emphasized again that not all formal approaches reject the interplay of internal and external factors in processes of language change. Pintzuk (2005: 525), for instance, admits their interaction between external and internal motivations of change – although she seems to advocate the prevalence of the internal factors over the external ones.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14



F: CI29901.tex / p.8 (8)


be taken into consideration (2003: 1). These “neglected” determinants are phonological (preference for alternating syllable structure and avoidance of stress clashes, Schlüter 2003), cognitive (processing efficiency, Hawkins 2003), discursive (Nöel 2003), socio-stylistic (genre and level of formality, Mair 2003), dialectal (Siemund 2003) and frequency factors (Krug 2003). In line with the views put forward above, in this book I shall be arguing that the grammatical variation found in adjective comparison of superiority is to a great extent motivated by differences in the function performed by each of the variants (i.e. inflectional, periphrastic and double comparatives), these differences being best appreciated through the analysis of the context in which the comparative forms occur. Furthermore, I will examine comparative constructions in the light of “more traditional” functional notions and ideas such as iconicity (Ch. 8, Section 4), informativeness (see Ch. 4, Section 5.4.1), avoidance of ambiguity/need for clarity (in the conveyance of degree; see Ch. 2, Section 6) and increase of (comparative) expressiveness (see Ch. 6, Section 3). At the same time, the following chapters bring into play a number of the “new” determinants of variation also considered in Rohdenburg & Mondorf (2003); namely, the (possible) influence of frequency factors in the establishment of periphrastic comparatives (see Ch. 2, Section 3); the importance of the discourse situation in (a) determining the semantic type to which inflectional and periphrastic forms conform (see Ch. 5, Section 4) and (b) describing the different stages of the evolution of simple and double comparatives (see Ch. 4, Ch. 5, Ch. 6 and Ch. 7) and the need for a detailed analysis of the socio-stylistic characteristics of double periphrastic forms in order to obtain an accurate picture of their historical development (see Ch. 8, Section 5). In this respect, recent literature suggests that, although from the second half of the twentieth century onwards extra-linguistic aspects have been considered alongside intra-linguistic factors as cause of change, language contact “still seems to be given second place behind internal motivation” (Farrar & Jones 2002: 1).8 As will be shown below, language contact and its impact on the evolution of comparison will be a prominently discussed issue in Ch. 2 and Ch. 3 below. A final word on the interface between language acquisition and language change. Formalist approaches to language tend to reject the possibility of a separate theory of language change (Pintzuk 2005: 511). They maintain that language acquisition during childhood is the locus for language change, which is defined as change in “parameter setting (. . .) manifested by a cluster of simultaneous surface changes” (Lightfoot 2005 [2003]: 496). Surface changes may of course involve gradual shifts; however, grammar change (which involves parameter changing) is . Note, however, that it is not always on “easy to make a distinction between internal (intralinguistic) and external (extra-linguistic) causes in each case of change” (Fischer 2007: 35).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14

F: CI29901.tex / p.9 (9)


often seen as an abrupt, “catastrophic” process (Lightfoot 2005 [2003]: 496). By contrast, functionalism rejects the idea of language change as a parameter-shifting activity, assuming instead that it is a gradual process produced at any time during the speakers’ lifetime (as opposed to during the language learning period only). In line with this idea, the corpora selected for the investigation feature a wide range of adult interaction, both spoken and written. . Methodology I have observed above that corpus-based analyses have an advantage over introspective approaches in that they allow the researcher to take into account the context in which linguistic structures occur. In addition, they provide a relatively faithful reflection of the contemporary linguistic practices as well as allowing the researcher to process important amounts of material and to trace parallel changes over time (cf. Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003: 12). This, of course, is not to say that a ‘bottom-up’ approach like corpus linguistics does not have its shortcomings (see, in this connection, Harris 2005 [2003]: 250). Nonetheless, given its suitability for the questions raised with respect to the topic under consideration, the methodological stance adopted here will be a corpus-based one. The results obtained from the different corpus analyses will, at a later stage, be analysed in the light of the relevant literature. The following list details the corpora that I have used for my analysis: 1. A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers (ARCHER) ARCHER is a 1.7 million-word corpus of American and British texts ranging from Early Modern English (henceforth EModE) to the present day (1650–1990, henceforth P(resent)D(ay) E(nglish)). The texts have been classified according to register. For more information, see Biber, Finegan and Atkinson (1994). 2. Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language (COLT) The Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language consists of about 500,000 words of conversation between teenagers (aged 13 to 17) coming from different London districts. It was compiled in 1993 by a research group at the University of Bergen. At present, COLT constitutes part of the spoken subcorpus of the British National Corpus (see 3. below). For further information on the COLT, see Stenström and Breivik (1993), Haslerund and Stenström (1995). 3. British National Corpus (BNC) The BNC is a 100 million-word corpus of present-day British English, both spoken (10 million words; 863 transcribed texts) and written (90 million words; 3,261 texts). See Aston and Bournard (1998) or http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/ (accessed 20-01-2008) for further information.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14



F: CI29901.tex / p.10 (10)


4. Brooklyn-Geneva-Amsterdam-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English The Brooklyn Corpus is a 106,210 word-corpus of syntactically annotated texts taken from the OE subcorpus of the Helsinki Corpus (see 10 below). For further information, see http://www-users.york.ac.uk/∼sp20/corpus.html (accessed 20-01-2008). 5. Corpus of Early English Correspondence (CEEC) The Corpus of Early English Correspondence was compiled by the Sociolinguistics and Language History Research Group at the University of Helsinki. It contains about 2.7 million words of private correspondence written between 1417 and 1681. See http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/ceecs/INDEX.HTM (accessed 2001-2008) or Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1996) for more information about the CEEC. 6. Corpus of English Dialogues (CED) The CED is a 1.2-million-word corpus of texts featuring EModE speech-related practices. For more information, see http://www.engelska.uu.se/corpus.html (accessed 20-01-2008). 7. Corpus of Late Modern English Prose A 100,000 word-corpus of informal private correspondence (1861–1919) of nineteenth-century British writers. The corpus was compiled between 1992 and 1994 under the supervision of David Denison at the University of Manchester. For further information, see http://www.llc.manchester.ac.uk/subjects/lel/staff/daviddenison/lmode-prose/ (accessed 20-01-2008). 8. Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse A collection of sixty-two Middle English texts (about 3,700,000 words). The texts included in this corpus constituted the primary source for the creation of the Middle English Dictionary. Both the Middle English Dictionary and the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse are the result of a project carried out by the Humanities Text Initiative at the University of Michigan. See http://www.hti.umich.edu/c/cme/ (accessed 20-01-2008) for further information about the Corpus. 9. Freiburg-LOB Corpus (FLOB) A parallel corpus to the LOB (see 12. below) containing written material from the 1990s. For further information, see http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/frown/ INDEX.HTM (accessed 20-01-2008). 10. Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (diachronic part) The diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus contains a 1.5 million-word corpus of historical English texts which are subdivided in three main chronological periods, OE (850-1150; 413,250 words), Middle English (henceforth ME; 1150-1500;

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14

F: CI29901.tex / p.11 (11)


608,570 words) and EModE (1500-1710; 551,000 words). For further information, see Rissanen, Kytö & Palander-Collin 1993 or http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/ manuals/HC/INDEX.HTM (accessed 20-01-2008). 11. Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts A 1.1 million-word collection of non-literary prose text ranging from 1470 to 1740. See http://users.ox.ac.uk/∼lou/wip/Lampeter/Lampman.doc (accessed 2010-2008) or Schmied (1994) for further information. 12. Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus of British English (LOB) This corpus is the British counterpart of the BROWN. It contains one million words of written British English from the 1960s. As its name indicates, it is the result of a project carried out among the universities of Lancaster and Oslo and the Norwegian Computer Centre for the Humanities at Bergen. The LOB is also available in tagged version. For further information, see http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/ manuals/lob/INDEX.HTM (accessed 20-01-2008). 13. Letters of Jane Austen An electronic collection of the private letters of Jane Austen to her sister Cassandra and others (155,243 words). It was edited by R. W. Chapman for the Oxford English Text Archive and coded and indexed by David Denison and Linda van Bergen at the University of Manchester. 14. London Lund Corpus of Spoken English As its name indicates, this corpus is the result of two research projects, the first one (the Survey of English Usage) carried out at the University College London, the second one (the Survey of Spoken English) at the University of Lund. The final version of the corpus contains approximately 1 million words of Present-day spoken English. See Svartvik (1990) or http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/LONDLUND/ INDEX.HTM (accessed 20-01-2008) for further information. 15. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English 2 The PPCME2 is a compilation based on the ME texts of the Helsinki Corpus (see 10. above). For more information on this corpus, see http://www.ling.upenn.edu/ hist-corpora/PPCME2-RELEASE-2/index.htm (accessed 20-01-2008). 16. Toronto Corpus of Old English A 3.5 million-word corpus containing all the surviving Old English texts (3037 texts). The corpus constituted the primary source for the Dictionary of Old English, which is being compiled at the Centre for Medieval Studies (University of Toronto). For further information, see http://www.doe.utoronto.ca/ or DiPaolo-Healey and Venezky (1980).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14



F: CI29901.tex / p.12 (12)


17. Zurich English Newspapers (ZEN) The ZEN is a 1.5 million-word corpus of English newspaper texts covering the period 1660–1800. The corpus was compiled in the 1990’s under the supervision of Udo Fries (University of Zurich). For further information, see Fries and Schneider (2000). In addition, two new diachronic compilations: a corpus of EModE drama and a corpus of LModE drama and fiction9 were created in order to investigate the evolution of comparison in earlier periods of the language (see Ch. 6 and Ch. 7 below).

. Organisation of the book The issues that I will be addressing in the following chapters constitute longstanding unresolved questions within the realm of adjective comparison. Chapter 2 focuses on the genesis of the English system of comparison. Perhaps due to their greater frequency, inflectional and periphrastic forms (as opposed to double comparatives) have been considered the standard comparative strategies and, as a result, have elicited most scholarly attention. However, as has been observed above, this scholarly interest in comparison has mainly been restricted to an on-going debate about the syntactic distribution of the inflectional and periphrastic forms in the present-day. Applying Givón’s (1971: 413) aphorism “today’s morphology is yesterday’s syntax” in a very loose way to the present study, one may suggest that the present-day distinctions between inflectional and periphrastic comparatives may be illuminated by an analysis of their diachronic evolution. No such analysis has been carried out to date, the main reason being that there seems to be no consensus in the literature as to when, why and how periphrastic comparatives appeared in the language. Chapter 2 below is a detailed study of the issue. Chapter 3 constitutes a natural continuation of Chapter 2. It deals with the spread of the periphrastic comparative strategy across time and adjective types, focusing on the possibility that language contact issues (e.g. the ‘creolisation’ of English as a result of the Old Norse and the Norman invasions in Old English . The EModE drama corpus features the works of Shakespeare, Jonson, Middleton, Fletcher, Dekker, Heywood and Marlowe (6,794,374 words). The corpus of LModE drama and fiction contains the prose works of Defoe, Swift, Fielding, Sterne, Smollett, Austen, Dickens, Thackeray and the drama of Vanbrugh, Goldsmith, Sheridan, Lillo, Gay, Steele, Cibber, Bocicault, Robertson, Tennyson and Browning (12,680,951 words).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:14

F: CI29901.tex / p.13 (13)


and Middle English times, respectively) may have had an impact on the rise in frequency and eventual establishment of the structure in the English language. Once the origin and diffusion of periphrastic comparatives is ascertained, I will move on to examining the distributional differences between inflectional and periphrastic forms from EModE until the present-day. As noted above (Section 1), standard grammars of English suggest that the most general determinant in the choice of comparative strategy is morphological (i.e. the number of syllables of the adjective),10 while at the same time acknowledging the existence of variation between inflectional and periphrastic forms (especially in the case of disyllabic adjectives). I have already suggested that a number of recent corpus-based studies seem to account for this variation mainly in syntactic terms – although some of them explicitly mention the possibility of further, (yet largely unexplored) constraints on variation (cf. Kytö & Romaine 1997; Mondorf 2003, 2007). The need for further research in this area becomes even more apparent if one considers that these syntactically oriented studies have not yet reached a general consensus as to what syntactic factors are the main determinants in the choice of comparison.11 Chapters 4 and 5 are thus devoted to (a) re-assessing the validity of the syntactic factors put forward by previous corpus-based scholarship in relation to the distribution of simple inflectional and comparative forms and (b) examining the possibility of a semantic-pragmatic differentiation between the two strategies from the EModE period until the present-day. As observed in Section 1.3 above, double comparatives have been consistently omitted from scholarly consideration due to their ‘marginal’ status both in social and linguistic (i.e. frequency) terms. The subsequent two chapters of the book offer a detailed study of their linguistic characteristics (Ch. 6) and their sociolinguistic distribution (Ch. 7) from their emergence in the language to the present day. They also examine the reasons behind their appearance. The closing chapter (Ch. 8) puts the research carried out in the book into a wider perspective and suggests a number of issues for further research in the realm of adjective comparison.

. This claim applies to Present-day English only. As Bax (2008) notes, eighteenth-century grammars of English commented on a wider range of determinants of comparative variation. . Most studies (Leech & Culpeper 1997; Lindquist 2000; Mondorf 2002, 2003) observe the influence that syntactic position (i.e. attributive/predicative) has on the selection of comparative strategy. However, their own data (see, for instance, Leech & Culpeper 1997; Lindquist 2000) reveal that differences in syntactic position cannot explain all comparative variation. In keeping with these findings, recent research (Gries 2003) shows that it is highly unlikely that grammatical variation may be explained by invoking a single type of determinant.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.1 (15)

chapter 

The origin of English periphrastic comparatives12

.

Introduction

The comparative degree in Present-day English is expressed in two main ways: by the addition of suffix -er to the adjectival stem (‘inflectional’ or ‘synthetic’ comparison, as in hard:harder), or by means of the pre-position of the adverb more to the positive adjective (‘periphrastic’ or ‘analytical’ comparison, as in beautiful:more beautiful; see, e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 458; Biber et al. 1999: 522; Huddleston & Pullum 2002: 1582–8; Dixon 2005 [1991]: 91). It is commonly agreed in the literature that inflectional comparison (derived from the Germanic suffixes */iz/ and */oz/) was the earliest strategy deployed in English (Mitchell 1985: 80, 84). The origin of the periphrastic mode creates, however, two controversies: a ‘chronological’ controversy (i.e. when exactly periphrastic forms appeared) and a ‘philological’ controversy (i.e. whether periphrastic comparison arose through language contact or language-internal causes of change, and, in the latter case, through what process of internal change; cf. Danchev 1989: 168). Scholarly interest in the issue arose at the turn of the twentieth century. In her study of popular speech, Wright (1913: 145) suggested that inflectional forms were the preferred mode of comparison for virtually all adjectives in LModE dialects, periphrastic forms serving only as a means of intensification of the regular (i.e. inflectional) comparison. As Mustanoja (1960: 279) observed, this reluctance to deploy periphrastic forms in dialectal speech might suggest that they were not in the original repertoire of English linguistic structures, but were the result of foreign influence. Furthermore, the fact that English periphrastic comparatives gained ground at a time when French influence was particularly noticeable (i.e. the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) was cited as evidence that they were introduced in

. A preliminary version of this chapter can be found in González-Díaz (2006). Unless otherwise stated, the emphasis (i.e. italics/bold) in the examples provided through the chapter is mine (VGD).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.2 (16)


English by analogy with French periphrastic constructions (cf. in this connection, Danchev 1989: 170, 172–173). Other scholars such as Pound (1901: 3) pointed to Latin as the most probable origin of periphrastic comparatives. Pound observed that periphrastic constructions appeared in ME, a period in which Latin was considered the language of culture and civilisation (Samuels 1972: 94). This, in her opinion, encouraged the calquing of many Latin constructions into English (for instance, the elative use of superlatives, e.g. most brave man, which she considered a calque on Latin absolute constructions – in this particular example, on the form vir fortissimus). Taking into consideration the structural similarity between English and Latin analytic forms, she observed that it would not be strange to suppose that this might have been the case with periphrastic constructions. By contrast, other linguists considered periphrastic forms a native development. At the end of the nineteenth century, Emerson (1894:368) argued that periphrastic comparison was the result of the spread of the use of more with participles and adjectives “not strictly allowing comparison” in ME – although he did not specify what kind of adjectives he was referring to. This suggestion was taken up again by Knüpfer (1921), Curme (1931: 503) and Brunner (1951: 64), who pointed to the combination of degree intensifiers with participles in OE as a possible source of periphrastic forms in English. The origin of periphrastic forms was also considered in some specialist works on OE and ME in the second half of the twentieth century. In keeping with Knüpfer’s (1921) ideas, Mitchell (1985: 84–85, cf. also Mossé 1952: 92; OED more, C. adv.) traces the origin of periphrastic forms back to OE, more specifically, to the combination of the adverbial intensifiers swiðor, ma and bet with participles. He also mentions the appearance of “occasional” adjectival examples (see (1) below). (1) The beginnings of periphrastic comparison are probably to be seen in OE examples like GD 111 bet. . . gelæred, Bede 260.17, ma. . . gelæred (. . .) There are occasional examples with adjectives; they include CP 33.17 bet wyrðe and GD(C) 151.21 ma gode where MS H has beteran (Mitchell 1985: 84)

Interesting as his claims are, they require substantiation. Mitchell does not provide further examples of the supposed OE periphrastic (participial) constructions, the instances given consisting in the periphrastic participial form in itself, without any further contextual information which could help to illuminate the origin of the construction. Furthermore, while insightful, his suggestions are based on his personal observations and/or selective reading of OE texts. A corpus-based analysis of OE texts will therefore contribute to a fuller exploration of Mitchell’s remarks. The flourishing of computerised corpora in the last quarter of the century led to a revival of the interest in the evolution of comparative constructions. As

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.3 (17)

Chapter 2. The origin of English periphrastic comparatives

a consequence, several corpus-based works on adjective comparison came out in the last two decades: Kytö (1996), Kytö & Romaine (1997, 2000), Leech & Culpeper (1997), Lindquist (2000), Mondorf (2000, 2003, 2007) and Suematsu (2004). Only Kytö (1996) and Kytö & Romaine (1997, 2000) explicitly mention the problem of the origin of periphrastic comparative forms. Their comments reflect the controversial nature of the issue (see (2)–(4) below):13 (2) The periphrastic construction first appeared in the thirteenth century, more probably under Latin than French influence. At the same time, the construction seems to have been of native origin and arisen from the need for emphasis and clarity felt by the speakers (Kytö 1996: 123) (3) . . . a variety of factors has been cited as responsible [for the appearance of periphrastic comparatives]. We have already noted above historians’ attribution of the development to foreign influence. At the same time others pointed to stylistic factors such as speakers’ need for emphasis and clarity (Kytö & Romaine 1997: 330) (4) From a historical point of view, the periphrastic construction with more and most (e.g. more effective, most effective) are innovations (. . .) According to Mitchell (1985: 84–85), who lists the few possible attested examples in Old English, the periphrastic forms first appeared in the thirteenth century, possibly under the influence of Latin (and to a lesser extent French) (Kytö & Romaine 2000: 172)

Passage (2) appears to be contradictory, as it suggest that English periphrastic comparatives are the result of a foreign borrowing and, at the same time, a native development (see also quote (4)). Similarly, in (3) and (4) the authors report the opposing views of previous scholars, without taking a clear position themselves. All in all, the account given in the literature on the origin of periphrastic forms is not completely satisfactory: on the one hand, the earliest explanations are based on hypotheses that have never been tested against a substantial amount of data; on the other, the most recent comments seem to fall back on the claims made by previous scholarship. Further research on where periphrastic comparatives come from and how they arose is therefore needed. The present chapter focuses on the treatment of these issues. Sections 2 and Section 3 are devoted to a corpus-based analysis of those constructions that may . No mention to this controversial issue is made in The Cambridge history of the English language (vol. 1). In his chapter on morphology, Hogg (1992: 141) states that the normal method of comparison in OE was the inflectional one, periphrastic forms being “relatively rare and mostly restricted to later texts.” Unfortunately, he does not provide references to any of those Late OE (henceforth LOE) texts displaying periphrastic comparatives nor any actual examples of the construction.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.4 (18)


be considered the beginnings of adjectival periphrastic comparatives and discuss the reasons behind the establishment of (PDE) [more + adj.] as the standard periphrastic comparative construction. Section 4 investigates the (possible) connection between English periphrastic forms and Latin comparative constructions. On the basis of the results obtained in Section 4, Section 5 is devoted to a discussion of the rise of periphrastic comparison in the light of recent literature on contact-induced grammatical change. Section 6 concentrates on a critical analysis of the factors that, according to previous literature, may have favoured the appearance of periphrastic comparatives. Finally, Section 7 summarises the results obtained from the case studies carried out in previous sections.

. The origin of periphrastic comparatives: A corpus-based study . Analysis of the data In view of the lack of consensus in the literature on the topic, the first step in this investigation consisted in the analysis of one of the hypotheses suggested by previous scholars, i.e. that of the native origin of periphrastic comparatives. To this end, I examined the collocations of the adverbs ma, bet and swiðor in the Toronto Corpus14 – note that Mitchell (1985, see quote (1) above) suggests that these combinations constitute the first examples of the English periphrastic comparative construction. The analysis showed that, apart from functioning frequently as adverbial modifiers (see examples (5)–(7) below), these adverbs occurred in two other relevant combinations. (5) hit nu swiður gefihð on his yfelum (TOR.GREG.CP.) it now more rejoices on its evil “now it rejoices more in its evil ways” (6) se biscop swor þæt he wolde ut of Englelande faran. & na the bishop swore that he would out of England travel and no “the bishop swore that he would leave England and that he would not mare cuman on ðisan lande butan se cyng him æfter sende more come on this land but the king him after send come back any more unless the king would send for him” (TOR.CHRO.E.) (7) and me bet licað to forlætenne nu þisne hwilwendlican wurðmynt, and me better like to abandon now this temporary honour “and I consider it better to abandon this temporary honour now

. I am indebted to David Denison and the University of Manchester for having given me access to this corpus.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.5 (19)


and þæs wuldorfullan Godes cynedome gehyrsumian on haligre and of the wonderful God kingdom serve on holy drohtnunge (TOR.AELF.LIV.) behaviour and to serve the wonderful kingdom of God through a holy behaviour”

First, ma, bet and swiðor collocate with fully-fledged adjectives, forming a prototypical periphrastic comparative construction (see Table 2.1 and examples (8)– (10)). Table 2.1. Adjectival periphrastic comparatives in the Toronto Corpus Example

Translation

Work15

Period16

Edition

Swiþor bettra Ma gode Bet wyrðe More andlang Bet wyrðe Mare heare Swiðor eadmodra Bet wyrðe Ma fexede Ma unscyldige Ma wuldorful Ma wyrse Ma hludre

More better More good More worthy More long More worthy More higher More humbler More worthy More hairy More virtuous More glorious More worse More loud

FARM.RW. GREG.D. GREG.CP. CHRO.A. WULF.PO. ANON.NI. ÆLF.HO. CLA.WII. APUL.HB. DEFE.LS. DEFE.LS. DEFE.LS. CHRD.RU.

(850–950, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c897, OE2) (10th c., OE2-3) (950–1050, OE3) (9th c., OE2-3) (950–1050, OE3) (c1020, OE3) (c1050, OE3-4) (11th c., OE4) (11th c., OE4) (11th c., OE4) (c1050, OE3)

Skeat 1887 Hecht 1900 Sweet 1871 Plummer 1965 Jost 1959 Brown 1970 Thorpe 1844 Liebermann 1903 Lignamine 1420 Rhodes 1889 Rhodes 1889 Rhodes 1889 Napier 1916

(8) þæt hi syn sylfe ma gode þonne oðre men (TOR.GREG.D.)17 “that they themselves are more good than other men” (9) Ne fleah he ðy rice ðy his ænig monn bet wyrðe wære (TOR.GREG.CP.) “He did not abandon the kingdom because any man was more worthy of it” . See the Abbreviations section above for a list of abbreviations of the works mentioned in this chapter. . I have adopted the chronological divisions established by the compilers of the Helsinki Corpus (see http://khnt.hit.uib.no/icame/manuals/HC/INDEX.HTM or the list of corpora provided in Chapter 1, Section 2.2 above). . Given the localised nature of the construction in which I am interested (i.e. verb + intensifier + adjective/participle), in the remaining examples of the chapter I will not provide a word-by-word translation of the passage (although I will use typography to highlight the relevant strings).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.6 (20)


(10) & swyþe smælon leafon swylce heo ma fexede gesewen sy (TOR.APUL.HB.) “and very small leaves in such a manner that it (she) may appear to be more hairy”

The table also shows that ma and swiðor form double periphrastic comparatives when they combine with adjectives already inflected for comparison (see examples (11) and (12) below): (11) he bið swa micele wlitegra ætforan Godes gesihðe, swa he swiðor ætforan him sylfum eadmodra bið (TOR.ÆLF.HO.) “he was so much fairer in front of God’s eyes as he was more humbler in front of himself ” (12) hu miccle mae ł swiþor bettra is monn þonne scep forþon is alefed on restedagum god to doanne (TOR.FARM.RW.) “how much [more advanced] and more better a man is than a sheep because he is allowed to do good on Sabbath”

In Section 1 above I observed that one of the points of contention about the appearance of periphrastic forms was their date of origin (i.e. whether they appeared in OE or in ME). Corpus-based studies suggest that “the periphrastic forms first appeared in the thirteenth century” and that the availability of the construction “added yet one more option to the system”, i.e. double periphrastic comparatives (e.g. more better, more lovelier; Kytö & Romaine 1997: 330–331; cf. also Kytö & Romaine 2000: 172). The OED also traces the use of more as a comparative particle back to the beginning of the thirteenth century18 – when it also records the first occurrence of double comparative forms.19 By contrast, the data shows that adjectival periphrastic comparison was a new option available in English already in the ninth century. The other collocational pattern observed in the Corpus (26 examples) consists in the verb beon (although there is one example with weorðan, see (13) below), the intensifier (swiðor, ma and bet) and a participle in predicative position (see Table 2.2 and examples (14)–(15)). In this connection, one may observe predominance

. “Traces of periphrastic comparison are found in Old English in the use of ma, bet, and swiþor with participles and occas. with adjectives. Periphrastic comparison of adjectives and adverbs with more (. . .) is found from early Middle English, although only sporadically before the 14th cent.” (OED, more, C., adv. c.). The first example of periphrastic comparison according to the OED is: c1225 Lamb. þes we ahte to beon þe edmoddre and þa mare imete (“therefore we have to be the humbler and the more moderate”). . The first double periphrastic form cited by the OED is: c1205 LAY. 4349, þu eær . . . mare hærdere (“you are. . . more harder”).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.7 (21)


of constructions with past participles over those with present participles (22 out of the 26 examples; 85% of the total). Table 2.2. Participial periphrastic comparatives in the Toronto Corpus Example20

Translation

Work

Date/period

Edition

Swiþor geangsumod Ma scamigende Ma gyldende Ma geswenced Ma witnode Ma besmiten Ma hreosende Swiþor beswicen Swiþor forsewen Swiþor beswicen Swiþur underðied Ma gedafonade *Ma gelæred *Bet gelæred Swiþor gebrocede Swiðor geswenct Swiðor afandod Swiþor gehalgod Swiðor byrnende Swiðor gegladod Swiðor gemærsod Swiðor forscyldgod Ma gelyfdon Ma gelyfdon *Swiþor gewurðod Ma gestired

More vexed More ashamed More rewarded More troubled More punished More defiled More agitated More deceived More despised More deceived More obedient More suitable More learned More learned More afflicted More troubled More experienced More dedicated More (being) burnt More contented More glorified More condemned More trusted More trusted More esteemed More moved

GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.OR. GREG.OR. GREG.BO. GREG.CP. GREG.CP. BEDE.HE. BEDE.HE. BEDE.HE. CHRO.A. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.ME. WULF.HOM. ANON.CPS.

(c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c897, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c891, OE2) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (c1150, OE4/ME)

Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Sweet 1883 Sweet 1883 Sedgefield 1899 Sweet 1871 Sweet 1871 Miller 1890 Miller 1890 Miller 1890 Plummer 1965 Thorpe 1844 Thorpe 1844 Thorpe 1844 Thorpe 1844 Thorpe 1844 Thorpe 1844 Thorpe 1844 Skeat 1887 Thorpe 1844 Bethurum 1957 Harsley 1889

(13) Ac hit wyrð swa micle swiður beswicen mid ðæm witum swa hit nu swiður gefihð on his yfelum (TOR.GREG.CP.) “But it is so much more deceived with punishments, the more it now rejoices in its evil ways” (14) forðam ðe þu ne leofast be ure sylene, ac ðu bist swiðor gegladod on offrunge ure heortan (TOR.ÆLF.HO.) “because you do not live by our gift, but you are more gladdened by the offering of our hearts” . Those instances marked with an asterisk (*) are ‘discontinuous’ examples, that is, examples where the adverbial particle does not immediately precede the participle.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.8 (22)


(15) Se wæs ma in ciriclecum þeodscipum & in lifes bylwitnesse gelæred, þon he from wære in worulde þingum (TOR.BEDE.HE.) “(he) who was more learned in ecclesiastical discipline and simplicity of life than he was energetic in the things of this world”

Given that there is no (noticeable) structural difference between the periphrastic constructions occurring with either a present or a past participle, in what follows the investigation will concentrate on those periphrastic forms containing past participles only. However, before proceeding to the analysis of the development of the periphrastic construction, an important issue should be taken into consideration, namely, the ambiguous grammatical status of OE past participles (see e.g. examples (13) to (15) above). Section 2.2 below will explore this problem in more detail. . The ambiguity of past participles in Old English In a classic paper, Lyons (2004 [1968]: 217) observes that “the tripartite distinction of nouns, verbs and adjectives (as independent parts of speech) was not established until the medieval period” and suggests that the distinction that modern linguists make between verbs and adjectives is not completely justified, for it only takes into consideration the inflectional properties of the two classes (as opposed to their ‘notional’ or conceptual properties). The similarities between verbal and adjectival categories observed by Lyons become more evident if one examines the nature of participles. Malouf (1998: 90) states that participles were considered ‘mixed’ categories in the traditional Western grammatical tradition because, as their name indicates, they participate “in the characteristics of both verbs and adjectives” (Malouf 1998 in Hudson 2003: 585). Their status in current grammatical theory, however, is less straightforward, as they are normally considered ambiguous elements that belong to one or another category depending on their syntactic behaviour (cf. Quirk et al. 1985: 414, 1327ff.). The fuzzy nature of participles – and, particularly, of past participles – has an obvious impact on the present study (cf. in this connection, the remarks in Anderson 1993: 17ff.), as it makes it difficult to ascertain the syntactic status of the early comparative constructions. Example (14) above clearly illustrates the problem: the participle gegladod ‘gladdened’ in the construction bist swiðor gegladod (i.e. ‘be (more) gladdened’) could be interpreted as either a passive participle dependent on the auxiliary beon (which would mean that bist gegladod is a passive

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.9 (23)


construction) or as a participial adjective (in which case bist gegladod would be a copula construction).21 In this connection, Visser (1973: 2087, 2088) observes that: Originally the statal passive was the normal one, for the simple reason that in Primitive Germanic wesan/beon (. . .) was a notional verb with the sense ‘to exist’, ‘to be (t)here’ while the past participle functioned as a predicative adjunct with adjectival import (. . .) [D]ynamic and statal passives have occurred side by side from Old English times

However, he does not provide further information about when or why exactly the dynamic passive (i.e. the verbal one) appeared in the language. Likewise, Traugott (1992: 198, 199; cf. also Mustanoja 1960: 440 and Lightfoot 1979: 258) notes that passives in OE derive from “a construction with a BE-verb and an inflected, originally adjectival, past participle” and that the “development of the phrasal passive involved the reanalysis of the predicative adjective as part of the verb complex.” As in the case of Visser’s quotation, one can observe that Traugott avoids the question of when exactly predicative past participles acquired their verbal meaning. Two factors have traditionally been considered indicative of the verbal/adjectival nature of past participles in OE. Firstly, Visser (1973: 2087) argues that “in general the dynamic nature [of the past participle] is obvious when there is a prepositional agentive adjunct or another adjunct denoting particulars of the action” in the context. Now, if one applies this test to the examples listed in Table 2.2 above, one will realise that, at least in four cases, the past participle of the construction is more verbal than adjectival (see examples (16) and (17) below, where the agentive22 complement is introduced by the preposition mid): (16) swa mycle swa he ma besmiten byð mid þy dysilicran spræce (TOR.GREG.D.) “so much as he is more defiled by the foolish speech” (17) Ac hie wæron micle swiþor gebrocede on þæm þrim gearum mid ceapes cwilde 7 monna (TOR.CHRO.A.) “In those three years they were much more afflicted by the destruction of cattle and people”

This criterion is, however, of limited use, as it does not help us to classify participles when there is no agentive adjunct in the sentence – which unfortunately is the case in most examples. . Mitchell (1985: 315) also notes that “the position of the participle does not affect either inflection or sense and cannot throw any light on whether it is adjectival or verbal.” . Mid was also the marker of the instrumental case in OE, and therefore, in (16) and (17) above the constituent introduced by mid can be classified as instrumental as well as agentive adjunct. I am grateful to David Denison for bringing this to my attention.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.10 (24)


Secondly, it is commonly accepted (Estival 1989: 26–27) that predicative past participles are more adjectival when they are inflected and, conversely, that they are more verbal when they do not undergo inflection. Mitchell (1985: 314) provides some counterexamples to this claim (see the examples under (18) below): (18) a.

Ac þa þa Octavianus se casere to rice feng, þa wurdon Ianas dura betyneda “But when the Caesar Octavianus came to the throne, then the gates of Janus were closed” (TOR.GREG.OR.) b. þæt Ianas dura siþþan belocen wurde buton anum geare (TOR.GREG.OR.) “that the gates of Janus were closed but once a year since then”

In (18a) the participle betyneda is inflected in agreement (nominative plural) with the subject dura. This seems to suggest that the participle is more adjectival than verbal. However, in (18b) the syntactic relation between the participle belocen and the noun dura is similar to the one established between bentyneda and dura in (18a) and in this case the adjective is not inflected for agreement. This leads Mitchell (1985: 314) to suggest that the presence/absence of inflections in past participles is by no means so systematic, and therefore, that it cannot be taken as a decisive criterion for categorising participles as either adjectives or verbs. On the whole, one may conclude that the two criteria mentioned above are neither reliable nor sufficient for a correct classification of OE participial forms. Three other factors were thus taken into consideration in my own categorisation of past participles in OE (see Sections 2.2.1–2.2.3 below). .. Coordination Estival (1989: 34–35) shows that it has been possible to coordinate predicative past participles with both verbs and adjectives in all periods of the language (see examples (19) to (21)): (19) On þis gaer waerd þe king Stephne ded & bebyried þer (TOR.CHRO.E., 1122–1154, Estival 1989: 33) On this year king Stephen was deadADJ and buriedPPLE there “This year the king Stephen died and was buried there” (20) as þe este. & al þe eise. is þer as þe oþre. beoð godlese & ignahene “All the delicacy and all the ease is here [on earth] as the other [things of earth] are void of good [godless] and corroded” (ANON.HALI., 1210–1220, Estival 1989: 33) (21) Here is great and curious present going to the great Turk, which no doubt will be much talked of and very scandalous among other nations, especially the Germans (CHAM.LT., 1599, Estival 1989: 34)

She also observes that, in this type of coordinate constructions, the auxiliary verb of either of the conjuncts can be omitted “only if both conjuncts have the same

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.11 (25)


aspect, i.e. either both are stative or both are dynamic” (Estival 1989: 35).23 In her examples, the deletion of the auxiliary is possible when the past participle combines with either adjectives or verbs (e.g. in (20) above, beoð godlese & beoð ignahene). This leads her to conclude that, in all periods, past participles may have had either stative (i.e. verbal) or dynamic (i.e. adjectival) interpretations. Furthermore, Estival suggests that, if past participles were exclusively adjectival elements in OE, we would expect that, in predicative position, they would more often coordinate with adjectives in OE than in Modern English, as in OE they supposedly lack the verbal nature that they possess in Modern English. By contrast, her study (1989: 34) shows that predicative past participles combine more often with verbs than with adjectives in all periods, and that, in fact, the proportion of participles in coordination with verbs in late OE is higher than in any other period of the language (see Table 2.3): Table 2.3. Past participle coordination in predicative position (from Estival 1989: 35) Period

With ADJ.

With verb

EOE LOE EME LME EModE PDE Total

0 (0%) 2 (2.2%) 1 (1%) 1 (0.9%) 6 (2.9%) 3 (0.5%) 13 (100%)

0 (0%) 20 (22.2%) 14 (15.4%) 6 (5.2%) 20 (9.6%) 22 (3.4%) 82 (100%)

Although the number of texts used for her analysis is rather limited,24 Estival’s investigation provides support for the suggestion that OE past participles possessed, to a certain degree, the semantic import characteristic of verbal elements. .. The use of modifiers Denison (1998: 229) argues that in sentences such as Jim was amused, the syntactic status of the participle amused is ambiguous between an adjectival and a verbal interpretation. He also claims that a recent development in the language has been . The existence of a semantic affinity between the members of a co-ordinate construction is also suggested by Schachter’s (1977) Coordinate Constituent Constraint, which holds that, in order for two elements to form a coordinate structure, they must not only “belong to the same syntactic category” but also have “the same semantic function” (Schachter 1977: 90). . Estival uses Beowulf and the Peterborough Chronicle for her analysis of the OE period; for ME, Hali Meidenhad and the Paston Letters and for EModE and PDE, the Chamberlain Letters and the Philadelphia Interviews, respectively (Estival 1989: 24).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.12 (26)


a growing tendency to analysing participles in this type of constructions as adjectival rather than verbal. This shift, according to him, can be clearly appreciated in the range of adverbial intensifiers that collocate with the participle. Thus, whereas in the nineteenth century the (verbal) intensifier much was a frequent modifier of predicative participles (e.g. I was much disappointed, in Denison 1998: 229), nowadays very (an adjectival intensifier) has replaced much in these contexts (e.g. I was very disappointed). Unfortunately, this kind of distributional test is not possible for OE past participles, as in OE there were no intensifiers/set of intensifiers categorically restricted to either verbal or adjectival modification (Estival 1989: 28). However, Estival (1989: 29, cf. also Ingersoll 1978: 196) notes that the adverb wel is one of the most common modifiers of both verbal and adjectival past participles in OE and she suggests that the past participle modified by wel has a verbal import in those cases in which wel “c[an] not be translated as Modern English well”. Estival does not elaborate further on either the reasons for her claim or on the kind of translation that we should expect when well collocates with a (verbal) participle. Furthermore, on many occasions a single word can have different but equally valid translations – which does not help the decision-making process as regards which translation should be considered the best one (and hence, the translation on which we should base our judgement on the verbal/adjectival nature of the participle). Still, one may argue that, in combination with the other factors considered in this section, Estival’s (1989) ‘translation test’ may provide a better understanding of the nature of the OE past participle. Those instances in which wel modifies a past participle were retrieved from the Toronto Corpus. More specifically, my search was restricted to those texts of the Corpus in which instances of periphrastic comparison were also found. The reason for this restriction was that, if any further conclusions with respect to the categorial status of the participle were to be reached by means of an analysis of the combination [wel + past participle], then, one would be able to extrapolate them safely to the participial periphrastic constructions attested in the same text(s), as one may assume that the author(s) of the text(s) conceptualised and used past participles in a consistent, uniform way. 64 examples of wel in combination with a participle were found in the Corpus. In 45 of them (70% of the total),25 the different variants of OE wel cannot be literally translated as PDE well, thus conforming to the behaviour that Estival (1989) considers characteristic of a verbal modifier (see (22) and (23) below): . Note that 30 of these 45 examples feature the same collocation, i.e. wel gelæred (14 examples, all of them in King Alfred’s translation of Cura Pastoralis) and wel gecueden/gecweden (16 tokens in the translation of Bede’s Historia Ecclesiastica). In either case, the semantics of the participle does not allow for a literal translation of the intensifier well.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.13 (27)


(22) æc ma hi wyllað þæt hi syn beforan oðrum mannum wel geherede “but they wish more that they were well praised (PDE very much praised) in front of other people” (TOR.GREG.D.) (23) Ioppe hatte sum burh, hehende þære Liddan, on þære wæs an wydewe wel gelyfed, Thabitas geciged (TOR.ÆLF.CH.) “Iop is called one fortified place next to Lidda, where there was a well faithful (PDE very faithful) widow called Thabitas”

.. Latin passive constructions A consideration of the origin of the text in which the periphrastic forms appear seems to supply some interesting information. Three of the earliest examples of participial comparatives attested in my corpora are translations of a Latin passive form (see (24) and (25) below). (24) LAT. Et enim ipse est deus meus et salutaris meus audiutor meus non movebor amplius “And he himself is my god, my saviour, my help and I will not be moved any more” OE He is god myn 7 helo min fultumend min ne beo ic ma gestired “He is my god and my saviour, my help and I will not be more moved” (TOR.EADW.CP.)

In this example, the Latin inflectional passive form movebor (I will be moved) is translated as ic beo gestired in OE. The OE text is a literal rendering of the Latin original, and therefore, one may interpret ma in the OE text not as an adjectival modifier (of gestired) but rather as the English equivalent of the Latin adverb amplius, which modifies the passive verb form movebor (i.e. beo gestired). A similar construction is illustrated in (25) below: (25) LAT. quanto amplius inquinatur stulta locutione (GREG.D., Vogüé 1978: 324) “how much more it is defiled with foolish speech” OE swa mycle swa he ma besmiten byð mid þy dysilicran spræce “so much as it is more defiled by foolish speech” (TOR.GREG.D.)

.. Conclusion The evidence examined in Sections 2.2.1–2.2.3 above suggests that the past participle in constructions such as the ones exemplified in (13) to (15) already possessed some kind of verbal force in OE. With regard to this, one should note that among the proponents of the native origin of periphrastic comparatives, Knüpfer (1921) had already advocated the verbal nature of the participles combining with swiðor, ma and bet. However, he went as far as to claim that the latter were already pure verbal elements in OE. As observed above, the analyses of previous sections do not support Knüpfer’s (1921) views, as the past participle cannot be straightforwardly



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.14 (28)


accommodated in either the adjectival or the verbal category. In what follows, I will thus contend that OE part participles are hybrids between verbal and adjectival elements (cf. Malouf ’s (1998) comments about ‘mixed’ categories in Section 2.2 above). The next step of the investigation will be then to investigate the implications that the hybrid nature of participles has the status and development of the early examples of periphrastic comparatives. . The development of adjectival periphrastic comparison The previous section was devoted to describing the relevant collocations of swiðor, ma and bet in my data. Yet an important issue remains to be resolved: the relation between the two (i.e. adjectival/participial) comparative patterns. As illustrated in quotation (1) above, Mitchell (1985) suggests that “the beginnings of periphrastic comparison are probably to be seen” in the participial constructions described in Section 2.1 above (Mitchell 1985: 84 [emphasis added]); however, he does not develop the issue further. A close look at the chronological distribution of the adjectival and participial periphrastic comparatives attested in my data may prove instructive in this respect (see Table 2.4 and Table 2.5; the total number of examples under consideration is provided in Table 2.2): Table 2.4. Participial and adjectival periphrastic constructions in OE2 Example

Translation

Work

Date/period

Swiþor geangsumod Ma scamigende Ma gyldende Ma geswenced Ma witnode Ma besmiten Ma hreosende Swiþor forsewen Swiþor beswicen Swiþor beswicen Ma gedafonade Ma gelæred Bet gelæred Swiþor gebrocede Swiþur underðied Swiþor bettra Ma gode Bet wyrðe

More vexed More ashamed More rewarded More troubled More punished More defiled More agitated More despised More deceived More deceived More suitable More learned More learned More afflicted More obedient More better More good More worthy

GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.OR. GREG.BO. GREG.OR. GREG.CP. BEDE.HE. BEDE.HE. BEDE.HE. CHRO.A. GREG.CP. FARM.RW. GREG.D. GREG.CP.

(c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c890, OE2) (c891, OE2) (c897, OE2) (850–950, OE2) (c875, OE2) (c897, OE2)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.15 (29)


Table 2.5. Participial and adjectival periphrastic constructions in OE3 Example

Translation

Work

Date/period

Swiðor geswenct Swiðor afandod Swiþor gehalgod Swiðor byrnende Swiðor gegladod Swiðor gemærsod Swiðor forscyldgod Ma gelyfdon Ma gelyfdon Swiþor gewurðod Ma gestired More andlang Bet wyrðe Mare heare Swiðor eadmodra Bet wyrðe Ma fexede Ma unscyldige Ma wuldorful Ma wyrse Ma hludre

More troubled More experienced More dedicated More (being) burnt More contented More glorified More condemned More trusted More trusted More esteemed More moved More long More worthy More higher More humbler More worthy More hairy More virtuous More glorious More worse More loud

ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.HO. ÆLF.ME. WULF.HO. EADW.CP. ANON.BO. WULF.PO. ANON.NI. ÆLF.HO. CLA.WII. APUL.HB. DEFE.LS. DEFE.LS. DEFE.LS. CHRD.RU.

(950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (950–1050, OE3) (c1150, OE4–ME) (10th c., OE2-3) (950–1050, OE3) (9th c., OE2-3) (950–1050, OE3) (c1020, OE3) (c1050, OE3-4) (11th c, OE4) (11th c, OE4) (11th c, OE4) (c1050, OE3)

In OE2 (the period in which periphrastic forms are first attested in writing), the majority of cases feature participles (as opposed to unambiguous adjectives – of which there are only 3 examples (0.0008 tokens/thousand words); see the underlined forms in Table 2.4). By contrast, in OE3 the number of constructions with unambiguous adjectives has increased considerably (10 examples (0.003 tokens/thousand words) – see the underlined forms in Table 2.5). The chronological distribution of the examples indicates (a) that English periphrastic comparison was first attested in participial constructions and (b) that the spread of the construction from participles to adjectives started in OE2.26 One may argue that this spread was ultimately promoted by the ambiguous nature of the OE participles: I have suggested above that past participles possessed verbal characteristics already in Old English; at the same time, previous literature has shown that the English passive arose from a copula construction (cf. Visser 1973

. The lack of earlier data (due to the scarcity of surviving texts) makes it impossible to ascertain whether this spread started before the period 850–950.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.16 (30)


or Traugott 1992 in Section 2.2 above),27 and that this development was not fully completed in OE. In other words, the early periphrastic comparatives could well be considered examples of ‘syntactic blends’ (cf. Jespersen 1909–49: 385ff.; Bolinger 2004 [1961]: 318). The lack of a clear boundary between the two constructions involved (i.e. copula construction/passive construction) may have over time favoured the gradual reanalysis of past participles as (more) adjectival elements.28 This, in its turn, may have led to the analogical spread of the periphrastic construction from (adjectival) participles to prototypical adjectives. Another scenario is, however, possible, i.e. that in which the spread of the construction from participles to prototypical adjectives was driven by the original adjectival import of the past participle.

. The evolution of the periphrastic comparative marker(s)29 . Introduction So far this chapter has concentrated on determining where English periphrastic comparative constructions come from. However, very little attention has been paid (here and in previous literature)30 to the adverbial particles that formed the earliest periphrastic comparatives, especially to the factors that may have led to the disappearance of two of them (bet and swiðor) and, consequently, to the establishment of ma (‘more’) as the prototypical analytic comparative marker. Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 showed that there was a difference in the frequency with which the three adverbs occurred in the comparative construction. Bet seemed to be the least used particle (with 11% of the total number of examples) in OE. Swiðor was attested in 39% of the cases, while ma was the most frequent marker, with 50% of the total number of forms analysed. Recent functionally-oriented studies (cf. Bybee & Schreibmann 1999 or Bybee & Hopper’s 2001 volume) have emphasised the role of frequency in language . The development of passives constructions out of copula constructions seems to be, crosslinguistically, a usual process (Haspelmath 1994: 167, 168). . Note, in this connection, Denison’s (2006: 302) comment on the fact that “categories may be cluster concepts” and that category changes may be the result of “stepwise acquisition of properties” as opposed to the simultaneous acquisition of the definitional characteristics of the new category. . I am very grateful to Belén Méndez-Naya for her comments on this section. . Note, for instance, that Mitchell’s (1985: 84) account of the particles does not go beyond the enumeration of the different linguistic variants available (e.g. ma, bet, swiðor).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.17 (31)


variation and change. It not only underlies key linguistic concepts (cf. Haspelmath 2006 on the notion of markedness) but can also “effect linguistic behaviour” both synchronically and diachronically (Bybee & Hopper 2001: 10). In this connection, Bybee & Hopper (2001) point to the importance that frequency has in the formation of new constructions, noting that “the more often two elements occur in sequence the tighter will be their constituent structure” (Bybee & Hopper 2001: 14). Along the same lines, Krug (2003: 15) suggests that high linguistic frequency favours entrenchment (i.e. fixation in the mental lexicon), and therefore, that more entrenched or more frequent (morphological) elements tend to be more resistant to change and disappearance.31 Applying these ideas to the OE periphrastic markers, one may initially suggest that the disappearance of bet and swiðor as comparative markers may have been related to their (relative) lower degree of cognitive entrenchment as compared to ma – which in its turn may have had an impact on the degree of grammatical ‘fusion’ with the other constituent (i.e. participle or adjective) with which they formed the periphrastic comparative. This is, however, a very general claim that needs further substantiation. Previous research (Phillips 2001; Hare, Ford & Marslen-Wilson 2001) notes that frequency is often inextricably linked to the operation of other (cognitive, phonological, grammatical) factors in processes of variation and change. This may well be the case of the comparative markers – note that, so far it has only been stated that ma is the most frequent form among the available options, but no explanation as to why that is the case has been provided. With the aim of answering this question, an individual analysis of each of the comparative markers is given in Sections 3.1.1–3.1.3 below. .. Bet As noted above, bet, being the least frequent adverb, was the most likely candidate for disappearing as a comparative marker. According to the OED (cf. also Bosworth 1882:93), bet is originally an uninflected adverbial comparative stem from which the comparative adjective better derives.32 At the end of the OE period, bet(e)re (the neuter gender of the adjective) began to be used in the place of (adverbial) bet in certain constructions where it was dubious whether bet was an adjective or an adverb (as in hit is bet = ‘it is well/good’). The use of better gradually . High frequency has a ‘conservative’ effect only on morphosyntactic structures. By contrast, high frequency in phonological environments is a ‘progressive’ force, as it “causes the lenition and erosion of overt phonetic substance” (Krug 2003: 18). . The Gmc. comparative ending of adverbial bet underwent several phonetic changes, with the result that, by the OE period, it either had been reduced to -e or lost in its entirety (see OED, bet, adv. and a., s.1).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.18 (32)


spread to other environments until it finally ousted bet (c1600), probably helped by the fact that bet, due to the lack of the comparative suffix -er, was no longer a transparent comparative (see Table 2.6): Table 2.6. Bet/better in the OE and ME subperiods of the Helsinki Corpus OE2

OE3

OE4

HM1

HM2

HM3

HM4

Bet 10 (29%) 14 (39%) 4 (37% ) 22 (38%) 11 (20%) 6 (8%) 2 (2%) Better 25 (71%) 22 (61%) 7 (63% ) 36 (62%) 44 (80%) 69 (92%) 80 (98%) Total 35 (100%) 36 (100%) 11 (100%) 58 (100%) 55 (100%) 75 (100%) 82 (100%)

Factors other than morphosyntax may have also played a role in the gradual disappearance of the form in its function as a periphrastic comparative marker. Originally, bet conveyed a positive semantic load (bet = ‘of superior quality than the average’). A close look at Table 2.2 and Table 2.3 shows that bet is very much restricted in its scope to combinations with items in line with its original meaning; more in particular, with adjectives denoting positive value (the adjective wyrðe (‘worthy’) in all but one of my examples).33 This hypothesis is, nevertheless, tentative due to the low number of periphrastic comparatives with bet attested in my data (4 examples). .. Swiþor Swiþor is the comparative form of the degree adverb swiþe (from OE swiþ (‘strong’), meaning ‘very, extremely’ / ‘fast, quickly’). Mustanoja (1960: 325; cf. also Fischer 2000: 170) observes that swiþe was frequently used as an intensifier of adjectives, adverbs and verbs in OE and EME.34 In addition, Méndez-Naya (2003: 379) suggests that the intensifier function of swiþe “developed at a very early stage”, a fact that might have favoured the development of the adverb as a comparative marker. The general distribution of swiðor in the Helsinki Corpus35 indicates that it was first attested both as a comparative adverb and comparative marker (see examples (26)–(27) below) in OE2 (i.e. 850–950), and that it had (virtually) disappeared in either function by the second half of the 12th century (see Table 2.7): . There is only one case in which bet co-occurs with a participle (bet gelæred, ‘better/more learned’). Note however, that this participle (gelæred; PDE ‘learned’) also has positive connotations. . See Méndez-Naya (2003) for a corpus-based distribution of swiþe in intensifier function in OE and ME. . I have used the Helsinki Corpus for this analysis, as it allows a (relatively) balanced comparison of the distribution of any linguistic item throughout the early periods of the language.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.19 (33)


Table 2.7. Development of swiþor in OE and ME (Helsinki Corpus) Swiþor

OE2 OE3 OE4 HM1 (no./1,000 words) (no./1,000 words) (no./1,000 words) (no./1,000 words)

Comp. adverb 16 (0.17) Comp. marker 3 (0.03)

44 (0.17) 2 (0.007)

12 (0.17) 1 (0.01)

3 (0.02) 1 (0.008)

(26) Sume him ondræadað earfoðu swiðor þonne hi þyrfen (TOR.GREG.BO.) “Some feared the troubles with him more greatly than they needed” (27) Ac hie wæron micle swiþor gebrocede on þæm þrim gearum mid ceapes cwilde & monna (TOR.CHRO.A.) “And they were much more afflicted in these three years by the destruction of cattle and people”

The disappearance of swiðor may be related to the general decrease (and eventual loss) of swiþe in ME. The Helsinki Corpus shows that swiþe was relatively frequent in OE (reaching its peak in OE4, see Table 2.8). By contrast, it started to lose ground steadily in HM2 (the first period in which I could not find any examples of swiðor in the Helsinki Corpus), until its complete disappearance by the end of the ME period. Table 2.8. Development of swiþe in OE and ME (Helsinki Corpus) OE2 OE3 OE4 HM1 HM2 HM3 HM4 (no./1,000 (no./1,000 (no./1,000 (no./1,000 (no./1,000 (no./1,000 (no./1,000) words) words) words) words) words) words) words) Swiþe 196 (2.1)

416 (1.6)

251 (3.7)

247 (2.2)

113 (1.2)

5 (0.02)

1 (0.004)

Furthermore, as in the case of bet, one may establish a link between the original meaning of swiðor and the linguistic items with which it combines as a degree marker. Thus, in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2, swiðor, perhaps due to its (relatively) verbal character, tends to combine mostly with participles (e.g. gebrocede (‘afflicted’), beswicen (‘deceived’); see also example (28) below): (28) For ðæm andbide & for ðæm geþylde me ðincð þæt he sie ðe swiðor forsewen “Because of his waiting and his resignation, it appears to me that he (was) therefore the more despised” (TOR.GREG.BO.)

.. Ma The case of ma is, however, different. As Table 2.1 and Table 2.2 illustrate, ma was the comparative particle that most frequently combined with both adjectives (e.g. ma gode, ma mærlecra) and participles (e.g. ma gelæred, ma gyldende).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.20 (34)


One may then hypothesise that, after an initial period of competition between the three periphrastic markers, ma, the (semantically) more general particle (i.e. ma = ‘greater’), gained ground at the expense of the other two until it ousted them completely and established itself as the prototypical analytical comparative marker. Table 2.9 summarises the distribution of the three comparative adverbs in OE. Table 2.9. General distribution of periphrastic markers in OE Adverb

+ Adjective

+ Participle

Total

Ma Bet Swiðor

8 (42%) 3 (75%) 2 (14%)

11 (58%) 1 (25%) 12 (86%)

19 (100%) 4 (100%) 14 (100%)

.. Conclusion The study of the three early periphrastic markers shows that, unlike bet and swiðor, ma combined freely with both participles and adjectives. I would like to mention here Paradis’ (1997, 2001, 2003) model of semantic bidirectionality. Following previous cognitive research (e.g. Langacker 1987; Clausner & Croft 1999), Paradis suggests that the elements in a collocation exert pressure on one another and, in consequence, that the success/failure of the collocation will ultimately depend on whether harmony between the semantics of the collocates has been reached (Paradis 1997: 26, 66, 2001: 239). Applying this idea to the present study, one may suggest that it was the (more) general semantics of ma that made its collocation with participles and adjectives more ‘harmonious’ (and, possibly, frequent) and therefore, rendered it the most obvious candidate for grammaticalisation into the obligatory comparative particle.36 Another factor that may have led to the spread of ma as the preferred comparative marker is the fact the etymological connection between mara (‘PDE ‘more’) and mycel (PDE ‘much’, ‘great’) was no longer clear in OE: the two forms had formally diverged from one another to such an extent in OE that mara could no longer be connected to either mycel or the idea of ‘great’ (Olga Fischer, p.c.).

. The ways in which the rise and development of periphrastic comparatives relate to grammaticalisation theory will be discussed in Section 5 below.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.21 (35)


. Latin influence on OE periphrastic comparatives . English periphrastic comparatives: A Latin borrowing? The results obtained so far indicate that periphrastic comparative forms are a native development. Note, however, that all adjectival periphrastic examples mentioned by Mitchell (1985: 84) come from works originally written in Latin. Likewise, 24 out of the 39 examples attested in my corpus are translations of Latin texts (see Table 2.10). Table 2.10. Summary of the translated OE periphrastic comparatives OE example

Translation

Work

Edition

Ma hreosende Swiþor beswicen Swiþor forsewen Swiþor beswicen Swiþur underðied Bet wyrðe Ma scamigende Swiþor geangsumod Ma gyldende Ma gode Ma besmiten Ma witnode Ma geswenced Swiþor bettra Ma gelæred Bet gelæred Ma gedafonade Ma wyrse Ma unscyltige Ma wuldorful Ma fexede37 Ma gestired Mare heare Ma hludre

More agitated More deceived More despised More deceived More obedient More worthy More sad More vexed More rewarded More good More defiled More punished More troubled More better More learned More learned More befitted More worse More innocent More glorious More hairy More moved More higherer More loud

GREG.OR. GREG.OR. GREG.BO. GREG.CP. GREG.CP. GREG.CP. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. GREG.D. FARM.RW. BEDE.HE. BEDE.HE. BEDE.HE. DEFE.LS. DEFE.LS. DEFE.LS. APUL.HB. CPS. ANON.NI. CHROD.RU.

Sweet 1883 Sweet 1883 Sedgefield 1899 Sweet 1871 Sweet 1871 Sweet 1871 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Hecht 1900 Skeat 1887 Miller 1890 Miller 1890 Miller 1890 Rhodes 1889 Rhodes 1889 Rhodes 1889 Cockayne 1864 Harsley 1889 Brown 1970 Napier 1916

. Cockayne (1874: xxxix) observes that the English Herbarium consists of two parts. The first part is a translation from the Latin Herbarium Apulei. The second part (where this example was found) was originally taken from a scientific tract by a Greek botanist called Dioskorides. According to the literature, this second part of the Herbarium was not drawn directly from Dioskorides but from a Latin text based on Dioskorides’ work instead (cf. Gunther 1934 for an English translation of the treatise). Unfortunately, this Latin manuscript was lost and it is there-



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.22 (36)


This may weaken the hypothesis of a native origin of the periphrastic comparatives, as it would be possible to suggest that the periphrastic forms occurring in these OE texts were calques on Latin analytic comparative constructions. In order to investigate this possibility in more detail, a contrastive study of the OE periphrastic comparatives and their Latin original is necessary. But before turning to the results, a brief summary of the main characteristics of the Latin system of comparison may prove instructive. . The Latin comparative system: Some introductory remarks Like OE, Latin possessed an essentially binary comparative system with both inflectional and periphrastic strategies (the uncommon double comparative in Latin and OE is disregarded here). The inflectional comparative was formed by the addition of the suffix -or (when the adjective modified either masculine or feminine nouns) and -ius (for adjectives modifying neuter nouns) to the adjectival stem, while the periphrastic form pre-posed the adverb magis to the adjective in the positive degree. This option was usually preferred for adjectives of three endings (i.e. -us -a -um) with a vocalic stem (e.g. idoneus) due to phonetic and metrical reasons (Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 165; Bassols de Climent 1967: 170; Leumann & Hofmann 1977: 498).38 According to Bassols de Climent (1967: 17), the periphrastic comparative gradually gained ground at the expense of its inflectional counterpart “sin razón alguna que lo justifique” (i.e. “without any obvious reason”) and prevailed as the most frequent comparative strategy in post-classical spoken Latin first and later in the Romance languages. It should also be noted here that in the post-classical period the adverbial intensifier plus sometimes replaced magis as a comparative marker (e.g. plus miser sim, i.e. ‘I am more miserable’; Hofmann & Szantyr 1965: 166). The second term of comparison was expressed in Latin in two ways; either by the postposition of the particle quam to the comparative adjective (e.g. Petrus altior quam Paulus est) or in ablative case without quam (Petrus altior Paulo est).39 fore impossible to determine whether the OE comparative correlates to a similar form in the text from which it was translated. The reading of Dioskorides’ original work (cf. Asulanus 1518) shows that the Greek manuscript does not contain any comparative structure in the passage under consideration. However, it is and it will remain uncertain whether the (lost) Latin version of Dioskorides’ work was either a literal translation or an adaptation of the Greek original text – in which case the (Latin) paragraph under analysis might have presented a comparative form. . Although with some exceptions, e.g. antiquus, antiquor. . In addition, there were some irregular inflectional comparatives: bonus:melius (good: better); malus:peius (bad:worse).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.23 (37)


. Analysis of the data .. The Latin original examples and their English translation Table 2.11 summarises the results obtained in the comparison between the OE examples and their Latin source. Only 6 out of the 24 OE examples under consideration (numbers 2, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15 in the table) were literal translations of the Latin original form. In 3 of these examples (2, 5 and 6 in the table), however, the OE text consists of glosses written above the Latin original. This fact may have contributed to the structural correlation between the English rendering and the Latin original construction, as in these cases the aim of the translation is not to achieve a coherent sentence but just to create good correspondences at word-level (see (29) to (31) below). (29) LAT. plus erubescens uultum hominum quam Dei iudicium metuens (GREG.D., Vogüé 1978: 94) OE (forþon þe heo wæs) ma scamigende for manna onsyne, þonne heo wære þone godes dom ondrædende (TOR.GREG.D., Hecht 1900: 72) “(because she was) more (being) ashamed of the face of men than fearing the judgement of God” (Gardner 1911: 38) (30) LAT. quanto magis melior est homo oue itaque licet sabbatis bene facere OE hu miccle mae þ swiþor bettra is monn þonne scep forþon is alefed on reste dagum god to doanne (TOR.FARM.RW., Skeat 1887: 99) “how much [more advanced] and more better is a man than a sheep because (he) is allowed to do good on Sabbath” (31) LAT. ordinavit virum magis ecclesiasticis disciplines institutum (. . . ) quam in sæculi rebus strenuum (Moberly 1869: 216) OE þa gehadode he sume mon, se wæs ma in ciriclecum þeodscipum (. . . ) gelæred þon he from wære in worulde þingum (TOR.BEDE.HE.) “he consecrated a man who was more learned in ecclesiastical discipline (. . .) than was energetic in the things of this world”

There is also another example in which the OE comparative corresponds to a comparative in Latin. The Latin form is, however, a comparative of inferiority and, consequently, irrelevant for the purposes of the present analysis (see (32) below – which corresponds to example 3 in Table 2.11):40

. Note that the comparative of inferiority in English does not display variation between inflectional and periphrastic comparative strategies.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.24 (38)


Table 2.11. Summary of the OE translations and the corresponding Latin originals

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Example

Translation

Lat. original

Translation

Ma hreosende Ma scamigende Swiþor beswicen Swiðor forsewen Ma gelæred Swiþor bettra Bet gelæred Bet wyrðe Ma gyldende Swiður underðied Ma gode Swiþor geangsumod Ma wyrse Ma wuldorful Ma unscyldige Ma gestured Ma geswenced Ma besmiten Ma witnode Ma gedafonade Ma hludre Mare heare Ma fexede Swiþor beswicen

More agitated More ashamed More deceived More despised More learned More better More learned More worthy More (being) rewarded More obedient More good More vexed More worse More glorious More innocent More moved More troubled More defiled More punished More suitable More loud More higher More hairy More deceived

Magis quam Plus erubescens Minus quam (OE addition) Magis institutum Magis melior Aptius erudiri (OE addition) Debitores (OE addition) Plus meminerunt (OE addition) Magis peius Magis gloriosum Magis innocentes Movebor amplius Noli fatigari Amplius inquinatur Amplius puniantur Magis quam Excelsa (OE addition) n/a41 (OE adition)

More than Being more ashamed Less than — More learned More better Be greatly learned — Debters — To consider oneself more — More worse More glorious More innocent To be moved more Do not be troubled Be defiled more Be punished more More than Loud — n/a —

(32) LAT. Non minus arte Alexadri superata quam virtute Macedonium “(They went back) overcome no less by Alexander’s craft than by the virtue of the Macedonian people” OE þe swiðor beswicen for Alexandres searewe þone for his gefeohrte “(they were) more deceived by Alexander’s craft than by his fight” (TOR.GREG.OR.)

At this point, one should bear in mind that many of these examples come from translations made by King Alfred and his circle of scribes. As Sedgefield notes, King Alfred’s translations are “by no means what would in these days be called ‘literal”’ (1899: xxv), and therefore, it is not surprising to find many cases in which a whole paragraph is paraphrased rather than rendered word by word in OE (compare, for instance, the Latin and OE preface to Bede’s Ecclesiastical history, cf. Moberly 1869; King 1930; or the OE translation of Agustine’s Soliloquies; Endter 1922). . See fn. 37 above.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.25 (39)


This is what seems to happen in 6 of my comparative examples (numbers 4, 8, 10, 12, 22 and 24 in Table 2.11), where the sentence/paragraph in which the OE periphrastic comparative occurs is a textual addition to the Latin original text. See, for instance, (33) below, where the zero symbol (i.e. ø) in the Latin original corresponds to the sentence in bold in the OE translations – which is where the comparative bet wyrðe (‘more worthy’) appears: (33) LAT. quam is qui hos nimirum regeret, quos ipse creaverat? ø (. . .) exemplum se sequentibus praebens, rex fieri noluit “who could rule men without sin but the man who created them? ø (Christ) eager to offer an example to his followers. . .” OE Hwa meahte ieð monnum rædan butan scylde, ðonne se ðe hi gescop? Ne fleah he ðy rice ðy his anig monn bet wyrðe wære, ac he wolde us ða bisene astellan “Who could easier rule men without sin than he who created them? He did not leave the kingdom because any man was more worthy of it, but he wished to set us an example” (TOR.GREG.CP.)

Another type of addition is the one exemplified in (34) and (35) below. In this case, the Latin original (which does not formally convey the idea of degree) is translated in OE as a comparative (4 examples; numbers 9, 11, 17 and 21 in Table 2.11). 42 (34) LAT. “Quare tardasti pater? Noli fatigari, quia iam defunctus est” (Vogüé 1978: 112) “Why were you late, father? Don’t be troubled because he is already dead” OE la fæder, to hwon latedest þu? nelle þu nu beon ma geswenced, forþon þe he is forðfered” (TOR.GREG.D.) “why were you late, father? Don’t be more troubled now, for he is dead” (35) LAT. quoniam quamuis cantilene sonus in aliis officiis excelsa soleat fieri voce “because however the sound of the song in other services is used to occur with loud voice” OE for þam þeah hit an oðrum þenungum gewuna sy þæt ma hludre stefne bruce “because it is a habit of other services the use of a more loud voice” (TOR.CHRD.RU.)

Apart from literal translations and vernacular additions, I found 6 examples where the OE periphrastic form conveyed a meaning similar to that of the Latin construc-

. Observe that in example (34) the adjective excelsa is semantically an implicit superlative and carries the idea of “a very high degree”.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.26 (40)


tion, although the Latin form was not formally a comparative adjective. These examples conform to two main Latin syntactic patterns. The first pattern (2 examples) involves the use of the (adverbial) particle magis (“more”) in comparative function (i.e. [v. + magis (quam)], see (36)–(37) below, examples 1 and 20 in Table 2.11): (36) LAT. si Romanæ republicæ moles nunc magis imbecilitate propia senectutis, quam alienis concussae viribus contremiscunt “if the bases of the Roman Republic are sadly agitated more due to the weakness which is characteristic of the elder age than for the strength of foreign people who beat it” OE ðæt ægþer ge hio self ge hiere anweald is ma hreosende for ealddome þonne of æniges cyninges niede (TOR.GREG.OR.) “that both it (the Roman Republic) itself and its power is more feelingsorrow (more being agitated) due to age than for need of any king” (37) LAT. Under multis visum et sæpe dictum est, quia talis animi virum, episcopum magis quam regem ordinary deceret (Moberly 1869: 234) “In the eyes of many and often was said that a man of such soul, bishop more than king ought to be consecrated” OE þonon monegum was gesewen 7 oft cweden, þaette swelces modes wer ma gedafone beon to biscope gehalgad, þonne cyning wære (TOR.BEDE.HE.) “for this reason many thought, and often repeated, that a man of such a character was more suitable for consecration as bishop than for being king”

The second pattern (4 examples; 7, 16, 18 and 19 in Table 2.11) is constituted by a Latin passive verb followed by a comparative adverb ([pass. + comp. adv.], see (38)–(40) below): (38) LAT. Et enim ipse est deus meus et salutaris meus audiutor meus non movebor amplius (Harsley 1889: 102) “And he himself is my god, my saviour, my help and I will not be moved more” OE He is god myn 7 helo min fultumend min ne beo ic ma gestired “He is my god and my saviour, my help and I will not be more moved” (TOR.EADW.CP.) (39) LAT. ut isti uideat mala quae caueant, illi uero amplius puniatur “in order that they see the evil things that they ought to avoid and those evil (people) being punished more” (Vogüé 1978: 134) OE 7 þas beoð þe ma witnode þe hi noldon heom bewarnian þa helle witu, þe hi gesawon 7 ongæton (TOR.GREG.D.)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.27 (41)


“that (the others) to be the more punished, in that they would not take heed of these torments, which they both knew and saw” (Gardner 1911: 132) (40) LAT. quanto amplius inquinatur stulta locutione. (Vogüé 1978: 324) “how much more it is defiled with foolish speech” OE swa mycle swa he ma besmiten byð mid þy dysilicran spræce (TOR.GREG.D.) “how much it is more defiled with foolish speech” (Gardner 1911: 132)

.. Conclusion The results obtained from the analysis carried out in Section 4.3.1 above provide support for the hypothesis that English comparatives are not Latin borrowings but a native development. Periphrastic forms not only occur in OE translations of Latin original texts, but they also appear in vernacular texts (39% of the total number of examples analysed) written approximately in the same period in which the translations were made. Moreover, only 6 out of the 24 instances of the translated OE periphrastic forms are verbal calques on the Latin original comparative; the majority of the (OE) examples (71%) being either vernacular additions to the Latin original text or the result of a non-literal translation of Latin structures which are not comparatives of superiority. I suggested above that English periphrastic forms could have well resulted from the gradual reanalysis of a syntactic blend (i.e. passive and copula construction), where the (adjectival-verbal) participle gradually becomes the head of an adjective phrase and takes the pre-posed intensifier as a modifier. This syntactic pattern would have extended by analogy from participles to true adjectives later on. Now, taking into consideration the relatively most frequent Latin construction rendered as a periphrastic comparative in OE (that exemplified in (38) to (40) above, i.e. an inflectional passive modified by an adverbial intensifier), one might be inclined to argue that this kind of Latin construction had an influence on the rise of the early periphrastic forms in English. This however does not seem to be a very plausible option, as the passive in Latin was formed synthetically and not by the combination of an auxiliary verb and a participle as is the case of English. The adverb in Latin did not have a participial form to modify and, consequently, it could not have had an influence on the interpretation of the participle as an adjective in the English passive construction. The occurrence of adverbial intensifiers other than PDE more as comparative particles also seems to weaken the hypothesis of a foreign origin of the periphrastic comparative – at least in the sense that it invalidates the possibility that the morphosyntactic structure of English periphrastic comparatives is a lexical calque on Latin analytic forms. In addition, as Table 2.2 shows, the vernacular examples of



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.28 (42)


previous sections mostly come from texts which can be broadly classified as religious tracts. One may argue that the influence of Latin as a prestige language may have been more noticeable in religious and political domains, and therefore, that religious writers might have been prone to incorporate Latin features in their works when they wrote in the vernacular. At the same time, one of the factors that may have led these authors to write in English instead of in Latin may have been the need to reach all kinds of people, even the most illiterate ones.43 To the extent that this was the case, using a structure that was not available in English would clash with this aim. Sound as these arguments are, the situation turns out to be rather more complicated (see Section 5 and Ch. 3 below).

. Periphrastic comparison and contact-induced grammatical change The idea that underlies the suggestions made in Section 4.3.2 above (i.e. that English periphrastic comparatives is not the result of Latin influence) is that calquing is the only possible outcome of language contact. However, recent literature on contact linguistics suggests otherwise (cf. Thomason & Kaufmann 1988; SilvaCorvalán 1993; Aikhenvald 2003; Heine & Kuteva 2003, 2005) for, together with calquing (or “form-meaning transfers”), transfer of the following linguistic material is also possible: a. Form, that is, sounds or combinations of sounds b. Meanings (including grammatical meanings or functions) or combinations of meanings (. . .) c. Syntactic relations, that is, the order of meaningful elements d. Any combination of (a) through (d) (adapted from Heine & Kuteva 2005: 2) Factor (b) seems to be most interesting as regards the present investigation, for it suggests that a language can replicate a concept/meaning/function from another language without copying or adapting the form that is associated with it. As one of their many examples, Heine & Kuteva (2005) mention the case of Malinche Mexicano. Classical Mexicano speakers usually formed passive and impersonal constructions by adding -l¯o, -¯o or -ohua. However, due to intense contact with Spanish (which uses the third person reflexive pronoun se as an impersonal passive strategy), Malinche Mexicano has seen the rise of an impersonal construction . For instance, Ælfric claims to use a simple language in order to reach a wider – and less learned – audience (Godden 1992: 521).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.29 (43)


with the third person native reflexive pronoun -mo – a pattern that was very much restricted in use before the contact situation with Spanish (Heine & Kuteva 2005: 67; from Hill & Hill 1986). The spread of this construction took place first in verbs borrowed from Spanish, then to some etymologically Mexicano verbs that did not take reflexive pronouns and finally, to all verbs taking reflexive markers. Heine & Kuteva (2005) thus argue that the new impersonal construction in Malinche Mexicano is the result of contact-induced replication, where “mo- has been . . . generalized to an impersonal use pattern ‘precisely equivalent in meaning to Spanish impersonals”’ (Heine & Kuteva 2005: 67; from Hill & Hill 1986: 292). Applying the same line of reasoning to the present case-study, one may argue that the periphrastic construction in English could be understood as the conceptual replication (or transfer) of the Latin comparative strategies through the use of the language’s own structures. Heine & Kuteva (2005) also observe that [O]ne of the most ubiquitous phenomena characterizing [contact-induced] grammatical replication concerns minor use patterns, that is, pieces of discourse that are of low frequency of use and confined to use in highly restricted contexts. Such minor use patterns can be activated and gradually develop into major use patterns, being used more often and in novel contexts, and becoming functionally equivalent to some major use pattern or category of the model language (Heine & Kuteva 2005: 263)

In addition, they suggest that processes of grammatical replication are regular and in accordance with principles of grammaticalisation (Heine & Kuteva 2005: 80, which they describe as follows: extension, i.e. the rise of novel grammatical meanings when linguistic expressions are extended to new contexts (contact-induced reinterpretation) desemantization (or “semantic bleaching”), i.e. loss (or generalization) in meaning context decategorialization, i.e. loss in morphosyntactic properties characteristic of lexical or other less grammaticalized forms erosion (or “phonetic reduction”), i.e. loss in phonetic substance

To what extent can these claims be said to lie behind the rise of periphrastic comparatives in English? The data from the Toronto Corpus show that the pattern swiþor, ma and bet + participle was available in OE, both in translations and (even more frequently) in native texts. Furthermore, with the benefit of hindsight (cf. also Kytö 1996 or Kytö & Romaine 1997), we can see how the OE periphrastic comparative pattern spread over time and became one of the main comparative strategies in English. Put differently, the development of periphrastic comparative forms in OE seems to fit in with the developments that Heine & Kuteva (2005) consider frequent pathways of contact-induced change; i.e. “a minor use pattern,”



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.30 (44)


which through frequency of use eventually develops into a “major use pattern” and finally, into a grammatical construction (see Table 2.12). Table 2.12. From minor to major use patterns (from Heine & Kuteva 2005: 46) Stage Frequency 0 I

II

Context

Meaning

Low frequency Restricted Weakly grammaticalized Increase in frequency Extension to new contexts An additional, more grammatical meaning may emerge in the new contexts High frequency Generalized Generalization of the new grammatical meaning

One should also note that the development of periphrastic comparison in English seems to follow some44 of the grammaticalisation parameters put forward by Heine & Kuteva (2005); i.e. extension (the pattern spread from participial adjectives to fully-fledged adjectives) and desemantisation (Section 3.1 above shows that the initial comparative particles – swiþor, ma, bet – had different lexical meanings). Standard literature on grammaticalisation also points to a process of ‘fixation’ or ‘obligatorification’ of the grammaticalising elements (cf. Lehmann 1995) – which in the case of periphrastic comparatives would be manifested by the eventual reduction of the periphrastic comparative markers to more (ma). Furthermore, previous literature on language contact (Trudgill 1983: 103–105; cf. Thomason & Kaufman 1988) suggests that changes from synthetic to analytic structures are developments that evidence the ‘foreignisation’ (using Thomason & Kaufman’s terms) of a language.45 Finally, although contact induced grammatical replication as described by Heine & Kuteva (2005: 13) “is most likely to occur if there is a large degree of intensive and extensive bilingualism” – a situation that does not apply to the English-Latin contact in OE times – research shows that contact-induced grammatical changes can arise when the model46 language is only available through the written medium, “in particular if the latter [i.e. the model . As Heine & Kuteva (2005: 165) observe, not all linguistic items undergoing a grammaticalisation process need to fulfil all grammaticalisation parameters. . In this connection, McWorther (2002: 248) mentions the presence of “comparative and superlative suffixes” (in other words, inflectional forms) as characteristic grammatical features of Germanic languages. . In Heine & Kuteva’s (2005) model, the “model language” is the language exerting influence over one another – which is called “replica” language.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.31 (45)


language] is considered to represent a more attractive religion and/or a more powerful civilization” (Heine & Kuteva 2005: 250). This seems to be the case of Latin in OE times (see Section 4.3.2 above). One should nevertheless bear in mind that there are a number of arguments against the pro-Latin explanation of the rise of English periphrastic forms. First, it has been argued above that the status of periphrastic comparison in OE is that of a ‘minor use pattern.’ But whereas Heine & Kuteva (2005) suggest that, in contact-induced changes, it is the influence of the model language that makes minor language patterns shift into major ones (see Table 2.12), no such notable increase of the fully-fledged adjectival periphrastic forms (as well as the participial ones) is observed in OE texts that have survived until the present day, even though the (written) influence of Latin on OE dates at least from King Alfred’s times (OE2). As previous scholarship has observed (Mustanoja 1960; Kytö & Romaine 1997), the increase of the periphrastic forms does not take place until the LME period – when the influence of French is most notable. With this I am not willing to claim that Latin may not have had any influence on OE periphrastic form, but instead I would like to point out that the evidence does not seem to support fully the idea that Latin influence is the force (or, at least, the major force) behind the establishment of periphrastic forms as major use comparative patterns. Second, I also noted that contact induced grammatical replication follows, according to Heine & Kuteva (2005; cf. also Heine & Kuteva 2003), four main grammaticalisation parameters. But, in this connection, it should also be borne in mind that the same parameters apply to other, language internal, grammaticalisation processes. Third, as previous studies have shown (Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 58ff.; Thomason 2005 [2003]: 688; Heine & Kuteva 2005: 22ff.), in many cases it is very difficult to determine when grammatical transfer is a result of language contact or could instead have simply occurred as a result of universal tendencies of linguistic change. In this connection, Thomason (2005 [2003]: 688) states that: [C]ontact between languages. . . is a source of linguistic change whenever a change occurs that would have been unlikely, or at least less likely, to occur outside a specific contact situation

Further detail is provided by Heine & Kuteva (2005: 33) when they claim that: If there is a linguistic property shared by two languages M and R, and these languages are immediate neighbors and/or are known to have been in contact with each other for an extended period of time, and x is also found in languages genetically related to M but not in languages genetically related to R, then we hypothesize that this is an instance of contact-induced transfer, more specifically, that x has been transferred from M to R.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.32 (46)


Coming back to the topic of the present investigation, it was noted before that the development of analytic comparison was considered by some previous scholars (e.g. Trudgill 1983) as contact-induced change. Heine & Kuteva (2005: 198) observe that this type of change is indeed the result of language contact in the case of the Balkans Sprachbund; however, they also suggest that is “a crosslinguistically common” phenomenon – in other words, that it could also be the result of universal tendencies of change (cf., in this respect, Britain & Sudbury 2002; Cremona 2002). In fact, in previous work, they (Heine & Kuteva 2002: 329) identify the meaning of ‘exceed’ (closely related to the meaning of more, cf. Heine & Kuteva (2002: 124) on Igbo and Margi languages) as one of the possible (Universal) sources for the grammaticalisation of patterns into comparative constructions. Furthermore, the table that Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 316–317) provide of “simplification and foreignization in modern Germanic languages” shows that not all Germanic languages have developed a periphrastic comparative structure (e.g. Saterland, East Frisian or Standard High German, although Thomason & Kaufman (1988) do not pronounce themselves clearly in this respect; Standard Dutch, North Low German and Mecklen-burgish) even though they have undergone, either directly or indirectly, the influence of a Romance language like French.47 Last but not least, as recorded in Table 2.12, Heine & Kuteva (2005) suggest that contact-induced grammatical transfer most often translates into an increase in use and the eventual grammaticalisation of infrequent parameters that already exist in the replica language (contact-induced use patterns do not normally appear ex-nihilo, cf. Heine & Kuteva 2005: 45). Technically speaking, then, the original pattern is a native structure, which the influence of a language in contact renders more frequent. See, in this connection, Heine & Kuteva (2005: 266): Language contact can and frequently does trigger or influence the development of grammar in a number of ways. . .there is reason to assume that language in contact in general and grammatical replication in particular may accelerate grammatical change, and in fact quite a number of examples that we reviewed might have occurred independently of language contact but took place presumably more rapidly as a result of contact. (Heine & Kuteva 2005: 265–266)

Given the lack of speakers and the limitations of the extant texts, it is difficult to ascertain the status of the periphrastic comparative form in OE with total confidence – yet the fact that examples of periphrastic forms can be found in native OE texts (as opposed to translations) seems to provide support for the claim that periphrastic comparison is ultimately a native construction. . Note that for some languages (i.e. North Low German, Mecklen-burgish, Standard High German), Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 316–317) indicate that such contact with French was “moderate”.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.33 (47)


Finally, the fact that one can find instances of periphrastic comparatives with prototypical adjectives in OE (before the Norman Conquest and therefore, before the influence of French on English became strong) rules out the hypothesis of a French origin of periphrastic comparison mentioned at the beginning of this chapter (Section 1 above). Indirect support for this claim is provided by Fischer (1992a: 68), who states that constructions introduced purely for reasons of prestige tend not to acquire a permanent status in the syntactic component of the language. This, however, does not preclude the possibility that French may have had an influence on the development of periphrastic comparatives (see Ch. 3 below).

. Motivation for the rise of English periphrastic comparatives So far I have discussed different aspects of the origin and the morpho-syntactic configuration of English periphrastic comparatives. The next step of the investigation will be to explore the reason(s) for their coming into the language. Mustanoja (1960: 279; cf. also Kytö & Romaine 1997: 330) mentions some factors that may have led to the rise and spread of periphrastic comparatives; namely, the supposed analytic tendency of ME as compared to OE, certain rhythmical considerations (especially important in poetry) and the need of the speakers for emphasis and clarity. It could be argued that the (supposed) tendency of ME towards analyticity may have contributed to the spread of periphrastic adjectival forms but not to their rise, since one can find (adjectival) periphrastic comparatives already in OE – when this analytic tendency does not seem to be fully operative yet. In any case, it is worth noting that one should not apply the label ‘analytic’ to the overall structure of ME, as this reflects the conventional (and inaccurate) use of the terms ‘synthetic’ and ‘analytic’. According to standard accounts, a construction X is more analytical than another construction Y, if, both constructions having approximately the same grammatical content, the constituent elements of construction X show a greater morphological and phonological autonomy than those of Y (Vincent 1997: 101). Linguists have traditionally concluded from this that a language can be considered more analytic than another if it possesses a higher number of analytic constructions, and vice-versa (Mustanoja 1960: 279). However, as Schwegler (1994) argues, measuring the analyticity or syntheticity of a language as such is not an easy task. Firstly, the traditional method for determining whether a language is either analytic or synthetic (i.e. Greenberg’s morpheme- and word- calculation system) was found to be highly problematic in cross-linguistic research (see Schwegler 1994: 113 for a brief description of this method). Secondly, ‘analytic’ and ‘synthetic’ are relative terms that designate the end-poles of a continuum along which



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.34 (48)


grammatical constructions (not entire languages) can be compared. Convincing arguments against the traditional view can be found in Vincent (1997: 99–105). As he points out, Romance languages can be considered both analytic and synthetic. They qualify as analytic in terms of their nominal and verbal morphology when compared to Latin. By contrast, they are synthetic languages when their tense, aspect, number and gender marking systems are compared to those of languages such as English. The influence of the second factor (rhythm) on the rise of periphrastic forms does not seem a very plausible option either (at least as far as my data is concerned): rhythmical considerations, as Mustanoja says, are especially important in poetry; however, the influence of rhythm in prose texts (from which the bulk of the examples presented here is taken) appears not to be particularly relevant. More interesting (and, to date, subject to less counterarguments than the previous ones) is the last suggestion; namely, that the appearance of periphrastic forms in the language is due to the speakers’ need for emphasis and clarity. In keeping with this idea, one might hypothesise that at some point (when inflectional forms were the only comparative strategy available in the language), speakers felt that they did not clearly express the idea of degree, and therefore they looked for a new way for doing so (see, in this connection, Haspelmath’s (1993) comments on morphological opacity in Ch. 7, Section 7 below). Now, the lack of comparative distinctiveness of inflectional forms could well have been influenced by the decline of the Old English system of inflections – which, as McWorther (2002) convincingly argues, was in all probability influenced by the contact between Old English speakers and the Scandinavian tribes. Thus, following Lass (1992: 113), McWorther (2002: 255) observes that the loss of nominal inflections was faster in the north and the east of the country – in other words, the places in which the Scandinavian settlements were concentrated. In this context, the (participial) periphrastic construction was the most suitable means for conveying the said comparative meaning, firstly because the participle could perform an analogous function to that of any prototypical adjective, and, secondly, because the comparative marker (ma, bet, swiþor) was an independent morpheme that could be easily stressed (or, at least, more easily than the -er morpheme of inflectional forms) in order to highlight the idea of degree (this suggestion is supported by Curme 1931: 504 and, more recently, by Mondorf 2003 for PDE periphrastic forms). The rise of periphrastic comparatives in English may thus be explained as a process of grammaticalisation (cf. Heine, Claudi & Hünnemeyer 1991; Hopper & Traugott 2003 [1993]), understanding the concept of grammaticalisation in two slightly different yet related senses. It is a process of grammaticalisation in the (narrow) sense that the collocation [intensifier + participle/adjective] became a standard grammatical construction for expressing comparison. The rise of

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18

F: CI29902.tex / p.35 (49)


periphrastic forms can also be considered the result of a grammaticalisation process in a broader sense, i.e. an old inflectional form (i.e. the comparative suffix -er) loses (part of) its expressive potential and a new, more emphatic and transparent periphrastic form is introduced in order to perform the same function. Against this suggestion, one may argue that in ‘standard’ grammaticalisation processes, the old form is gradually ousted by the new construction until its virtual disappearance – which is obviously not what happened in the case of comparative constructions.48 However, the historical re-establishment of inflectional comparatives does not preclude the possibility of considering the rise of periphrastic comparatives the result of a grammaticalisation process. Fischer (2003) convincingly argues that there is not a fixed set of parameters of grammaticalisation but that they vary according to the “circumstances of the language or its grammar under investigation” (2003: 469). Furthermore, her research shows that not all grammaticalisation processes necessarily go all the way to completion. They can be interrupted at any point – as may have been the case in the grammaticalisation of inflectional comparatives.

. Concluding remarks The chapter set out to investigate two main issues concerning the history of adjectival periphrastic comparatives; namely, their date of appearance in the language and the question as to where they come from. As for the first issue (the date of origin of periphrastic forms), the data showed that periphrastic comparatives appeared around the second half of the ninth century, initially as a result of the combination participles with the adverbial intensifiers swiðor, ma and bet. The answer to the second question seemed to be less straightforward. The results (a) showed that periphrastic forms are not a lexical calque on Latin comparative structures and (b) suggested that the initial comparative pattern (i.e. swiðor, ma and bet + participle/adjective) was of native origin and that it may well have spread and become one of the ‘standard’ comparative constructions of the language due to language contact. This idea will be explored further in Ch. 3 below. The chapter also dealt with the conditions under which these periphrastic comparative forms originated and explored aspects of the early history of the periphrastic comparative that were not considered in previous studies. Firstly, it investigated the reasons that led to the spread of ma as a comparative particle at . Inflectional comparison is very much used in PDE; Kytö & Romaine’s (1997: 335) research suggests that they have been on the increase in the modern period – at least in the spoken language.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:18



F: CI29902.tex / p.36 (50)


the expense of the other two OE comparative markers bet and swiðor. Secondly, it critically examined the claims put forward in previous scholarship concerning the appearance of periphrastic forms and suggested that their rise may be related to what that these earlier accounts have described as the “speakers’ need for emphasis and clarity” (Kytö & Romaine 1997), i.e. a possible (partial) loss of comparative force of inflectional forms due to the general weakening of the OE morphological system.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.1 (51)

chapter 

French influence and the spread of periphrastic comparatives in English

.

Introduction: French vs. English in medieval times49

Although it has recently been suggested (Iglesias-Rábade 1992: 16; Burnley 1992: 423) that the religious and political relations established between Normandy and the Anglo-Saxon kings resulted in the arrival of French culture in England long before the Conquest,50 it is commonly accepted that the year 1066 marks the beginning of the influence of the French language and culture on England. The linguistic situation of medieval England seemed to attract the attention of historians in the first half of the twentieth century. These studies can be grouped into two main schools, the literary and the historical, according to the nature of their source materials. On the basis of an analysis of ME literary texts, scholars belonging to the literary tradition (Vising 1923; Galbraith 1941; Legge 1950) suggested that AngloNorman gradually imposed itself during the years following the Conquest, with the result that, from the second half on the twelfth century, it superseded English in both spoken and written domains (Vising 1923: 18). By contrast, scholars coming from the historical school (Clover 1888; Woodbine 1943; Wilson 1943; Berndt 1969) aimed at reconstructing the linguistic history of medieval England from both the records of historians and a number of ME official documents (cf. IglesiasRábade 1992: 35; Dalton-Puffer 1996: 5). There existed some discrepancies among the proponents of the historical tradition with respect to the significance of the

. Unless otherwise stated, the emphasis (i.e. italics/bold) in the examples provided through the chapter is mine (VGD). . English Benedictine congregations tried to adapt to the religious reforms promoted from France. In political spheres, the matches between Anglo-Saxons and Normans (e.g. the three daughters of Edward the elder married in France; likewise, King Ethelred married a Norman noblewoman in 1002) strengthened the ties between the two cultures and led to a gradual gallicisation of the Anglo-Saxon court (Iglesias-Rábade 1992: 16).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.2 (52)


loss of Normandy (1204)51 yet in general terms, they agreed that, although French (or better, Anglo-Norman) had a noticeable influence in literary, political and economical circles during the middle ages, it was always a minority language (i.e. that of the upper classes) that “had neither ousted English nor become dominant” in England (Berndt 1969: 388). A similar opinion is found in recent literature on the social situation of English in medieval times (Blake 1992: 4ff.; Smith 1992: 48ff.; Skaffari 1998: 75). According to it, Latin was the language of culture and government during the tenth and twelfth century (Blake 1992: 5; Smith 1992: 48) and it remained the vehicle of scholarship up until the sixteenth century (cf. the ‘Inkhorn controversy’). During the twelfth century, however, Anglo-Norman, “the aristocratic [French] vernacular” (Blake 1992: 5), took over as the preferred language of literature. AngloNorman would give way to Anglo-French as the language of the government and administration from the thirteenth century onwards.52 By contrast, English was the language spoken by the majority of the population, although the conquest meant its virtual disappearance from the written medium during the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Smith 1992: 49).53 Some written records in English appear in the second half of the thirteenth century, however, it is not until the beginning of the following century that English could be perceived as a challenge to the prestige of French (Smith 1992: 49) – and, by the end of the ME period, English seems to have taken over all the (formal) environments formerly occupied by it. One may wonder about the causes behind this change. Görlach (1986: 336; cf. also Skaffari 1998: 75; Hornero-Corisco 1997: 34) observes that the Normanspeaking population in England was low (2–10% of the total)54 and therefore, that it started to learn English in order to be able to carry out business with the English. It is difficult to point to a specific date for this shift; yet it seems to have occurred . According to some scholars (e.g. Clover 1888:16), the influence of French on English was most noticeable in the years between the Conquest and the loss of Normandy, for in this period French was still the native language of both the conquerors and their descendants. After this period (1204 until the end of the reign of Edward III), French gradually became a foreign language, studied only for the sake of fashion (cf. also Burnley 1992: 427). By contrast, other historians such as Woodbine (1943: 410) contend that the influence of French thrived just after the loss of the said territory. . Note, however, Rothwell’s (2000) point about the fact that mixing of languages (i.e. Latin, French and English) in Late ME administrative documents seemed to be “a recognised policy” (Rothwell 2000: 230). . Smith (1992: 49) and Blake (1992: 6) observe, however, that OE manuscripts were still copied in some monastical scriptoria after the Conquest. . According to Hornero-Corisco (1997: 43), these upper classes were constituted by the secular clergy, the regular clergy and a small minority of the urban oligarchy.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.3 (53)

Chapter 3. French influence

relatively early – Smith (1992: 50) observed that English was spoken in some noble households in the early twelfth century – and to have been fostered by the combination of the following factors: (a) the loss of Normandy in the early thirteenth century, (b) the development of continental (Parisian) French as the language of social prestige, (c) the Black Death, (d) the appearance of the cities and (e) the Hundred Years war (see, among others, Lambley 1920: 18; Burnley 1992: 426–428; Iglesias-Rábade 1992: 183–184; Crespo-García 2000: 24ff.). All in all, one may conclude that the overall linguistic situation of medieval England was one of diglossia (cf. Dalton-Puffer 1996: 6; Schendl 2000: 78ff.). English was restricted to colloquial and familiar registers, whereas French was considered prestigious and used in public, formal contexts. In this connection, one may bear in mind that, notwithstanding the importance that it had in intellectual, political and administrative environments, (Anglo-) French never acquired the status of native language. By contrast, it was restricted to the uppermost (foreign) social classes, who gradually acquired English as a second language.

. Middle English: A creole? The previous section emphasised the multilingual character of medieval England,55 where Latin, French and English competed for dominance in public and private spheres (cf. Trotter’s (2000) volume). Note, however, that, in comparison to French and English, Latin was at the time a ‘dead’ language whose influence on the (English) vernacular was mostly reduced to specific written genres and domains. The impact of French on English is, and has been, a more contentious issue. The interest in the status and the making of Middle English revived in the late twentieth century with the publication of a number of articles discussing ME from a creolist approach; e.g. Domingue (1977)56 and, more importantly, Bailey & Maroldt (1977). Bailey & Maroldt (1977: 21) define a creole as “the result of mixing which is substantial enough to result in a new [linguistic] system, a system that is separate from its antecedent parent system”. Following this line of reasoning, they argue that Middle English qualifies as a creole because “at least forty per cent of each component – lexicon, semantax, phonetology, and morphology – is mixed,” i.e. the result of the massive import of Anglo-Saxon vocabulary on to Old French . There were a number of minority languages (e.g. Hebrew, Cornish) in medieval England but, as Smith (1992: 49) suggests, these did not have any major impact on English and therefore, they will not be discussed here. . See Dalton-Puffer (1996: 47–48) for a brief account of Domingue’s (1977) paper.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.4 (54)


structural paradigms. Although Bailey & Maroldt’s suggestions have been – fully or partially – accepted by some linguists (see Poussa 1982 or Trudgill’s 1983 concept of ‘creoloid’); their position has been considered untenable by an important number of scholars (e.g. Görlach 1986; Thomason & Kaufman 1988; McMahon 1994; Danchev 1997). Görlach (1986: 330, 334; see also Danchev 1997: 79ff.) criticises Bailey & Maroldt’s inadequate definition of the concept of creolisation and their selective use of data (which, in his opinion, is “taken from inappropriate registers, and disregards frequencies, chronological distributions and social functions of individual features”). The fuzziness of Bailey & Maroldt’s terminology was criticised again by subsequent scholars. Thus, Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 312; cf. also Dalton-Puffer 1996: 49) claim that, in Bailey & Maroldt’s account, creolisation simply “means any kind of structural interference from another language and any kind of ‘analytic’ development in language is taken as evidence of foreign inference”. As they correctly point out, hardly any language in the world has not been exposed to the influence of other language(s), and therefore, if we were to take Bailey & Maroldt’s explanations at their face value, virtually all languages of the world should be considered creoles (cf. also Görlach 1986: 334–335). In addition, they point out that not all analytic developments can be attributed to foreign influence. They also suggest that the only possible scenario for the coming into play of a creolisation process in medieval England would have involved an “extremely unsuccessful” learning of English by the Anglo-Norman speakers at the time in which they shifted towards English. They enumerate, however, a number of specific circumstances which made this possibility highly unlikely (for a detailed criticism of Bailey & Maroldt’s 1997 arguments, see Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 307ff.). Observations along similar lines have been put forward by other scholars, who have often pointed to the fact that “the Norman Conquest. . . left its imprint mainly in the top layers of society” (Van Kemenade 1994: 112). One should observe that the creolisation hypothesis has also been mentioned in connection to the contact between Old English and Old Norse. Van Kemenade (1994: 112–113) notes that the “pervasive” phonological, grammatical and lexical changes occurred in the transition period between Old and Middle English may be the result of the Scandinavian invasion – which, in her words “resulted in longterm settlement and assimilation of invading and native population”. However, the impact of the Scandinavian invasion is, as Van Kemenade (1994: 114) herself observes, difficult to ascertain. The OE records that have survived to the present-day are written in the West Saxon dialect and since “it was king Alfred’s business to get the Vikings out of England. . . Scandinavian influence is not apparent here.” In other words, had the Viking invasions had an impact on the different subsystem of the language, those traces would have only been visible in ME texts. The influence of Old Norse on Old English has been recently reassessed by McWorther (2002), who provides a list of forty-two characteristic features of Proto-Germanic and

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.5 (55)


discusses the disappearance of ten of them in English (as compared to other Germanic languages, McWorther 2002: 248). His results show that those extinct ProtoGermanic features “persisted longest in regions where Scandinavians did not settle.” Furthermore, in six out of the ten cases, McWorther claims that the losses in English “have parallels in aspects of Old Norse” (McWorther 2002: 254–257). From this he concludes (a) that there has been a historical disruption in the transmission of English between the OE-ME periods caused by contact with Old Norse and (b) that this disruption was stronger than the transmission disruption associated with “semi-creole” languages like Afrikaans. He nevertheless does not support the idea that contact with Old Norse languages resulted in the creolisation of Old English but instead he concludes that the Scandinavian influence “simplified English grammar to a considerable extent” (McWorther 2002: 272). I would like to go back now to my initial considerations regarding the FrenchEnglish contact and possible language transfer in the medieval period. Thomason & Kaufman (1988) differentiate between processes of borrowing (acquisition of foreign features into a speaker’s native language (1988: 36)) and processes of substratum interference (linguistic interference resulting from imperfect learning in a process of language shift (1988: 37)).57 While Bailey & Marold’s (1977) account of the ME situation seems to suggest the latter – or, at best, a combination of the two aforementioned processes – Thomason & Kaufman (1988) clearly classify it as a case of borrowing. In the line of previous scholarship (e.g. Meillet 1921; Weinreich 1953), they note that vocabulary is the first (and easiest) element to be borrowed from one language to another; still, they also suggest that structural borrowing (i.e. the borrowing of elements from the traditionally considered more stable elements of the language, such as morphology or syntax), can also be borrowed (cf. Balland 1995; Aikhenval 2003; Heine & Kuteva 2003; Heine & Kuteva 2005). As regards what determines the type of borrowing of one language from another (i.e. lexical vs. lexical and structural), Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 72) point to the notion of “intensity of contact”, which includes the following social and linguistic factors:58 a. length of time (which is directly related to the linguistic competence and number of bilingual speakers) b. proportion of source-language speakers vs. borrowing-language speakers . See in this connection, Van Coetsem’s (1995) distinction between ‘borrowing’ and ‘second language learning’. . The concept of intensity of contact is also mentioned as an important factor in other works on contact-induced change (e.g. Trudgill 1989), although Thomason & Kaufman’s (1988) description seems to be more exhaustive.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.6 (56)

English adjective comparison: A historical perspective casual contact

lexicon

slightly + intense contact

lexicon + structure (I)

more intense

strong cultural

contact

pressure

lexicon + structure (II)

very strong cultural pressure

lexicon + structure (IV)

lexicon + structure (V)

Figure 3.1. Borrowing scale (adapted from Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 74–75)

c. political dominance d. typological distance between source and borrowing language (As may be obvious from above, the greater the contact time/the no. of source speakers and their political dominance/the typological similarity between the languages in contact, the more intense or ‘disruptive’ the influence of one language over the other will be). However, Thomason & Kaufman (1988: 35) explicitly state that the “sociolinguistic history of the speakers”, i.e. their attitude towards the language(s) with which they are in contact and their speakers it is what determines the outcome of the contact. On the basis of these considerations, they devised the ‘borrowing scale’ featured in Figure 3.1 (cf. Thomason & Kaufman 1988: 74–75). As for the French influence on ME, Thomason & Kaufman (1988) state that, although the length of the contact time between the two languages was extensive and the (Anglo)-Normans constituted the social elite of the country (and therefore the social group exerting linguistic pressure); the lack of a significant number of native Norman speakers in the country (and later on, of French-English bilinguals), rendered the linguistic influence of French on English as a “borderline type 2/ type 3 case” (1988: 265), where, apart from a massive influx of lexical items, French had a “mild” influence on English morphology and syntax and a “practically trivial” influence on phonology. These suggestions are in line with subsequent specialist work on the topic, as will be discussed in the following section.

. Linguistic studies on the influence of French on English The preceding sections offered an account of (a) the social status of French and English during the ME period (Section 1) and (b) the scholarly opinion about the overall influence that French exerted on ME (Section 2). This section narrows down the topic of investigation further. It provides a brief outline of the main

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.7 (57)


works that have dealt with French influence on the different language levels, while at the same time constituting a suitable background for the analyses carried out in Section 4 and Section 5 below. As noted above, lexical transfer is the most common (and most easily observable) result of processes of language contact. It is thus not surprising the existence of a number of early twentieth-century works assessing the French influence on English through the study of loanwords. According to Jespersen (1905: 94) and Baugh (1935: 91), the greatest influx of French borrowings occurred between 1250 and 1400.59 In the second half of the twentieth century, however, Dekeyser (1986) convincingly showed that the decrease in the frequency of the French loans began earlier than what Jespersen and Baugh suggest (c1350). The interplay between the French and the English morphological systems has elicited far less attention than the lexicon. Still, one can find monographs such as Marchand (1969)60 and Dalton-Puffer (1996). This latter work provides a detailed list of the derivative affixes imported from French into English, their meaning, their chronology (i.e. when they were used in English for the first time) and their combinatorial possibilities (i.e. if they are restricted to a specific word class or etymological type). In line with Thomason & Kaufman’s (1988) views, she concludes that the influence of French on ME morphology “was certainly there but should not be overestimated” (Dalton-Puffer 1996: 209). Finally, in the realm of syntax, the works of Sykes (1899), Prins (1952), Hornero-Corisco (1997), Iglesias-Rábade (2000, 2003) and Fischer (2006) should be taken into consideration. The first two of these studies focus on French calques on English phrasing. Sykes (1899: 7) suggests that, in general, “Middle English became, not only in its vocabulary alone, but in its phrasal forms, ‘halbfranzösisch”’. Prins (1952) also argues for a positive influence of French on English phrasing, although his claims are more moderate. He points to the fourteenth century (and especially the second half) as “the culminating point both in the influx of words and of phrases from the French” (Prins 1952: 37–38). It should be observed that both Sykes’ (1899) and Prins’ (1952) conclusions are based on the analysis of a limited number of texts selected by the authors themselves. Therefore, one should be very careful in extrapolating their conclusions to ME as a whole. A similar note of caution may be made with reference to Hornero-Corisco’s (1997) work on French influence on English prepositions, as it focuses on Ancrene . This opinion is also shared by Burnley (1992: 431; cf. also Mossé 1943: 38–39), who suggests that the density of French loans in English reached its peak in the second half of the fourteenth century. . The reader should be warned that this work is not exclusively focused on French affixes borrowed into English but to a description of English word formation in general.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.8 (58)


Wisse exclusively. Hornero-Corisco’s claims, however, are to a certain extent supported by Iglesias-Rábade (2000, 2003), who, in his analysis of English phases with nime(n)/take(n) and at from the Middle English Dictionary (henceforth MED) and the ME part of the Helsinki Corpus observes that the figurative senses of atprepositional phrases (e.g. at large, at ease) increased greatly in the last part of the ME period; a development that he carefully relates to the influence of Old French à-phrases (e.g. chevaucha a une autre cite). He reaches a similar conclusion with regard to nime(n)/take(n) phrases, which were “at least favoured by Anglo-Norman” (2000: 96). It should nevertheless be pointed out that HorneroCorisco’s and Iglesias–Rábade’s claims are slightly different from previous scholars in the field, in that they do not claim the direct transfer or copy of particular prepositional constructions into English. Instead, they argue for an indirect French influence, which manifests itself through the increase in use of specific native constructions (see, in this connection, Silva-Corvalán’s (1993) or Heine & Kuteva’s (2005) views on contact-induced grammatical change). Although not devoted exclusively to the topic, some comments on the possible French influence of post-nominal adjective position (e.g. the service dyvyne),61 on the development of wh- interrogatives as relative pronouns or on one as a indefinite pronoun can be found in Fischer (1992b: 214, 216, 225). In addition, a detailed treatment of adjective position in ME is provided in Fischer (2006). She shows that the determinants of adjective placement in ME are not substantially different from those in Old English, although they start to reflect the gradual change of the English grammatical system towards more rigid, word-order based parameters. In connection to language-contact issues, Fischer (2006) investigates the preference of French adjectives for occupying post-positive slots in English (a position which mirrors one of the slots traditionally associated with adjective placement in French) and concludes that “the influence of French cannot be said to govern adjective position in all circumstances” (Fischer 2006: 260).

. French influence on adjective comparison In the light of Heine & Kuteva’s (2005) research, in Ch. 2 above I observed that contact-induced change could manifest itself in forms other than lexical calquing – and that, in fact, changes from minor to major use patterns in a target language (B) due to the influence of a similar construction in a source language (A) seemed to be a very common cross-linguistic process of meaning transfer. The question is then to examine the extent to which this could have been the case with respect ˇ & Crespo-García (2002). . A similar comment is also found in Moskowich-Spiegel Fandino

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.9 (59)


to the influence of French periphrastic comparatives on the development of English periphrastic comparison – note that Mustanoja (1960: 280) suggests that the influence of French “has considerably strengthened the position of more and most in the English system of comparison.” In the same line, Kytö (1996) and Kytö & Romaine (1997) observe that periphrastic comparison increased in use in the second half of the ME period – which coincides with the period in which Dekeyser (1986) observed the greatest influx of French loanwords in English. More recently, Terasawa (2003) investigated the evolution of periphrastic comparison in the ME and EModE texts of the Helsinki Corpus, showing that the rates for periphrastic comparison are higher in those texts that are translations from French or Latin (Terasawa 2003: 194). He also suggested that, in ME and EModE, periphrastic forms first appeared in more ‘formal’ texts like those concerning “philosophy, science, religion and education” and later on, they expanded to more informal texts like travelogues and letters (Terasawa 2003: 197). While Terasawa’s comments on the text-type spread of the periphrastic comparative construction are highly valuable, one should also bear in mind that the range of genres considered in the Helsinki Corpus increases over time. Thus, whereas in HM1 the text-types distinguished in the Helsinki Corpus are handbooks, philosophy, homilies, religious treatises, history and biography, in HM4 one finds a much wider repertoire of genres,62 which of course has an effect on the way in which the expansion of periphrastic forms should be determined. Terasawa (2003) also considers the possibility of a geographical spread of the periphrastic comparative, which, according to his hypothesis, would initially be more frequent in texts coming from the Southern part of the country (i.e. which was where most French noblemen settled) as opposed to the North. However, the analysis of these texts (based on the Helsinki Corpus) does not provide any substantial evidence for this claim (Terasawa 2003: 198. Anne Hudson’s (p.c.) study of selected ME manuscripts seems to lead to a similar conclusion to that of Terasawa). One may also argue that this kind of research may not be completely reliable, as the number of extant ME texts is relatively limited and it would thus be virtually impossible to find similar influenced/non-influenced texts (in terms of period, length, genre, dialect and register) in order to carry out a balanced comparison (cf. in this connection, Fischer’s (2007: 13) comments on textual comparability). Furthermore, the analysis would perforce be restricted to a very limited number of works which could by no means be taken as representative of the comparative tendencies of the whole ME writing tradition (note my criticism of the textual basis of Sykes 1899; Prins 1952 and Hornero-Corisco 1997 in Section 3 above). . The genres considered in the HM4 part of the Helsinki Corpus are: law, documents, handbooks (medicine, astronomy), sermons, rules, religious treatises, prefaces, proceedings, history, biography fiction, romances, drama, letters (private / non-private) and the Bible.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.10 (60)


He finally suggests that “we could then assume that the periphrastic comparative, being first developed in translations from French and Latin, continued to be used in a formal register until it gradually expanded its use towards the end of Early Modern English.” Kytö’s (1996) research also suggests that inflectional comparatives in EModE are more frequent in matter-of-fact (or less formal) texts, thus indirectly supporting Terasawa’s (2003) suggestion that periphrastic comparatives are, by default, preferred in more formal environments. Although more fine-grained research on translation procedures would be needed in order to reach a definitive conclusion (e.g. on the closeness of translated texts to their original sources or on the extent to which French and Latin may differ as regards their impact on Old English), the claim that periphrastic comparison developed in translations does not seem to be supported by the investigation carried out in Ch. 2 above. The latter showed that, even in those cases where periphrastic comparatives appeared in OE translations from Latin, more often than not, these comparative forms were not calques. A different influencing factor was explored by Hornero-Corisco (1997). In her study of French influence on prepositions in English, she claims that the increasing frequency of the periphrastic genitive in ME (e.g. repentant neauer nes of mine sunnen; “I was never repentant of my sins” AW. 36.20) was, among other reasons, due to the influence of a similar (periphrastic genitive) construction in French with the preposition de. More importantly, she observes that, in her data, “the of -phrase is more frequent after French loans” (1997: 40). Thus, what she seems to be suggesting is the possibility that the combination of the preposition of with loanwords could have been a way of spreading the construction in English. In other words, this could be considered a case of ‘meaning transfer’ like the ones described in Heine & Kuteva (2005). Applying the same idea to the issue under investigation, one could hypothesise that the spread of periphrastic comparatives may have been, to a certain extent, initially linked to combinations with Romance63 adjectives by analogy with French/Latin periphrastic comparative structures. Put differently, the nature of the (compared) adjective could have had an influence on the selection of comparative strategy, in such a way that those comparative constructions wherein the adjective was of foreign (i.e. Latin and French) origin would more likely be of the periphrastic type; native adjectives being the ones that most easily selected inflectional forms. With the passing of time (and due to the prestigious status of . I will be using the term ‘Romance adjectives/borrowings’ (as opposed to ‘French adjectives/borrowings’) throughout the chapter, the reason being that, although most of the foreign adjectival forms retrieved from the data were borrowed from Old French, they are ultimately of Latin origin.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.11 (61)


French in England during the ME period) then, the periphrastic pattern would have caught on with native adjectives. With the aim of testing this hypothesis, I retrieved all the inflectional and periphrastic comparative constructions of the PPCME2 corpus.64

. Analysis . Corpus analysis As observed in the section above, the first division of the data to be made was that of inflectional vs. periphrastic comparatives. After this division and with the help of the MED and the OED, a further separation between Romance and native adjectives was carried out. Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 summarise the analyses: Table 3.1. Distribution of native adjectives in ME Native adjectives65

HM1

HM2

HM3

HM4

Total

Inflectional Periphrastic Total

437 (97.7%) 10 (2.3%) 447 (100%)

80 (88%) 11 (12%) 91 (100%)

589 (86.6%) 91 (13.4%) 680 (100%)

316 (90.2%) 34 (9.8%) 350 (100%)

1422 (89.5%) 146 (10.5%) 1568 (100%)

Table 3.2. Distribution of Romance adjectives in ME Romance adjectives

HM1

HM2

HM3

HM4

Total

Inflectional Periphrastic Total

1 (50%) 1 (50%) 2 (100%)

3 (42.9%) 4 (57.1%) 7 (100%)

10 (12.9%) 68 (87.1%) 78 (100%)

11 (26%) 31 (74%) 42 (100%)

25 (19%) 104 (81%) 129 (100%)

Focusing on the native adjectives first, one can observe how the preferred comparative strategy for all periods is the inflectional one. The rate for periphrastic comparison in HM1 is very low (2.3%) and its increase is not extremely marked either, rounding an average of 10–11% between HM2 and HM4 (see examples (1)–(3) below): . I am very grateful to David Denison and the University of Manchester for granting me access to the corpus. . In terms of dates, the PPCME2 also includes in-between period categories (e.g. HM23, HM24, etc.); however, for the sake of clarity of argumentation (and the fact that there are not very many comparative tokens in these middle periods), I have not included them in the tables.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.12 (62)


(1) For wel we knowe that youre liberal grace and mercy strecchen hem ferther into goodnesse (PPCME2.CHAU.ME) (2) And after whan god had preued his pacyence & it was so gret, he broughte him aŠen to richess & to heere estate þan he was before (PPCME2.ANON.MA.) (3) þe oþer is to wyfmanne commune. þis zenne is more hard: uor hi is more ald (PPCME2.MITC.AY.)

Moving now to the Romance adjectives, the first two ME periods do not feature a statistically significant number of examples. Therefore, it is from HM3 onwards that more reliable results can be drawn (see examples (4) and (5) below): (4) let also simplenesse be associod to good inward wysdom, and noþyng schal be clierere (PPCME2.AELR.DI.) (5) Gode Ihesu, art þu bycome straunge and mor enemy, for þi body is mor glorious? (PPCME2.AELR.DI.)

The number of periphrastic forms is higher than that for the inflectional ones at all times, although the number of inflectional comparatives seems to undergo a noticeable increase in the last part of the ME period (from 12.9% in HM3 to 26%). I would like to move on now to the comparison of the type/token ratio of inflectional comparatives. In the PPCME2 data, 25 inflectional Romance tokens were found (as opposed to 1422 native ones). The Romance adjective types (19) are featured below. Further explanations may be required at this point. When the adjective appears more than once, the number of times that it occurs in the corpus is given in brackets (e.g. clere (x3)). In addition, the first date between the [square] brackets is the year that the MED gives for the first attested example of the adjective in the language; the other dates (e.g. [in X]) are the dates in which the adjectives appear in the texts compiled in the PPCME2 in their comparative form.66 For instance, the entry clere (x3) [1300 in 1340, 1470, 1400] reads: “the adjective clere (‘clear’) was first attested in English in 1300. There are three examples of clere with inflectional comparison in the corpus, which date from 1370, 1400 and 1470”. See (6) below for a list of Romance inflectional comparatives in the corpus: (6) Bisegere [1175 in 1230], clere (x3) [1300 in 1340, 1400 and 1470], feble (x2) [1225 in 1380–1425, 1390], easy (x2) [1225, in 1380–1425, 1384], delitabel [1300, in 1440], byrnande [1385, in 1440], graciouse [c1300, in 1350], parfite (x2) [1350, in 1400, 1497], poor (x2) [1200, in 1400, 1400], profitable [1330, in 1400], proud [1225, in 1452], noble [1230 in 1387], jantill [1250 in 1470],

. For those words with different spelling variants in the corpus, I have, for the sake of clarity, only used one (the most frequent) spelling form.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.13 (63)


light [1122 in 1340], gay [1310 in 1387], substancial [1340, in 1340], simple [1230, in 1440], troubli [1382, in 1440], vilore [1300, in 1390]

A common trait to most of the inflectional Romance adjectives in the corpus (graciouse, gay, and substancial excepted) is that they seem to have been borrowed noticeably earlier than their first attestation as comparative adjectives. Put differently, there seems to have existed a period for the adaptation of the new word into the morphosyntactic system of the language before its appearance with the ‘native’ (i.e. inflectional) comparative strategy. One may also wonder about the nature of the (Romance) periphrastic constructions. The paragraph in (7) below features the list of Romance adjectives appearing with periphrastic comparatives: (7) Priue (x3) [1230 in 1230 (first attested example?) and 1400–1450 (x2)), large [1225 in 1340], corteys [1300 in 1340], sotil (x3) [1300 in 1340, 1340, 1400– 1450], noble [1230 in 1340], verray [1275 in 1348], perfite (x4) [1300 in 1348, 1438 (x3)], stabill [1275 in 1348], virtuous [1330 in 1348], fervent [1340 in 1348–50], profitable (x3) [1330 in 1350–1440, 1400 (x2)], covenable, cruel (x2) [1225 in 1380-1425, 1438], excellent [1380 in 1380–1425, 1400–1425], grievous (x3) [1300 in 1387, 1390, 1390], honest [1325 in 1387], homeliche [1382 in 1387], fyguratif [MED first attested example: 1398, but 1388 example in corpus], abominable (x2) [1340 in 1388, 1390], pleasa(u)nt [1350 in 1390, 1400], ententif [1390 in 1390 (first attested example?)], cleer (x4) [1300 in 1390 (x2), 1348–1440, 1400–1425], esy (x6) [1325 in 1390, 1438 (x2), 1452 (x3)], humble [1275 in 1390], speciale (x2) [1230 in 1390, 1400–425], digne [1300 in 1390], perilous [1300 in 1396–1450], egre [1300 in 1396– 1450], maistirful [1390 in 1396–1450], unchangeable [1250 in 1396–1450], necligent [1382 in 1400], supple [1325 in 1400], obedient [1230 in 1400], contemptible [1384 in 1400], competent [1398 in 1400], fructuous [1382 in 1400], ioyeful (x2) [1250 in 1400, 1415], fortunate [1387 in 1400], plentevous [1325 in 1400], tolerable [ first attested example in MED: 1434, but 1400 example in corpus], aperte [1400–1425], beastly (x2) [1220 in 1400–1425, 1400–1450], feble (x2) [1225 in 1390, 1400–1425], dispytuos [1385 in 1400–1425], tender [1230 in 1400–1425], attempree [1340 in 1400–1425], merveyllous [1300 in 1400–1425], homly [1382 in 1400–1424], sufferable [1348 in 1400–1450], pleyn [1322 in 1400–1450], spiritual [1382 in 1400–1450], general [1230 in 1400–1450], venomous [1300 in 1400–1450], euyl [1225 in 1400–1450], sauery [1225 in 1400–1425], vnsauery [1230 in 1400–1450], foolys [1300 in 1400–1450], amiable [1385 in 1415–1500], habundant [1366 in 1415–1500], expedient [1418 in 1438], reuerent [1390 in 1400–1450], diligent [1340 in 1438], gentil (26) [1250 in 1452, 1500], natural [1325 in 1470], ardente [1350 in 1450], sufficient [1322 in 1470–1500], nobill [1230 in 1350–1440], precious (x5) [1350, in 1400, 1400, 1400–1425, (x2), 1400–1450), acceptable



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.14 (64)


[1384 in 1470], deynty [1300 in 1475], gracious [1325, in 1425–1450], sutyl [1300 in 1400–1450], glorious [1275, in 1400]

The first observation that one can make is that the list of Romance adjectives with periphrastic comparison is noticeably longer than that of its inflectional counterparts. Furthermore, if one pays close attention to the adjectives featured above, one will realise that, although there are many adjective types whose use in the corpus appear much later than the first attested example of the adjective in the MED, on the whole, there seems to be a noticeable number of cases in which there is a shorter time-span between the first MED attestation of the adjective and its use in a periphrastic comparative construction (see the adjective types in bold). These results, thought only tentatively, may provide support to the hypothesis that periphrastic comparison could have been initially preferred with Romance adjectives in the ME period (see Table 3.3): Table 3.3. Native/Romance adjectives and comparison

Native adjectives Romance adjectives

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Total

1422 (90.6%) 25 (19%)

146 (9.4%) 104 (81%)

1568 (100%) 129 (100%)

A plausible intra-linguistic reason for this preference could be that, as Leech & Culpeper (1997: 362) suggest, periphrastic comparison is the “type of comparison which does not interfere with the basic form of the word”, thus allowing the morpho-phonological structure of Romance adjectives to remain intact. This may have been especially desirable in the earlier stages of the introduction of new forms, when speakers may have found awkward to add the -er comparative suffix to words with which they were not familiar. I would like to emphasise the word tentatively, for corpora can be considered ‘representative’ of a particular period, genre or text-type only to a certain extent. Furthermore, although it constitutes a great help in discovering general patterns of use, it may be the case that neither all the patterns (for instance, the most infrequent ones; cf. Cornips & Jongenburger 2001) and more importantly for the present investigation, nor the earliest examples of a pattern or construction may be represented.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.15 (65)


. Individual author’s analysis67 The analyses carried out in the sections above could be considered to have been carried out at a ‘macro-level’, i.e. taking into consideration all (electronically-) available texts from a specific period. In his article, Terasawa (2003) also provides a micro-analysis investigation where he compares the use of periphrastic comparison in the works of individual authors, i.e. “Chaucer, Gower, Langland and the Gawain-poet” (Terasawa 2003: 199ff.). His research is nevertheless focused on the verse texts of these authors, where metrical needs may have played a role in the choice between inflectional and periphrastic comparative strategies. This type of individual author analysis constitutes an adequate complement to the kind of investigation provided in Section 5.1 above. In line with Teresawa’s (2003) work, this section will thus mainly be devoted to the analysis of periphrastic comparison in individual works coming from different chronological periods of ME (early vs. late ME) yet the same geographical area (cf. the comments on the dialectal spread of periphrastic comparison in Section 4 above). This difference in chronology will help us determine the degree to which French influence may have had an impact on the English periphrastic constructions at a more local level. The texts chosen for this analysis are Ancrene Wise and the Winchester/Caxton’s version of Malory’s Le Morte Darthur, as both texts come from the West-Midland area. Some work on periphrastic comparison in Ancrene Wisse/Riwle has been recently carried out (cf. Janecka 2006). This work focuses on the diffusion of periphrastic forms across five surviving versions of the manuscript and therefore, although related to the topic investigation, it is not central to the discussion and will not be mentioned further. The last section of this study will focus on the comparative strategies of a text highly dependant on French, namely, the Ayenbite of Inwyt. The latter investigation will provide a way of controlling for any differences in the use of comparison between native and translated texts (see, in this context, my remarks in Section 4 above). .. Ancrene Wisse As Wada (2003: 1) observes, the book known as Ancrene Wisse was a “beginner’s guide for female recluses” which was published in the early part of the ME period (c1230, according to the compilers of the PPCME2, cf. www.linng.upenn/mideng/ppmce2/dir (accessed 27-11-2007; cf. also Tolkien 1962: xv; Trotter 2003: 88). The manuscript seems to have been originally written in English, from which four translations into French and four into Latin were . I am very grateful to Anne Hudson for her suggestions as regards the choice of texts for this analysis.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.16 (66)


made (Wada 2003: 1). The work gained great popularity over the centuries, as shown by the fact that it was read (and even incorporated into other works) in the following centuries (i.e. sixteenth century, Tolkien 1962: xviii; Wada 2003: 5ff.). For this analysis, a concordance to the MS Corpus Christi College Cambridge 402 version of the text was used (cf. Tolkien’s 1962 EETS volume and the concordance by Potts, Stevenson and Wogan-Browne 1993). As Trotter (2003: 90) suggests, there have been a number of works discussing the French loanwords of Ancrene Wisse from different angles. Now, if one pays attention to the actual periphrastic comparative forms (see (8) below), one would realise that the number of Romance adjectives is very limited. Furthermore, the results support the macro-level analysis carried out before, in that two out of the three Romance adjectives in the work appear with periphrastic comparison (see (8) below; the Romance adjectives have been provided in a fuller context in example (10) (see comparatives in italics) below):68 (8) mare iuppet, mare isprengde, mare lusti, mare fersch,69 mare iolhnet, mare priue, mare dred, mare fur, mare scheomeful, mare bihate (9) Sire ich am a wommon 7 schulde bi rihte beo mare scheomeful to habben ispeken as ich spec (PPCME2.ANON.AW.) (10) . . . 7 hwa wes mare priue wiδ þe king of heouene hwil he her wunede þes sondesmon (PPCME2.ANON.AW.)

The inflectional comparative adjectives are much more numerous (see the list in (11) below). Only one example of a Romance adjective appears in the list (e.g. largere). (11) Betere (x44), bittrure (x2), brihtre (x7), cwickre, deoppre (x3), deorre (x3), earre (x12), earunder, eateluker, eþre, estfulre (x3), feier (x15), forþre (x13), gleadfulre, gleadluker (x2), greatluker, greattre (x4), inre (x4), largere, leatere (x10), lengre (x9), lihtre (x2), luþer (x5), luþere (x9), meadlesluker, meadluker, mildre, ruhre, sarre (x5), schenre (x5), sikerure, smealre, sohlful (x3), strengre (x2), swartre, swiftre (x2), swiþere/swiþre, tomre, þiccre, unhalre,

. I am aware of the fact that in a couple of examples, the adjectival form is not a prototypical adjective but a participle (i.e. iuppet, bihaten, isprengde). . Although here it has been included within the Romance category, the Romance origin of fersch (‘fresh’) could perhaps be contested (Olga Fischer, p.c.). On the one hand, Old French has the form freschir (‘restore’, ‘invigorate’ cf. MED); on the other, OE had the form fersc, with a rather similar meaning (‘new, recent, novel’, OED, fresh, adj, A.I). A possible solution would be to consider it a hybrid resulting from the combination of an OE stem and a semantic loan from French.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.17 (67)


unstrengre, uttre (x34), weorre/weorrur (x5), wisre (x3), woddre, wraþer (x2), wurse/wursi (x24)

Interestingly, in this case, the positive form of the adjective (large) does not seem to have been borrowed into English much earlier than the Ancrene Wisse example; appearing, according to the MED, initially in surnames (see (12)–(13) below). (12) Hugonem le Large (1220, MED, large. 13) (13) Þe large Men and þe milde Men . . . sculen beon icleopd on þe fader riht halue (c1225 MED, large, 1.a (a))

.. Malory’s Le Morte Darthur As will be discussed in more detail in Ch. 7 below, there are two extant versions of this work, the Winchester Ms (which is supposed to be the version closest to what Thomas Malory actually wrote) and Caxton’s version of the Ms (see Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1995 for a discussion of the date and composition of the manual). Based on French romances and the English Alliterative Morte Darthur, the Winchester manuscript was probably finished around 1469, whereas Caxton’s version dates from almost twenty years later, i.e. c1485. It is interesting to compare the two versions of the texts, as Caxton is well-known for having made certain changes to the ‘original’ Ms in order to bring it more in line with the taste of the court (which at the time was very much influenced by the French literary tradition – for more details, see Ch. 7, Section 3.2.1 below). Table 3.4 summarises the results for the inflectional comparatives in the two versions of the work. Not surprisingly, the two manuscripts contain a rather similar number of comparative types (and of tokens). Among them, there are very few Romance inflectional comparatives. The Winchester Ms features the forms valyaunte (x1), nobler (x1) and simpler (x1). The latter form is not attested in Caxton’s version of the work. Again, as in the case of the Ancrene Riwle, these Romance comparatives were all borrowed into English from Old French significantly early (see (14) below, all dates come from the MED: (14) noble (1200–1230), simple (1230), valyaunt (1325)

Moving now to the periphrastic examples, one finds, again, a close match between the periphrastic forms found in the two versions of the work (23 similar tokens; the adjectival types are reproduced in (15) below):70

. Note again, that some of the periphrastic comparative forms found contain participial (as opposed to prototypical) adjectives (c.f. blessid, naked).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.18 (68)


Table 3.4. Inflectional comparatives in Le Morte Darthur Malory (Winchester Ms)

Tokens

Malory (Caxton)

Tokens

better/bettir/bettur (OE) blacker (OE) bigger (ON) bitterer (OE) derrer (OE) elder (OE) fayrar (OE) further (OE) fowler (OE) fyerser (OF) gladder (OE) goodlyer (OE) gretter (OE) harder (OE) hardier (OF/Gmc.) heyre/higher (OE) holier (OE) heuiar (OE) leuer (OE) lengar (OE) richer (OE) nobler (OF) shorter (OE) sorer (OE) soriar (OE) strenger (OE) valyaunter (OF) simpler (OF) wayker/weyker (ON) wylder (OE) wers/werse/worse (OE) yonder (OE) yonger (OE) worthier (OE) trewer (OE) Total

105 2 21 2 1 3 16 5 2 1 2 1 13 2 4 3 3 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 8 53 8 1 1 278

better (OE) blacker (OE) bigger (OE) bitterer (OE) derer (OE) elder (OE) fayrer (OE) ferther (OE) fouler (OE) fyerser (OF) gladder (OE) goodlyer (OE) gretter (OE) harder (OE) hardyer (OF/Gmc.) heyer/higher/hyher (OE) holer / holier (OE) heuyer (OE) leuer (OE) lenger (OE) richer (OE) nobler (OF) shorter (OE) sorer (OE) soryer (OE) stronger (OE) valyaunter (OF) — waiker/weyker (ON) wylder (OE) werse (OE) yonder (OE) yonger (OE) — — Total

105 2 18 1 1 2 15 7 2 1 3 1 13 4 4 3 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 5 53 6

269

(15) acceptable (OF), aferd (OF), ardant (OF), forborne (OE), blessid (OE), bytter (OE), coward (OF), dismayed (OF), hardy (OF/Gmc.), heuy (OE), hyghe (OE), meker (OE), naked (OE), naturel (OF), nere (OE), renomed (OF), vncurteis (OF), wrothe (OE)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.19 (69)


Examples (16)–(18) are, however, exclusive to the Winchester Ms: (16) And thys were. . .more perfite to their soulis than ye, my moste noble kynge (WMS.MD.) (17) for He hath caused you to have more worldly worship than ony knight that is now lyvynge (WMS.MD.) (18) and sir Marhalte fyebled, and sir Trystamys ever more well-wynded and bigger (WMS.MD.)

Whereas (19)–(20) reproduce examples only featured in Caxton’s work: (19) And in the meane whyle syr Tristram was that same day ryden in to the forest to chace the herte of greese / but sire Tristram wold not ryde on huntynge neuer more vnarmed by cause of syr Breuse saunce pyte (CMEPV.CAXT.MD.) (20) But Dynadan had wende the haute prynce had ben more wery than he was (CMEPV.CAXT.MD.)

The following example appears in both the Winchester MS and Caxton’s version of Le Morte Darthur – although in the former work, as an instance of double comparison: (21) Whanne they vnderstood that it was Dynadan / they were more wroth than they were before (CMEPV.CAXT.MD.)

.. Conclusion I observed above that (a) there were not very many periphrastic comparatives in the Ancrene Wisse and (b) that 2 out of the 3 Romance (i.e. French) adjectives found in the work seem to show a preference for this strategy. For want of data, however, these results were only considered indicative. Still, they appear to be in line with the results obtained from the analysis of a later West-Midland work, i.e. Malory’s Le Morte Darthur. Although featuring a number of different adjective types, both the Winchester Ms and Caxton’s version of the work contain roughly the same number of Romance adjectival loans. These latter are more frequently found with periphrastic comparatives (see Tables 3.5 and 3.6). Note, also the preference of native adjectives for inflectional comparison: Table 3.5. Caxton’s Le Morte Darthur

Romance Native Total

Infl. Comp.

Perip. Comp.

Total

3 (21%) 266 (95%) 269 (91%)

11 (79%) 14 (5%) 25 (9%)

14 (100%) 280 (100%) 294 (100%)



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.20 (70)


Table 3.6. Winchester Ms’ Le Morte Darthur


Infl. Comp.

Perip. Comp.

Total

4 (27%) 274 (95%) 278 (91%)

11 (73%) 15 (5%) 26 (9%)

15 (100%) 289 (100%) 304 (100%)

. Comparison in a translated text: Dan Michell’s Ayenbite of Inwyt The Ayenbite of Inwyt is a translation from La Somme de Roi, a didactic text written in 1279 under the command of Philip II of France (Wallenberg 1923: xiii–xvi). Wallenberg (1923: xiii, xvi) claims that Michel had only a “rather modest” command of French, which, in his view, explains Michel’s almost “word for word” rendering of the text. As in the preceding sections, the inflectional and periphrastic constructions of the Ayenbite of Inwyt were retrieved and analysed in terms of the etymology of the adjective. Illustrative examples of either construction are provided in (22)–(23): (22) uor we byeþ þe more ymylded / and þe dreduoller / and þe more wys ine alle þinges (CMEPV.MITC.AY.) (23) þe spot of lecherie more uouler / and more perilous ine clerkes and ine prelas (CMEPV.MITC.AY.)

As in the previous analyses, inflectional comparison is preferred when the adjective under consideration is a native word. Table 3.7. Distribution of comparative adjectives in the Ayenbite of Inwyt


Infl. Comp.

Perip. Comp.

Total

4 (27%) 87 (70%) 91 (65%)

11 (73%) 38 (30%) 49 (35%)

15 (100%) 125 (100%) 140 (100%)

The figure for native periphrastic comparatives is however higher than in the texts considered in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 above (i.e. 30%). This difference in frequency can perhaps be explained if one has a look at the adjectival types occurring with periphrastic comparison: note that no fewer than 10 (out of 38) periphrastic native constructions feature participial forms (see tokens with an asterisk in Table 3.8). It would thus not be strange to suppose that the verbal nature of the participial adjectives could have made them unsuitable or, at least, dispreferred as regards their combination with the inflectional strategy. No major surprises are to be found in relation to inflectional forms (see Table 3.9).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.21 (71)


Table 3.8. Adjectives taking periphrastic comparison in the Ayenbite of Inwyt Native

Romance

ald, borynde*, clene(x3), dreduol, grat(x2), grislich, hard, heuy, holy(x4), keruinde*, kueade, miŠten, milde(x3), quic, riŠ, strang, uoul(x2), wis, worth(x2), wylneþ, yblissed*, ydo*, yharmed*, y-layd*, ypined*, yzyenne*, ymad*(x2) atempred*, assayd*, chast, corteys, large, noble, parfit, perilous, sotil(x2), y-damned*,

Table 3.9. Inflectional comparatives in the Ayenbite of Inwyt Native

Romance

bleþelaker(x2), betere(x26), blondere(x2), hotter, leuere(x2), derrer(x3), dreduoller, grater(x10), harder, holyer(x2), hroþer, hye(x9), lenger(x2), lostuoller, milder(x2), nyer, smaller, stranger(x4), uayrer, uouler(x3), wiser(x2), zyker(x10), graciouser [in 1300], largere [in 1225], parfiter [in 1300], substancieler [in 1340]

Most of the inflectional comparatives feature native forms. Furthermore, those Romance loans attested with periphrastic comparison appear to have been introduced in the language relatively long before their first use in comparative structures. The only exception to this general trend is the adjective substancieler. One should note that the MED cites the Ayenbite of Inwyt as the first record of the form and that no other example of the comparative form appears in the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse. It is probably a nonce formation that did not catch on. Finally, it is worth pointing out that the distribution of comparatives in the Ayenbite does not seem to be noticeably different from that of either the Ancrene Wisse or Morte D’Arthur (but note my comments on periphrastic native forms above). In other words, the nature of the text (i.e. native vs. (rather) literal translation) does not seem to have an impact on the selection of comparative strategy.

. Concluding remarks Ch. 2 dealt with the (controversial) origin of periphrastic comparative structures in English. Without denying the possibility of an influence of Latin on their relative frequency of the forms towards the end of the OE period, it suggested that periphrastic comparison in OE was, ultimately, a native construction. The present chapter constituted a natural continuation to the previous one, as it focused on the spread of this construction in the language and, particularly, on the role that French may have had in this process in ME.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21



F: CI29903.tex / p.22 (72)


Kytö’s (1996) and Kytö & Romaine’s (1997) work show the increase in frequency of periphrastic constructions throughout the period and especially towards the last part of it. In this respect, it is worth noting that it is precisely the LME period when the influence of French was at its peak, as shown by the fact that it was in LME that the influx of French loanwords – the most frequently borrowed linguistic item in cases of language contact, cf. Thomason & Kaufman (1988) – was strongest (Jespersen 1905: 94; Baugh 1935: 91; Mossé 1943: 38–39; Smith 1996: 135). Taking this into consideration, one may argue that these results fit nicely with Heine & Kuteva’s view of contact-induced grammatical change; i.e. the existence of a pattern/construction in a language (A) considered prestigious by the native speakers of language (B), leads to the increase of use of a pattern in (B) that speakers of that language consider, in some sense, equivalent to that pattern in (A). Put differently, in our case, then, the diffusion of periphrastic comparatives may well have been favoured by the influence of French throughout the medieval period, this influence being reflected in the (initial) preference of English speakers for using periphrastic comparatives with Romance loans, possibly as a means of maintaining the morphological integrity of the foreign adjectival base. It is worth mentioning at this point Deuchar & Vihman’s (2002) research. They suggest that early bilinguals make an interesting distinction between content and function words in mixed language utterances. Content words are shown to be language-specific (i.e. match the language context, i.e. they appear in the dominant language in the utterance), whereas function words are language neutral, i.e. they do not necessarily have to match the language context. Interestingly, although standard grammars (e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 72) class adverbs as content words, Deuchar & Vihman (2002: 271) couch Spanish más and its English equivalent, more, as functional because “on semantic grounds we considered them to be. . .relational words.” Admittedly, the situation of English and French in medieval England was qualitatively different from that in Deuchar & Vihman’s (2002) research context. Firstly, we are not dealing (or, at least, not exclusively) with chidren’s language learning; second, as noted in Section 1 above, the linguistic situation of England at the time was not one of bilingualism but one of diglossia. Still, Deuchar & Vihman’s (2002) research matches with my findings, as it points to a high adaptability of the periphrastic comparative marker more in language contact situations. The spread of periphrastic comparison also seems to provide support to other hypotheses about contact-induced change and, more specifically, to Kerswill & Williams’ (2002) concept of “salience”. According to Kerswill & Williams (2002: 81) salience is “a [psychological] property of a linguistic item or feature that makes it in some way perceptually and cognitively prominent” and therefore potentially more prone to spread or be adopted in a linguistic community, especially in cases of language contact. They (Kerswill & Williams 2002: 105) also note that, in order for a

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:21

F: CI29903.tex / p.23 (73)


linguistic element/phenomenon to be salient, there should be a match between language-internal factors (presence of phonological contrast, internally-defined naturalness, semantic transparency) and language-external ones (psychological, pragmatic, cognitive, socio-demographical). Applying Kerswill & Williams’ (2002) ideas to periphrastic comparatives, one may suggest that, intra-linguistically, periphrastic forms are more ‘salient’ because they are semantically more transparent comparative structures than inflectional forms (as noted above, they do not alter the adjective to which they attach; also, the particle more makes more explicit their comparative status; cf. Ch. 4, Section 5.4.2 below). At the same time, the formal similarity between English and French periphrastic comparatives in a period in which French was considered a prestige language (cf. Samuels 1972: 94) may very well count as the extra-linguistic factor that rendered them more ‘salient’ than their inflectional counterparts, thus favouring their spread.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.1 (75)

chapter 

Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in EMode and LMode

.

Introduction71

In Ch. 2 above I argued in favour of considering periphrastic comparatives native structures. Ch. 3 examined their spread and establishment as one of the ‘standard’ comparative strategies in the language. The continued co-existence of the two comparative variants from the OE period up to the present-day poses an interesting question to the researcher: is there any difference in use between simple inflectional and simple periphrastic comparative structures? From an iconic point of view, one would assume that this is the case, as different forms (in this case, adjer and more + adj.) are normally associated with different meanings (‘isomorphism principle’, Haiman 1985: 14). However, as the sections below will show, no consensus has been reached as regards the extent to which inflectional and periphrastic forms diverge either syntactically or semanticpragmatically. This chapter and Chapter 5 below concentrate on these issues. The periods under consideration in this chapter will be EMode and LModE, as it was not until the last part of the ME period that periphrastic forms established themselves as a standard comparative option in the language (cf. Kytö & Romaine 1997). The Present-day English situation will be explored in Ch. 5 below. Section 2 outlines the morpho-phonological and syntactic factors that previous literature has associated with the selection of comparative strategy. Section 3 describes the data used in the study. Section 4 concentrates on the influence of the syntactic factors mentioned in Section 3 on comparatives in early and late Modern English. The results obtained from the latter analysis call for a semantic interpretation of the data, which will be provided in Sections 5 and 6 below. Section 7 measures the significance of the semantic and syntactic factors in Sections 4–6 through a variable rule analysis. Finally, Section 8 summarises the main conclusions and points to some issues for further research. These will be explored in

. Unless otherwise stated, the emphasis (i.e. italics/bold) in the examples provided through the chapter is mine (VGD).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.2 (76)


Ch. 5 below in connection to the distribution of the comparative strategies in the present-day.

. Adjective comparison: Previous literature Traditional scholarship points to phonological and morphological factors as the reason for the difference in distribution between inflectional and periphrastic comparative forms. Jespersen (1909–49: 350–351) observes that adjectives take either inflectional or periphrastic comparison mainly depending on their length72 (cf. also Pound 1901: 9–10, Kytö & Romaine 2000: 180; Suematsu 2004: 37ff.). Thus, according to Quirk et al. (1985: 461–463, cf. also Ch. 1 above), monosyllabic adjectives are usually compared by means of inflection (e.g. low → lower), polysyllabic adjectives (i.e. three or more syllables) “can only take periphrastic forms” (e.g. beautiful → more beautiful),73 whereas (many) disyllabic adjectives can occur with both inflectional and periphrastic comparison (friendly → more friendly/friendlier). Poutsma (1914) admits the importance of word length and word ending in the choice of comparative forms (cf. also Bauer 1994: 51); yet he claims that this latter is “chiefly a matter of euphony, convenience and rhythm and partly one of meaning” (1914: 474). He also remarks that periphrastic comparatives, being more “artificial”, are more likely to occur in literary registers and with longer words, while inflectional forms are favoured “in the vulgar (i.e. spoken or colloquial) language” (1914: 478). In keeping with this idea, Sweet (1891: 327) and Bolinger (1968: 120) note that frequently used adjectives (usually the shorter ones – which tend to be of native origin) have a stronger tendency to take inflectional comparison (cf. also Graziano-King 2003). Kruisinga (1932: 62) deems “immaterial” the number of syllables of the adjective and claims that the position of the primary stress is the main factor in the distribution of inflectional and periphrastic forms. If the last syllable bears the main stress, the adjective will take inflectional comparison. By contrast, if the primary stress falls on the penultimate syllable or further forward, the use of the periphrastic construction is preferred. This idea was further developed by Kuryłowicz (1964: 15) and Cygan (1975: 56). Subsequent scholarship (Leech & Culpepper 1997: 361–362) questioned the validity of the original claim by show. Jespersen (1909–49: 346ff.) also mentions other (minor) determinant factors of comparison such as orthography, stress, word ending and the origin of the adjective. . The exception being trisyllabic adjectives with the prefix un-, which can take inflectional comparison (unhappy → unhappier, untidy → untidier; Quirk et al. 1985: 462).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.3 (77)

Chapter 4. Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in EMode and LMode

ing that a number of disyllabic adjectives (22 types) stressed on the final syllable more frequently select periphrastic comparison (Leech & Culpepper 1997: 361– 362; cf. also Suematsu 2004: 45).74 However, Elzinga’s (2006: 767) system of analogical modelling for comparatives claims that “phonological variables, including the number of syllables, stress pattern and segmental makeup of the final two syllables were shown to be significant in predicting the correct comparative outcome.” Recent commentators also suggest that syntactic considerations play a role in the distribution of comparative strategies. Rusiecki (1985: 89; cf. also Leech & Culpeper 1997: 366) observes that adjectives take different comparative strategies depending on the syntactic position that they occupy (i.e. predicative positions seem to favour the appearance of periphrastic forms). Other scholars claim that the occurrence of adverbial premodifiers (Leech & Culpeper 1997: 367; Lindquist 2000: 127), of a second term of comparison (Quirk et al. 1985: 462) or of an infinitival/prepositional complement after the comparative form favours periphrastic comparison (Mondorf 2002; Mondorf 2003). Finally, a number of corpus-based studies on comparison (i.e. Kytö 1996; Kytö & Romaine 1997, 2000: 185) indicate that “inflectional forms prevail[...] in matterof-fact texts types” whereas “[m]ore rhetorical texts such as philosophical and religious treatises, and correspondence. . . make greater use of periphrastic forms.” It should be observed at this point that most of the works mentioned above concentrate on the distribution of comparative constructions in present-day English only. Pound (1901), Kytö & Romaine (1997, 2000) and Suematsu (2004) are the exception. Pound (1901: 18) contends that although the length, ending and the stress pattern of the adjective may have play a role, individual preference was the factor that carried most weight in the choice of comparison in EModE. Kytö & Romaine’s (1997, 2000) and Suematsu’s (2004) corpus-based studies show that the latter morpho-phonological considerations were also operative in the LModE period. Along the same lines, Bax’s (2008) work highlights their importance as determinants of comparative selection in the eighteenth-century British grammar tradition. No research along the same lines has however been carried out as regards syntactic factors. The following section will thus be devoted to a corpus-based analysis of the syntactic determinants of comparative variation in EModE and LModE.

. One should bear in mind that all but two of the adjective types analysed by Leech & Culpeper (1997) are Romance borrowings.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.4 (78)


. The data In order to avoid genre-bias issues, my selection of corpora drew from as many and as varied historical sources as possible. For the EModE period, I selected the EModE part of the Helsinki Corpus, the Corpus of Early English Correspondence (Sampler), the EModE part of the Lampeter Corpus, the Corpus of English Dialogues as well as a self-compiled corpus of EModE drama. The LModE data consisted in the ARCHER and a self-compiled corpus of late Modern English drama and fiction (see Ch. 1, Section 2.2 above for a brief description of these corpora). As regards the data, recent scholarship on the topic (Kytö & Romaine 1997: 340; Suematsu 2004: 36) observes that disyllabic adjectives are the group showing most variation between inflectional and periphrastic comparison. The study presented in this chapter is thus based on the analysis of a group of disyllabic adjectives. In keeping with Leech & Culpeper’s (1997: 359) study, the disyllabic adjectival category was divided into 3 different groups;75 i.e. adjectives ending in unstressed vowel (e.g. friendly), in syllabic /l/ (e.g. simple) and in schwa (e.g. mature).76 Using Wordsmith, two frequency wordlists were made, one for EModE and another for LModE. Only those adjectives in the so-called ‘positive’ degree which (a) were within the 500 more frequent words in each of the lists and (b) complied with the classification of disyllabic adjectives mentioned above were initially selected. Graziano-King & Cairn (2005) observe that in monosyllabic and in disyllabic adjectives of the three types mentioned above, the higher the frequency of the adjective, the greater the likelihood of inflectional forms being selected as the comparative strategy. I thus decided to run an initial search for the periphrastic forms (i.e. more + adj.) of the selected adjectives, for, in line with Graziano-King & Cairn’s (2005) observations, I assumed that a sufficient number of periphrastic forms in high-frequency adjectives across my corpora would probably entail the presence of similar token frequencies of inflectionally-compared forms. In connection to frequency distribution, in this secondary search I discarded from the tally those adjectives (a) with less than 20 comparative tokens for each period and (b) whose least frequent comparative strategy would amount to less than 15% of the . Excluded from the analysis were those adjectives ending in -ful and -ous (i.e. famous, careful), as Kytö & Romaine (1997: 342, 2000: 181) observe that their phonological configuration makes them invariably take periphrastic comparison. . No examples of adjectives ending in schwa were included in Leech & Culpeper’s (1997) study. It should also be observed that mature cannot be unambiguously classified as an adjective ending in schwa, as its pronunciation varies across dialects (the OED gives the following alternative British pronunciations of the adjective: /m6’tw~6/, /m6’tj~6/, /m6’twf ˜/, /m6’tjf ˜/, OED, mature, a.).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.5 (79)


total number of tokens of the adjective in each of the periods under consideration. Table 4.1 records the adjectives that met the above-mentioned criteria: Table 4.1. Selected adjectives EModE

happy easy worthy noble ready

LModE

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Inflectional

Periphrastic

29 (57%) 42 (67%) 25 (63%) 69 (73%) 17 (81%)

22 (43%) 21 (33%) 15 (37%) 25 (27%) 4 (19%)

294 (77%) 178 (83%) 32 (47%) 110 (86%) 13 (33%)

90 (23%) 37 (27%) 36 (53%) 18 (14%) 26 (67%)

One should also note that, within the selected adjectives, I also excluded from the tally those examples in which: a. more has a quantifier function in connection to a nominal constituent (see (1) below): (1) The dead with charity enclosed in clay: And then to Calais; and to England then: Where ne’er from France arrived more happy men (EMODD.SHAK.5H.)

b. the adjective inflected for comparison is nominalised (see (2) below): (2) LEWIS

Bethink you, father; for the difference Is purchase of a heavy curse from Rome, Or the light loss of England for a friend: Forego the easier (EMODD.SHAK.KJ)

c. the comparative form has adverbial function (I am interested only in adjectival comparison; see (3) below): (3) Embrace then Tytan’s counsell:-now so guide The chariot of your sway in a just pace, That all (to come hereafter) may with pride Say, None like you did noblier quit the place (EMODD.DEKK.LO.)

d. the comparative occurs in correlative constructions such as “the more X. . .the more Y” or “more and more X”. (In these cases, the comparative form lacks all semantic flexibility which, as will be shown below, is a very important factor in the choice of comparison; see example (4) below):



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.6 (80)


(4) the behaviour of Potion and his wife, and of my female cousins – our reception at the estate – Strap marries Miss Williams, and is settled by my father to his own satisfaction – I am more and more happy (LMODF.SMOL.RO.)

The following sections will outline the factors that previous literature has associated with the preference for one or another comparative strategy and test them against the data.

. Syntactic factors conditioning the choice of comparison . The position of the adjective The corpus analysis carried out by Leech & Culpeper (1997: 366) suggests that, in present-day English, comparatives in attributive position are mainly of the inflectional type (57.7%) and, conversely, that predicative positions favour the deployment of periphrastic comparison (67.2%).77 In his study of -ly comparatives and superlatives in the The New York Times and The Independent, Lindquist (2000) also explores the possibility that syntactic position is a determinant factor in the distribution of the comparative modes. The results of his corpus analysis (see Table 4.2) are somewhat different from those of Leech & Culpeper’s (1997) and he concludes that “[inflectional and periphrastic] comparatives are rather evenly spread between the attributive and predicative position” (2000: 126). 78 Table 4.2. Attributive vs. predicative comparative uses in Lindquist (2000) Position

Attributive Predicative Total

Inflectional

Periphrastic

NY Times

Independent

NY Times

Independent

67 (51%) 65 (49%) 132 (100%)

63 (55%) 51 (45%) 114 (100%)

24 (44%) 31 (56%) 55 (100%)

42 (37%) 73 (63%) 115 (100%)

The reason for the differences in figures between these authors may well be related to the fact that Lindquist’s study takes a different experimental basis from that . It should be noted that the figure for predicative comparatives also include postpositive adjectives. . Observe that the percentage for attributive/predicative periphrastic forms in The Independent in Table 4.2 appears to show a clear preference for periphrastic comparatives to occur in predicative positions.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.7 (81)


of Leech & Culpeper.79 Leech & Culpeper analyse how the syntactic factor under consideration (i.e. syntactic position) is distributed between the two comparative strategies. By contrast, Lindquist takes the comparative form as the starting point of his analysis and examines how attributive/predicative uses are distributed between inflectional and periphrastic comparative strategies. Arguably, an analysis along the lines of Leech & Culpeper (1997) seems more appropriate for the purposes of the present investigation, since what is at stake is the influence of the factor itself on the selection of comparative strategy (cf. Tagliamonte 2007: 191–92). It should be noted here that both Leech & Culpeper (1997) and Lindquist (2000) include postpositive adjectives amongst their predicative tokens. As Fischer (2006: 254) states, postposed adjectives in present-day English are “a mixed bag of remnants”, usually restricted to either fixed expressions or a number specific collocations; see Biber et al. (1999: 519), cf. also Quirk et al. (1985: 1294ff.): (7) It’s a shame if you haven’t got anyone musical here (Biber et al. 1999: 519) The heir apparent (Quirk et al. 1985: 1294)

By contrast, the position of the adjective in Old and Middle English was rather flexible due to the highly inflectional nature of their morphosyntactic system. The decline of the OE inflectional system led to a gradual fixation of the word order options from the ME period onwards, a process which of course affected the placement of noun modifiers (Fischer 2006: 282). Taking this into consideration and, for the sake of accuracy, the postposed adjectives in my EModE and LModE data will be initially considered independently from the attributive and predicative tokens (see Table 4.3 and Table 4.4 and examples (8)–(9)). (8) I make no question but wee shall have cause to say and thinke, that noe children are more blessed in a mother, and I hope your La=pp= will thinke noe mother happier in children (CEEC.FCO.LET.)

. Lindquist justifies the discrepancies between his and Leech & Culpeper’s (1997) figures by claiming that the meaningful correlation is not the one established between attributive/inflectional on the one hand and predicative/periphrastic on the other. Instead, he argues that “the important factor seems to be whether the adjective is in the comparative or superlative form” (Lindquist 2000: 126). Thus, he suggests that examples such as The deli has the friendliest atmosphere (i.e. when the superlative occurs in attributive position) are “much more common” than examples like It was the ugliest but the best because “in predicative position [the superlative] often demands some sort of postmodification to achieve balance in the sentence” (Lindquist 2000: 127).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.8 (82)


Table 4.3. Syntactic position in selected EModE adjectives Position LModE

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Total

Attributive Predicative Postpositive80 Overall distribution

104 (77%) 68 (57.1%) 10 (66.7%) 182 (67.7%)

31 (23%) 51(42.9%) 5 (33.3%) 87 (32.3%)

135 (50.2%) 119 (44.2%) 15 (5.6%) 269 (100%)

Table 4.4. Syntactic position in selected LModE adjectives Position LModE

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Total

Attributive Predicative Postpositive Overall distribution

257 (90.5%) 349 (69.4%) 21 (44.7%) 627 (75.2%)

27 (9.5%) 154 (34.1%) 26 (55.3%) 207 (24.8%)

284 (34.1%) 503 (60.3%) 47 (5.6%) 834 (100%)

(9) I will not urge, with one unwelcome word, this unkindness I’ll conceal it – If your heart has made a choice more worthy, I forgive it – pursue your pleasures – drive without a rein your passions – I am the mistress of my own mind, that shall not mutiny – If I retrieve you, I shall be thankful – If not, you are and must be still my lord (ARCHER. HAMI.)

In general terms, the results show the preference for inflectional forms in all positions in either period. This is not surprising if one takes into consideration that inflectional comparison was the first strategy attested in the language and that, after an initial increase in the use of periphrastic forms, it has “been reasserting itself since the Early Modern period” (Kytö & Romaine 2000: 172). It should nevertheless be pointed out that the preference for inflectional forms is less marked in predicative (and postpositive) slots, especially once one moves closer to the present-day (i.e. in the LModE period). This seems to be in line with Leech & Culpeper’s findings (1997) for present-day English. They elaborate on the causes of the positive association between periphrastic forms and predicative environments (Leech & Culpeper 1997: 358). First, they argue that in sentences where periphrastic forms occur attributively such as “I ought really to have driven more cheap ‘bread and butter’ cars”, more could be interpreted both as a comparative particle and a determiner; by contrast, no ambiguity . It should be borne in mind that EModE drama is well-represented in my data and that most of the Elizabethan drama was written in verse – which suggests that metric considerations may well have played a role in the use of postposition in my EModE texts.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.9 (83)


is possible in those cases where the periphrastic comparative occurs predicatively.81 Also, following Rusiecki (1985: 89), they suggest that “periphrastic forms, being complex, are less handy to use attributively” (Leech & Culpeper 1997: 358. Note that neither Rusiecki nor Leech & Culpeper explain what constitutes the greater complexity of periphrastic forms as opposed to the inflectional ones).82 However, Lindquist (2000) contends that periphrastic forms are phonologically heavier than inflectional comparatives because they have a higher number of consonantal phonemes than inflectional comparatives. In his opinion, this “makes it more natural to place a periphrastically compared adjective at the end of the clause to achieve end-weight” (Lindquist 2000: 126). Although accurate, this suggestion seems to constitute a partial explanation of the phenomenon only, for it pays no attention to semantic-pragmatic considerations – which, as will be discussed below (see Section 5), play an important role in the choice of comparison. . Presence of a second term of comparison According to Quirk et al. (1985: 462), adjectives that tend to take inflectional comparison may also occur with periphrastic forms. This option is, according to them, favoured when these adjectives “are predicative and followed by a than-clause.” This idea is further investigated by Leech & Culpeper’s (1997: 367) and Lindquist’s (2000: 128–129) corpus studies. The results obtained, however, led them to discard the idea that than-phrases have any influence on the choice of comparison, as they show that the percentages of inflectional and periphrastic forms followed by a second term of comparison are rather similar (e.g. 21.8% inflectional vs. 22.7% periphrastic in Leech & Culpeper’s study).83 I initially considered comparative forms attested in both attributive and predicative positions; however, given that than-phases are strongly dispreferred in attributive position (e.g. “?a more ugly than X house”; see rows in italics in Tables 4.5–4.6.), I concentrated on predicative comparatives only (examples (10) and (11) below). . One may nevertheless argue that this alleged ambiguity can only operate at the written level, as in oral communication the intonation and conversational situation usually makes the intended meaning clear to the hearer. . It is also worth mentioning that there is no consensus in the literature on how to establish objective measures for the notions of ‘grammatical complexity’, ‘heaviness’ or ‘weight’ (see Mondorf 2002: 70). . Lindquist’s study of The New York Times and The Independent also reflects a balanced distribution of than-phrases between inflectional and periphrastic forms (both inflectional and periphrastic comparatives are followed by a than-phrase in around 20% of the cases).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.10 (84)


Table 4.5. Cross-tabulation of syntactic position and second term of comparison (EModE) Predicative

Attributive

Postpositive

Total

Without than-phrase

Infl. Perip. Total

47 (64%) 27 (36%) 74

100 (78%) 28 (22%) 128

3 (50%) 3 (50%) 6

150 (72%) 58 (28%) 208

With than-phrase

Infl. Perip. Total

21 (47%) 24 (53%) 45

4 (57%) 3 (43%) 7

7 (78%) 2 (22%) 9

32 (52%) 29 (48%) 61

TOTAL

Infl. Perip. Total

68 (57%) 51 (43%) 119

104 (77%) 31 (23%) 135

10 (67%) 5 (33%) 15

182 (68%) 87 (32%) 269

Table 4.6. Cross-tabulation of syntactic position and second term of comparison (LModE) Predicative

Attributive

Postpositive

Total

Without than-phrase

Infl. Perip. Total

225 (74%) 79 (26%) 304

250 (91%) 24 (9%) 274

10 (40%) 15 (60%) 25

485 (80%) 118 (20%) 603

With than-phrase

Infl. Perip. Total

124 (62%) 75 (38%) 199

7 (70%) 3 (30%) 10

11 (50%) 11 (50%) 22

142 (61%) 89 (39%) 231

TOTAL

Infl. Perip. Total

349 (69%) 154 (31%) 503

257 (90%) 27 (10%) 284

21 (45%) 26 (55%) 47

620 (75%) 207 (25%) 834

(10) Fanny was most conveniently in want of rest. Crawford could not have wished her more fatigued or more ready to sit down (LMODF.AUST.MP.) (11) BOE. I say it is so. PHIL: Then yf anye good be added or put to the wretchednes of any man, is not he more happy then the man, whose myserye is pure (HEL.PRES.BO.)

Furthermore, a number of examples where a comparative adjective is attested attributively and the head noun is followed by a than-phrase were attested (24 tokens across periods; see (12) and (13) below). (12) First Citizen Second Citizen Third Citizen

If it be found so, some will dear abide it Poor soul! his eyes are red as fire with weeping There’s not a nobler man in Rome than Antony. (EMODD.SHAK.JC.)

(13) when Charlotte being called out of the way, there ensued a brief interval of time, which Noah Claypole, being hungry and vicious, considered he could not possibly devote to a worthier purpose than aggravating and tantalising young Oliver Twist (LMODF.DICK.OT.)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.11 (85)


These examples create complications for the analysis, as they cannot be easily accommodated within the parameters of my classification (they would have to be included in both predicative and attributive groups; i.e. predicative according to the syntactic slot occupied by the than-phrase, attributive because of the premodifying function of the comparative). Given their statistical insignificance, I decided to discard them from the tally. The results are summarised in Tables 4.7–4.8. They suggest that, in predicative positions, periphrastic comparatives are slightly more strongly associated with a second term of comparison than inflectional forms, especially in the EModE period. The chi-square test, however, suggests that the results are statistically significant only for the LModE period. Table 4.7. Predicative comparatives with/out a second term of comparison in EModE

+ than-phrase – than-phrase Overall distribution

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Total

21 (47%) 47 (64%) 68 (57%)

24 (53%) 27 (36%) 51 (43%)

45 (100%) 74 (100%) 119 (100%)

Table 4.8. Predicative comparatives with/out a second term of comparison in LModE

+ than-phrase – than-phrase Overall distribution

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Total

124 (62%) 225 (74%) 349 (69%)

75 (38%) 79 (26%) 154 (31%)

199 (100%) 304 (100%) 503 (100%)

. Presence of adverbial premodifiers Leech & Culpeper’s (1997: 367) and Lindquist’s (2000: 127) studies suggest that there exists some kind of association between periphrastic forms and the occurrence of adverbial premodifiers (e.g. a bit, even, far; see Table 4.9): Table 4.9. Adverbial premodifiers and comparative adjectives in Leech & Culpeper (1997) and Lindquist (2000) Mod. + infl. Leech and Culpeper Lindquist

Mod. + perip.

19.1% 22%84

25.6% 33%

28%

46%

. The figures on the first columns stand for Lindquist’s (2000) results of The New York Times’ analysis; the second ones represent the outcome of The Independent.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.12 (86)


My results for the early and late Modern English periods seem to point to the same direction; i.e. periphrastic comparatives being preferred over inflectional ones when they are premodified by adverbial intensifiers – especially in the EModE period. Nevertheless, the chi-square test suggests that the results are not statistically significant (see Table 4.10 and Table 4.11): Table 4.10. Adverbial premodifiers and comparatives in EModE

EModE data without intensifiers EModE data with intensifiers Overall distribution

Mod. + infl.

Mod. + perip.

Total

166 (68.9%) 16 (57.1%) 182 (67.75)

75 (31.1%) 12 (42.9%) 87 (32.3%)

241 (89.6%) 28 (10.4%) 269 (100%)

Table 4.11. Adverbial premodifiers and comparatives in LModE

LModE data without intensifiers LModE data with intensifiers Overall distribution

Mod. + infl.

Mod. + perip.

Total

498 (67%) 129 (72.1%) 627 (75.2%)

157 (24%) 50 (27.9%) 207 (24.8%)

655 (78.5%) 179 (21.5%) 834 (100%)

. Presence of complements Rusiecki (1985: 89) finds a positive correlation between predicative environments and periphrastic forms and he justifies it on the basis of the more complex nature of periphrastic forms when compared to their inflectional counterparts. (But, as observed above, he does not specify what makes periphrastic forms more complex structures than inflectional comparatives). Mondorf (2003) also invokes the idea of complexity in relation to periphrastic comparatives, although taking a rather different stance. She argues that periphrastic comparatives are more explicit (comparative) variants that tend to be used in complex environments in order to minimise the cognitive processing effort. In her view, then, what is complex is the context, not the periphrastic comparative itself (see her definition of the notion of more-support85 below): In cognitively more demanding environments which require an increased processing load, language users– when faced with the option between a synthetic and an analytic variant – tend to compensate for the additional effort by resorting to the analytic form. (Mondorf 2003: 253) . This principle has its foundations on Rohdenburg’s (2003: 217) Complexity Principle, which holds that “in the case of more or less explicit constructional options, the more explicit one(s) will tend to be favoured in cognitively more complex environments.”

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.13 (87)


According to Mondorf (2003: 254; cf. also Mondorf 2007: 214), the reason why periphrastic comparatives mitigate the complexity of the cognitive load better than inflectional forms is threefold. First, the particle more unambiguously signals the beginning of the Degree Phrase; second, periphrastic forms are syntactically more transparent, as they consist of two differentiated parts: the degree marker (more) and the adjective; third, periphrastic comparatives allow the speaker to alert the addressee to the subsequent appearance of a cognitively complex Adjectival Phrase. In the light of this principle, Mondorf (2002, 2003) suggests that the appearance of prepositional and infinitival complements by the side of comparatives (see examples (14) and (15) below) makes the comparative environment cognitively more complex, which, according to the quote above, in its turn calls for the occurrence of the periphrastic mode of comparison. (14) It would be hard to find a couple more proud of their home than Michael and Kathleen Kinsella (Mondorf 2002: 70) (15) Crack is far more easy to conceal than cannabis

(Mondorf 2003: 266)

.. Infinitival and prepositional complements It was noted above that Lindquist (2000: 126) attributed the preference of periphrastic forms for predicative positions to reasons of end-weight (i.e. periphrastic forms are phonologically heavier than their inflectional counterparts). Quirk et al. (1985: 361–362) expand this notion of phonological weight to semantics, claiming that “clause-final position is associated with prosodic and semantic ‘weight’.” Following this line of reasoning, one may argue that periphrastic comparative constructions are heavier than their inflectional counterparts, and as such, that they will be preferred in predicative final positions regardless of whether or not they are combined with complements. One may thus conclude that, without isolating the effect that end-weight has on the choice of comparative strategy, the influence of PCs on the selection of comparative strategy cannot be clearly ascertained. In order to minimise the influence of end-weight on my data, I discarded from the tally those examples in which the comparative construction appears in final position. Included in this group were cases where the comparative occurs with a sentence-final PC or a than-phrase (as one may argue that the than-phrase is part of the comparative construction). In addition, I did not consider comparative constructions appearing with infinitival complements, since Mondorf (2003) also suggested that infinitival complements favour the occurrence of periphrastic comparatives (they make the comparative form longer and more difficult to process, thus triggering the operation of Rohdenburg’s Complexity Principle). However, once the factors (potentially) influencing the mode of comparison were filtered



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.14 (88)


out, no comparative tokens were available for analysis, as all the adjectives in my data combined with final PCs. A similar situation obtained when I tried to investigate the influence of infinitival complements in my data. Again, I discarded those examples where the comparative adjective occurred in sentence-final position and with a prepositional complement. Only three examples in my corpora could be selected for the analysis (see examples (16)–(18) below): (16) “I am not required to go yet; I would not desert him, dear Miss Summerson, even if I were.” One other thing I felt it needful to touch upon before he left me. I knew that I should not be worthier of the love I could not take (LMODF.DICK.BH.) (17) It was not too late for that. Although I closed this unforeseen page in my life to-night, I could be worthier of it all through my life (LMODF.DICK.BH.) (18) POLONIUS I hear him coming: let’s withdraw, my lord. [Exeunt KING CLAUDIUS and POLONIUS] / [Enter HAMLET] HAMLET To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (EMODD.SHAK.HA.)

. Conclusion The corpus-based study presented in this section revisited those syntactic factors that previous scholarship considered influential on the appearance of one (inflectional) or the other (periphrastic) comparative mode in EModE and LModE. The results obtained suggest that only one of the factors examined, i.e. the syntactic position of the adjective, seems to have an influence on the selection of comparative strategy.86 Put differently, syntax cannot provide a fully satisfactory explanation for the behaviour of disyllabic comparative adjectives. With the aim of shedding more light on the issue, Section 5 below will be devoted to a study of the semantics-pragmatics of the comparative modes.

. But note that the impact of Mondorf ’s (2000, 2003) claims could not be ascertained for want of data.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.15 (89)


. Inflectional vs. periphrastic comparatives: A semantic-pragmatic analysis . Previous literature on the topic The semantics of adjective comparison received a considerable amount of scholarly attention at the end of the last century; the issues that elicited most interest being the source of comparatives and whether or not than is a semantically negative element (see Ch. 1, Section 1.2). Interesting and valuable as these studies are, they left unanswered an important issue, namely, the relation between the form of the comparative (adjer / more + adj.) and its meaning. Traditional grammars (Poutsma 1914; Curme 1931; Kruisinga 1932) mentioned the question only in passing. According to Curme (1931), the conveyor of degree in inflectional comparatives (i.e. -er) is a suffix “intimately associated with the stem” that is never stressed (Curme 1931: 504). Conversely, periphrastic forms consist of two independent words (more and the adjective), which allow the speaker to emphasise either the idea of degree (when the stress is placed on more) or “the meaning” (when the adjective is emphasised, cf. Curme 1931: 504). Unfortunately, neither Curme nor subsequent scholarship developed this idea further (see, however, the comments in Kytö & Romaine 2000: 185 or Janecka 2006). Some authors ignored the issue altogether, suggesting that inflectional and periphrastic comparatives may be seen as synonymous structures (Quirk et al.’s (1985: 458) claim that comparison in English is “expressed by the inflected forms in -er (. . .) or their periphrastic equivalents with more” [emphasis added]). Other scholars recognised the possibility of a semantic difference between the two comparative strategies, although they decided not to pursue the study of the issue further. Ryan (1986: 55) suggests that “the lexical relationship between ADJ+er to MORE+ADJ (. . .) has never been conclusively established”. She admits that in certain cases, “there are syntactic consequences of the difference between -er forms and more forms”, however, “for the purposes of analysis” she assumes that the “-er forms and more forms of comparative are categorially indistinguishable” (ibid.). A similar position is adopted by Rusiecki (1985: 88), who states that “whether there is any semantic difference between the two (inflectional and periphrastic comparatives) and if so what it is, deserves investigation (. . .) but so far has not been attempted”. More recently, however, Mondorf (2003, 2007) convincingly argues for a semantic difference between the two strategies in terms of abstract vs. concrete meanings. In keeping with Rohdenburg’s (1996) complexity principle and previous psycholinguistic research, she suggests that concrete adjectival meanings are less complex (i.e. require less processing effort) than abstract ones and therefore that they tend to be associated with inflectional comparatives. By contrast, periphrastic



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.16 (90)


comparison can mitigate better the cognitive complexity of the context, hence being preferred for the conveyance of complex abstract notions. Furthermore, in the realm of language acquisition, Graziano-King & Cairn (2005: 348; cf. also Graziano-King 1999, 2003) suggest that, for specific adjectival groups,87 adjective frequency and gradability (whether the adjective refers to an attribute that can vary in degree) influences the comparative type preference; inflectional comparison being preferred for certain frequent adjectives. Drawing on the syntactic factors discussed above, the following sections constitute an attempt at providing a better understanding of the semantics-pragmatics of adjective comparison. I will start by considering the implications of type frequency and coordination factors on the pragmatic distribution of comparative strategies (Sections 5.2–5.3). Also, given that the position of the adjective is the only syntactic factor that appears to condition to a considerable degree the use of comparative structures, in Section 5.4 I will first give an overview of the relevant studies on the semantic-pragmatic differences between attribution and predication and then relate these differences to the syntactic behaviour of comparative adjectives. Finally, an analysis of the semantic impact of adverbial premodification will be offered in Section 6 below. . Frequency Although not a strictly syntactic factor, the impact of frequency on the selection of comparative strategies will be considered here. Krug (2003: 15) observes that high frequency triggers mental entrenchment. Furthermore, on the basis of previous research on language acquisition, GrazianoKing & Cairn (2005) state that inflectional comparison is the first or ‘default’ strategy acquired by English children (cf. also Gathercole 1985; Graziano-King 1999). From this one can hypothesise that the higher the frequency of the adjective, the greater the likelihood of the inflectional forms for being selected as the preferred comparative strategy – which is what Graziano-King & Cairn (2005) predict for monosyllabic and in disyllabic adjectives ending in -le, -ly, -ow, -some and -er. Table 4.12 features the frequency of each of the selected adjectives in this study. For the sake of convenience, Table 4.1 above (which records the distribution of comparative strategies across adjectives and periods) is also given below as Table 4.1’:

. The adjectival groups considered in Graziano-King & Cairn’s (2005) study were monosyllabic adjectives and disyllabic adjectives ending in -le, -y, -ly, -ow and -some.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.17 (91)


Table 4.12. Frequency of selected adjectives (positive degree)

Easy Happy Noble Ready Worthy

EModE

LModE

0.0009% 0.0008% 0.018% 0.001% 0.0015%

0.0138% 0.0317% 0.0127% 0.0224% 0.001%

Table 4.1’. Selected adjectives

Happy Easy Worthy Noble Ready

EModE Inflectional Periphrastic

LModE Inflectional Periphrastic

29 (57%) 42 (67%) 25 (63%) 69 (73%) 17 (81%)

294 (77%) 178 (83%) 32 (47%) 110 (86%) 13 (33%)

22 (43%) 21 (33%) 15 (37%) 25 (27%) 4 (19%)

90 (23%) 37 (27%) 36 (53%) 18 (14%) 26 (67%)

Graziano-King & Cairn’s (2005) suggestions are confirmed by an analysis of the data; the most frequent of my selected adjectives (i.e. noble and ready in EModE, together with happy in the LModE) being more frequently attested with inflectional forms in my corpus. . Coordination Although strictly speaking coordination is not a factor that triggers the deployment of either mode of comparison, Leech & Culpeper (1997: 367–368) observe in their data a tendency for the same kind of comparative strategy (i.e. inflectional/periphrastic) to occur in each member of a coordinate construction (see examples (19) and (20) below).88 (19) thirstier and hungrier and wearier and unhappier (20) proved to be more interesting and certainly more lively

They suggest that the reason for this is the tendency for comparative forms “to imitate neighbouring comparative adjectives” (Leech & Culpeper 1997: 367). This . A similar claim is put forward by Jespersen (1909–56: 390–391) and König (1971: 105) as regard ‘gradual increase’ constructions (e.g. he became angrier and angrier / more and more angry). The validity of this claim is supported by Mondorf ’s (2007: 220ff.) research. It should be observed here (cf. also Section 3 above) that ‘gradual increase’ constructions have not been considered in this analysis.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.18 (92)


echoes an observation made by Poutsma (1914: 478), who claimed that “convenience (. . .) causes periphrastic comparison to be used of groups of adjectives forming a kind of unit.” But neither of these claims seems to provide a completely satisfactory explanation for the phenomenon. Coordination can be defined as “the relation between elements arranged or placed in the same order, rank or degree” (OED, co-ordination, 2). This implies that the elements of any coordinate construction must share the same syntactic rank. Schachter (1977) goes further in his Coordinate Constituent Constraint (CCC) and emphasises the functional importance of the semantics of the coordinate elements. Thus, according to his CCC, in order for two elements to form a coordinate structure, they must not only “belong to the same syntactic category” (as the OED definition suggests) but also have “the same semantic function” (Schachter 1977: 90). Coordinated adjectives are not very frequent in my corpora (see Table 4.13. and examples (21)–(23)). Table 4.13. Coordinated adjectives in the EModE and LModE data Same comparative Different comparative Positive adjective

Other

EModE Inflectional Periphrastic

33 14

4 1

2 1

1 (superlative)

LModE Inflectional Periphrastic

25 8

4 2

0 0

0 0

(21) Ho. Dare defend baldnes, which our conquering Muse Has beaten downe so flat? Well, we will goe, And see what weapons theyr weake wittes doe bring; If sharpe, we’ll spred a large and nobler wing (EMODD.DEKK.SA.) (22) there were plenty of scullers going here and there that morning, and plenty of barges dropping down with the tide; the navigation of the river between bridges, in an open boat, was a much easier and commoner matter in those days (LMODF.DICK.GE.) (23) Or if you will let them learne but one letter at once, untill they can readily know or finde out that letter in any place, and after that another in the same manner: This is holden the surer and more easie way (HEL.BRINS.LL.)

The results for same coordinated periphrastic comparatives should be taken as merely indicative, for in 16 out of the 22 tokens attested across periods, one cannot ascertain with total confidence whether the comparative marker more has been

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.19 (93)


elided or whether the coordinate structure is established between a periphrastic comparative and a positive adjective (see (24) below): (24) the fame of Wisdom, amuse and perplex themselves in pursuit of somewhat to be acquired by Marriage or purchase, no doubt as a Trophy of their good conduct; forsaking in the mean time their more noble and solid advantage (LAMP.AB.ML.)

All in all, the results of the data analysis (a) corroborate the claims put forward above for positive adjectives and (b) support the hypothesis that the infrequent combination of inflectional and periphrastic comparison in coordinate constructions may be related to the fact that the two comparative modes, although belonging to the same syntactic category, are not semantically similar. . The position of the adjective: A semantic interpretation .. Attribution and predication in positive adjectives It was observed in Section 4.1 above that the position of the comparative adjective (i.e. attributive/predicative) has some effect on the choice of strategy. Inflectional comparatives are generally preferred over the periphrastic ones in both attributive and predicative positions, this preference being less marked in predicative slots. Interestingly, cross-linguistic differences between attribution and predication have been consistently noticed by scholars, although always in relation to positive adjectives. Croft (1991: 51–52; cf. also Croft 2001: 66, 88) argues that syntactic categories (the major ones being verb, noun and adjective) are not linguistically but pragmatically motivated, i.e. they are associated with propositional speech acts, which they prototypically, although not always, represent (in case they do not, they appear in a form that is somehow marked). According to this system, nominals prototypically perform the propositional act of reference, verbs of predication, and adjectives of modification. Croft distinguishes between two types of modification: restrictive and non-restrictive. The former “helps fix the identity of what one is talking about (reference) by narrowing the description, while [the latter] provides a secondary comment (predication) on the head that it modifies, in addition to the main predication” (Croft 1991: 52; see also Wierzbicka 1988: 484). The pragmatic function of modification is associated with attributive adjectives. The other propositional act the adjective can perform is that of predication (which, as the name indicates, is associated with adjectives in predicative positions, where the markedness of the adjective is displayed by the presence of a copula). This propositional act corresponds to “what the speaker intends to say about what he is talking about” (Croft 1991: 52); put differently, it “ascribes something (in this case, a property) to the referent”. Croft (2001: 66) further specifies that the act of predication



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.20 (94)


“prototypically reports relatively transitory states of affairs” ([emphasis added] also Wierzbicka 1986, 1988: 486 or Dik 1989: 166). The correlation between attributive position and permanence, on the one hand, and predicative position and transitoriness, on the other, is also present in works focusing on specific languages. With regard to English, Bolinger (1967, cf. also Kruisinga 1932: 121; Teyssier 1968: 225) contends that the adjective navigable in the only navigable river is “unambiguously characteristic”, for it refers to a river that has the permanent (or characteristic) quality of being navigable. By contrast, navigable in the only river navigable is “occasional”, as it relates the condition of navigability to a particular, temporary occasion. Fischer (2006: 255) also notes that further differences between attribution and predication in (Old and Middle) English adjectives can be observed in terms of the linear organisation of the discourse, as the communicative requirements of the situation can to a certain extent determine the organisation of the information in the sentence (cf. also Lambrecht 1994: 26–27 for more general remarks on discourse organisation). Attributive adjectives prototypically belong to what systemic-functional grammar defines as the Theme of the clause (i.e. “the point of departure of the message; it is that which locates and orients the clause within its context”; Halliday 2004 [1985]: 64), whereas predicative adjectives occur in the Rheme component (“the part in which the Theme is developed”; Halliday 2004 [1985]: 64). In its turn, the difference between Theme and Rheme is, in general terms, closely associated with a difference in informativeness (given v. new). The Theme of a clause is, as noted before, the starting point of the message and as such it represents the shared knowledge between the speaker and the addressee necessary to establish successful communication. By contrast, the Rheme of the clause is related to newness, i.e. it conveys information that has not been previously available to the hearer.89

. A more fine-grained analysis of information structure is provided by Lambrecht (1994: 334ff.). He makes a distinction between ‘topic’ and ‘focus’ and tries to relate it to the way in which the entities/propositions being talked about are represented in discourse. Topical elements/sentence constituents are those which are identifiable by the speaker in the discourse situation and have some kind of activation status in the mind of the hearer (in other words, they are closely related to what Halliday (2004) calls ‘given information’); whereas focus elements are those that are not identifiable or predictable (i.e. inactive) at the time of the utterance. (This latter definition roughly corresponds to Halliday’s ‘new information’ category). Lambrecht (1994: 200) also observes that initial positions tend to be the preferred topic position, and post-verbal placement the preferred focus placement – but that in no sense this is an univocal correlation; i.e. focal structures can occur preverbally (and viceversa, topic structures can be placed post-verbally).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.21 (95)


Finally, to come back to something I hinted at before, attributive and predicative adjectives also seem to differ in markedness. Croft (2001: 88–89) observes that when adjectives act as predicating constructions, the copula be appears as a marker of the function (e.g. “That cypress is big”; Croft 2001: 89 [emphasis added]). By contrast, when adjectives perform the propositional function of modification, no such overt coding is necessary (“The big cookie is hers”; Croft 2001: 89 [emphasis added]). This leads Croft (1990: 140–141) to suggest that predicate adjectives are typologically marked constructions with respect to their modifying counterparts (which, in their turn, constitute typological prototypes of the speech act of modification, i.e. as compared to nominals and verbs performing this function– which are formally marked by e.g. a genitive -’s, as in “vehicle’s”, or present participial -ing, e.g. “destroying”).90 I have observed above that comparative adjectives display a difference with regard to the syntactic position that they occupy: inflectional comparatives are preferred in attributive positions whereas periphrastic comparatives are more likely to occur predicatively. This difference between attributive and predicative slots presumably holds regardless of the degree of the adjective. Hence, if there is a tendency for inflectional comparatives to appear in attributive position and for periphrastic forms to occur in predicative position, this is because these forms somehow fit better in the attributive/predicative meaning of the adjective, which means in its turn that they convey a different semantic-pragmatic load. This issue will be analysed in detail in Section 5.4.2 below. .. Attribution and predication in comparative adjectives: Some theoretical remarks As noted above, if the predicative tendencies of periphrastic comparison run parallel to the predicative use of positive adjectives (and vice versa, the preference of inflectional forms for attributive positions mirrors the tendency of positive attributive adjectives), then, one would expect that the correlation predicative/temporal/new/marked vs. attributive/permanent/given/unmarked suggested for positive adjectives would also hold for comparatives. I will start by examining the (possible) difference in markedness between inflectional and periphrastic comparatives. Croft (1991, 2001; see Section 5.4.1 above) considers the appearance of overt structural coding a decisive criterion for classifying constructions as either marked or unmarked within a particular (usually binary) system. This idea of overt coding, although useful, cannot be properly applied in such general terms to my investigation, as both inflectional . Note, however, Haspelmath’s (2006) observations regarding the usefulness and/or necessity of the concept of markedness in linguistics.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.22 (96)


and periphrastic constructions are overtly coded for comparison (i.e. through the appearance of -er or more). Givón (1990: 947) approaches the idea of markedness from an iconic perspective and suggests three criteria that may help “to distinguish the marked from the unmarked category in a binary contrast”, i.e. structural complexity (marked structures tend to be larger/more complex than the unmarked ones), frequency distribution (marked forms are usually less frequent than unmarked forms and therefore, cognitively more salient) and cognitive complexity (the marked category requires more attention, mental effort or time to be processed than the unmarked form). Now, if one examines inflectional and periphrastic comparatives in the light of Givón’s ideas, one may suggest that periphrastic forms meet the required conditions for being considered “marked” constructions in relation to inflectional forms: they are longer comparative structures than their inflectional counterparts and, as Kytö & Romaine (1997: 334–335) show, they are, and have been historically, less frequent than inflectional comparatives. Finally, with regard to Givón’s (1990: 947) cognitive complexity criterion, one might suspect that the periphrastic comparatives draw more attention to themselves due to their increased morphophonological substance. In this respect, Graziano-King & Cairns’ (2005: 349) work suggests that, in language acquisition, “while comparative formation can sometimes be a complex matter, complexities are always resolved with the periphrastic form overriding the synthetic [i.e. inflectional] – never the reverse”. It could also be suggested that periphrastic comparatives are marked with respect to inflectional forms, in the sense that their morphological configuration, in particular the relative autonomy, hence salience, of the particle more as compared to the bound morpheme -er, represents greater emphasis on the idea of contrast of degree (see Kytö & Romaine 2000: 185). It is significant that Curme (1931: 504) observed that the comparative marker of inflectional forms is an affix that can never be stressed, whereas comparison in periphrastic forms is marked through the deployment of an independent morpheme that may be easily emphasized. The other two semantic-pragmatic differences associated with attributive and predicative positions for positive adjectives (i.e. permanent and given v. temporary and new) also seem to hold for comparative constructions. Temporary properties tend, due to their changeable nature, to be associated with new information (cf. Fischer 2001, 2006). In its turn, new information requires, for obvious communicative reasons, a greater explanatory effort and therefore, a greater amount of linguistic material. The association between new information and newsworthiness is also found in Givón’s Quantity Principle: a. “A larger chunk of information will be given a larger chunk of code” b. “Less predictable information will be given more coding material”

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.23 (97)


c. “More important information will be given more coding material” (Givón 1990: 969) Periphrastic comparatives are morphologically longer than their inflectional counterparts, and consequently, more suitable, according to Givón’s principle, to carry new or unpredictable information. Issues of cognitive complexity in relation to comparative structures have been dealt with in recent corpus-based work by Mondorf (2003, 2007) for both the present-day and the LModE period. Given that complexity factors are directly related to the universal cognitive abilities of the individual and that these latter are, in principle, not likely to change across generations of speakers, one may assume that their impact on the choice of comparative structure will apply equally to all periods of the language (at least once both – inflectional and periphrastic – strategies are established in the language as competing options). Consequently, they will not receive any further attention in this chapter. Instead, the following section will concentrate on one of the other theoryoriented claims mentioned above, i.e. the possible correlation between comparison and ‘new’ vs ‘given’ information. . Establishment in discourse This section sets out to investigate the differences in distribution of the inflectional and periphrastic modes according to whether they introduce a new quality or describe a quality that has already been established in the discourse. The latter, “given information”, would, along the lines outlined before, be initially associated with inflectional comparison – and vice-versa, i.e. new information is supposed to be more frequently conveyed by periphrastic comparatives. Table 4.14 reflects the distribution of inflectional and periphrastic comparatives when the quality under comparison is previously mentioned in the discourse. It should be observed that only the results for adjectives in predicative position are recorded here, as the chi-square test showed that the analysis of attributive adjectives did not produce significant results – note also that attributive slots strongly disfavour certain comparative constructions (i.e. those with complements or a second term of comparison) that are rather frequent in my data. Post-posed adjectives were not included in the analysis either due to their low frequency in my data. Furthermore, in order to avoid subjective interpretations, I only considered ‘previously mentioned in discourse’ those instances in which either the positive form of the adjective is attested or when another adjective/phrase with a similar semantic import is mentioned in the preceding context (note that Halliday (2004 (1985): 572) suggests that synonymy is another very effective tool to create lexical cohesion; see examples (25)–(27) below).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30



F: CI29904.tex / p.24 (98)


(25) “No, indeed, my dear. Hem!” “Thinking is easy enough,” said the grave lady. “What is easier, you know?” assented Miss Sarah Pocket (LMODF.DICK.GE.) (26) and was now convinced that virtue only makes a man truly wise, rich, and great, and preserves him in the way to a superior happiness in a future state; and in this, he said, they were more happy in their banishment than all their enemies were (LMODF.DEFO.RC.) (27) at this present moment, and will die myself, or kill the man who possesses her before me” “You marry the greatest heiress and the noblest blood in England?” said Lord George, haughtily. “There’s no nobler blood in Europe than mine,” answered I (LMODF.THCK.BA.)

Finally, those examples where the comparative form was modified by an adverbial intensifier (e.g. much happier, even more easy) were discarded in order to control for any possible influence of the adverbs on the selection of the comparative strategy. (The influence of adverbial premodifiers on comparatives will be explored in Section 6 below). Table 4.14. Comparatives and establishment in discourse in EModE and LModE EModE

Established Not established TOTAL

LModE

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Inflectional

Periphrastic

3 (60%) 13 (56.5%) 16 (57%)

2 (40%) 10 (43.5%) 12 (43%)

12 (21.8%) 116 (94.3%) 128 (72%)

43 (78.2%) 7 (5.7%) 50 (28%)

As expected, contexts where the quality under comparison is not established are generally more frequent in either period. Focusing now on the distribution of comparative strategies across periods, one can observe a preference for inflectional comparatives when the quality under comparison has been established in EModE, whereas periphrastic forms seem to be more frequent in the same established environments in LModE. The disparity of the results should perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt, as the chi-square tests indicate that the statistical significance of the results is only suggestive for EModE .91 Before moving on to the next section, I would like to comment on a number of examples (6 in EModE, 21 in LModE) where the immediate previous context features a quality semantically opposite to that expressed by the comparative adjective, hence creating a contrast of quality (as opposed to one of degree) between them. These examples seem to be often associated with inflectional comparatives (see (28)–(29) below). . By contrast, the LModE results are highly statistically significant.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.25 (99)


(28) No words can express the secret agony of my soul as I sunk into this companionship; compared these henceforth everyday associates with those of my happier childhood – not to say with Steerforth, (LMODF.DICK.DA.) (29) Omnes. Bal.

A brave blacke villaine. That’s I; all that brave blacke villaine dwels in me, If I be that blacke villaine; but I am not, A Nobler Character prints out my brow (EMODD.DEKK.NS.)

Examples of this kind will receive more ample treatment in Ch. 5 below.

. The influence of adverbial intensifiers on comparatives In the previous section I discarded from the count those examples where the (preestablished) comparative form was premodified by an adverbial intensifier. The reason for this restriction was to avoid a possible influence of this factor on the choice of the comparative mode. In this connection, Leech & Culpeper (1997: 367) claim that “degree modifiers such as a bit, even or far are more likely to occur with the periphrastic than the inflectional comparative”, although they do not offer an explanation for the preference of intensifiers to occur with periphrastic forms. The present section will thus be devoted to analysing in more detail the semantics of those degree intensifiers that most often combine with comparative forms, paying particular attention to any effect that they may have on the conveyance of comparative meaning. Tables 4.10 and 4.11; summarised in 4.15, show the frequency of degree intensifiers in combination with comparative forms in my data: Table 4.15. EModE and LModE comparatives in combination with adverbial intensifiers

Far Much Still Even Rather A good/great deal TOTAL

EModE

LModE

9 (100%) 15 (100%) 3 (100%) 1 (100%) – – 28 (100%)

40 (100%) 120 (100%) 5 (100%) 4 (100%) 4 (100%) 6 (100%) 179 (100%)

In order to obtain as reliable a semantic analysis as possible, I will only focus on the best represented degree adverbs in my data; namely, much and far (see Table 4.16). Although the semantics of these adverbs will be discussed in the following sections, one may initially suggest that the association of much with inflectional



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.26 (100)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

comparison seems to become stronger in LModE, whereas no consistent trend of usage is observed across periods for far. Table 4.16. Comparatives in combination with much and far EModE Infl. Much Far TOTAL

9 (60%) 4 (80%) 13 (100%)

LModE

Perip.

Total

6 (40%) 5 (20%) 11 (100%)

15 (100%) 9 (100%) 24 (100%)

Infl. 94 (81%) 20 (50%) 114 (100%)

Perip.

Total

26 (19%) 20 (50%) 46 (100%)

120 (100%) 40 (100%) 160 (100%)

. Much According to Quirk et al. (1985: 590), much is a booster whose function is to “denote a high degree, a high point on a scale”. My data show that much is more frequent with inflectional than with periphrastic forms in both early and late Modern English. A close look at the comparative examples of much also reveals that the semantics of both inflectional and periphrastic forms are rather similar when this adverb is involved in the expression of comparison. In those cases in which the quality under comparison has been established in the context (either lexically or semantically), much enhances the contrast established by the comparative construction (regardless of whether the strategy used is the inflectional or the periphrastic one). Note the increasing repetition (happy, very happy, much happier) in (30) below. Similarly, in (31) below, the word lenity implies ‘mildness, gentleness’ and ‘mercifulness’ (OED, lenity, n.) – ideals that are very much in line with the high moral principles one normally associates with nobility of character (cf. OED nobility, n. 4a) and which are surpassed by the use of more noble: (30) Mr Cibber: Q.: Mr Cibber:

Because She had no Fortune. Did they at first live happily together? They did live happy, very happy, much happier than I expected (EMODD. CIBB.)

(31) for, he said, as they had seen their Errors, and repented, nothing was nobler than Forgiveness. But though he was pleased modestly to ascribe this to his Lenity, it really arose from much more noble and political Principles (LMODF.FIEL.JO.)

Conversely, when the quality under comparison is not mentioned in the context, the presence of much by the side of comparative forms creates a contrast with what has been previously said, again, regardless of the comparative strategy used. Consider examples (32) and (33) below, where the use of much before more easy and

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.27 (101)


worthier implies that the earlier method of revenge and the prospects of gentleman are, respectively, neither easy nor worthy: (32) Launcelot was not now so much of a knight-errant, as to leave Aurelia to the care of Providence, and pursue the traitors to the farthest extremities of the earth. He practiced a much more easy, certain, and effectual method of revenge (LMODF.SMOL.LA.) (33) ‘That is because you are good; not because I am! Oh, my dear, it might have been a better fortune for you, if you had been fond of someone else – of someone steadier and much worthier than me’ (LMODF.DICK.DA.)

. Far The adverb far (OED, adv., 2a) originally conveyed a concrete meaning, i.e. that of “great physical distance”.92 However, it soon began to denote “mental or abstract distance”, thus acquiring a metaphorical sense that nowadays pertains to its combinations with comparative constructions. In this respect, the OED records that far (adv., 4b.) started to qualify adjectives and adverbs “or their equivalents, implying excess, defect, or variation from a standard” from the end of the fourteenth century, and that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries “was often prefixed to adjectives and adverbs of negative import.” None of the adjectives selected in this analysis carry any negative semantic prosody and therefore, the OED comment on the negative import of the collocates of far in EModE cannot be empirically verified. Focusing now on the data, in Section 6.1 above I observed that much can combine with comparatives when the adjectival quality is established in the discourse. Only one instance of far in these (pre-given) environments was attested in my data (see (33) below): (33) Guio.

How happy am I now; since my Sonne fell, He fell not, by a base unnoble hand? As that still troubled me; how farr more happy Shall my revenge be (EMODD.FLET.CC.)

In all my other examples (displaying either inflectional or periphrastic comparison), the use of far creates a contrast between the quality conveyed by the comparative and the preceding context. Take for instance example (34) below, where far helps to emphasise the speaker’s hyperbolic statement (i.e. ‘a Queen’s life could not have been happier than mine, had I received. . .’).

. The evolution of far in combination with comparatives seems to share many features with that of the phrase far from. For a brief account of the development of this phrase, see Akimoto (2001).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.28 (102)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

(34) myself out of the reach even of Disaster itself; his Estate and mine, wou’d have purchas’d even then above two Thousand Pounds a Year, and I might have liv’d like a Queen, nay, far more happy than a Queen (LMODF.DEFO.FM.)

Another illustrative example of this contrastive use of far is (35) below: (35) I cannot yet, But forcedly, on marriage fixe my heart, Yet heauen forbid I should deiect your hopes Conceiue not of me so vncharitably, I should belie my soule if I should say, You are the man I neuer should affect: I vnderstand you thus far, you’r a Gentleman Whom your estate and vertues may command To a farre worthier brest, then this of mine (EMODD.MIDD.FG.)

It is also worth noting that, with the exception of 6 examples (see, for instance, (36) below), all my inflectional and periphrastic examples modified by far occur with a second term of comparison: (36) if I had then known, and told you that I loved and honoured you, not as the poor child I used to call you, but as a woman whose true hand would raise me high above myself and make me a far happier and better man (LMODF.DICK.LD.)

One may account for the different behaviour of far and much in iconic terms: the original semantics of far (“at a great distance, a long way off ”, OED, far, adv.) creates a metaphorical distance between the comparative construction and its surrounding context. As a result of this, the comparative proposition introduced by far will by default tend to establish a scalar contrast with, rather than to enhance the standard of, any quality established in the previous context.93 This also explains the preference of far-comparatives for occurring with than-sentences, as a second term of comparison makes any contrast more explicit. The semantics of much only implies ‘greater amount’ (without the implications of extremity; see Dekeyser (1994) hence allowing for the creation of comparative meanings can lead to both degree enhancement and degree contrast. . Conclusion Previous scholarship (Leech & Culpeper 1997: 367; Lindquist 2000: 127) argued for a positive association between the presence of adverbial intensifiers and the use of periphrastic comparison. Their account of the phenomenon was (although grounded in corpus research) limited, to a certain extent, to a report of the fig. The idea of a “great variation from the established norm” is lost in Quirk et al.’s (1985: 591) account of the particle, as they group far together with much as an amplifier of the subcategory of boosters.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.29 (103)

Chapter 4. Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in EMode and LMode 

ures obtained in their respective analyses, without considering the reasons for this (alleged) preference of intensifiers for occurring with periphrastic forms. The corpus analyses carried out in Sections 6.1–6.2 above readdressed the issue. The results indicated that the presence of adverbial intensifiers does not seem to have an influence on the selection of comparative strategy. Instead, I contend that adverbial intensifiers (or at least the two adverbial intensifiers that I have investigated) have a homogenising effect on comparatives, in the sense that they trigger similar readings from both inflectional and periphrastic comparatives. The effect of these two intensifiers on comparatives can be captured in Figure 4.1:

far Contrast of quality

much Contrast of degree

Figure 4.1. Adverbial intensifiers and their influence on comparatives

Far stands on the leftmost side of the scale; the metaphorical detachment created between the proposition that the far-comparative construction takes as a starting point and the far-proposition itself being so pronounced that the comparative construction introduced by far tend to oppose rather than intensify the scalar denotation conveyed by the comparative. By contrast, much occupies the middle point of the scale: it works within the same scale denoted by its corresponding comparative when the quality under comparison has been established in the discourse; when no such quality is mentioned in the context, much (like far) elicits a contrastive reading from the comparative it combines with.

. Determinants of adjective comparison: Variable rule analysis The corpus-based study presented in the sections above investigated a number of syntactic and semantic factors considered to be influential on the selection of one (inflectional) or the other (periphrastic) comparative mode in EModE and LModE. In this analysis, however, each of the factors were considered independently; i.e. without paying attention to the possibility that their impact on the choice of comparative strategy may overlap and/or be measured and ranked in some way. In this connection, Gries (2003: 172) claims that linguistic behaviour mirrors social behaviour in that it is rarely motivated by a single factor, thus arguing for the use of multifactor analysis as the only methodology “that can readily cope with the intricate complexity” of linguistic phenomena.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.30 (104)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

In order to investigate the issue, I made use of Goldvarb, an application which allows the simultaneous manipulation and processing of independent linguistic factors (see http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GoldVarb_ MANUAL.htm (accessed 15-01-2008) or Tagliamonte 2007). At a first stage, a binomial one-step analysis was carried out in order to ascertain how the data were distributed and how well they fit the model (see Tagliamonte 2007: 139–140). Taking into consideration the remarks put forward in Section 4.4.1 above, I did not consider the presence/absence of complements as a variable in my data. A graphic representation of fit between the model and the data is provided by scattergrams (see Figure 4.2 and 4.3).

Figure 4.2. Scattergram (EModE data)

Figure 4.3. Scattergram (LModE data)

The closer the points to the diagonal line of the scattergram, the better the fit between the data and the model (Tagliamonte 2007: 224). Furthermore, the size of each point in the scattergram is proportional to the amount of data, “a large point far from the diagonal” suggesting “interaction” among the factors considered (Rand & Sankoff 1990: 24; in Tagliamonte 2007: 224). As the scattergrams in the Figures above show, my comparative data are highly suitable to this type of analysis: the points furthest away from the diagonal are neither too numerous nor too big. The second step of the investigation consisted in a binomial step-up/stepdown analysis. This type of analysis measures the influence of each factor on the selection of the variable (‘factor weight’, Tagliamonte 2007: 156) and indi-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.31 (105)

Chapter 4. Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in EMode and LMode 

cates their statistical significance and possible overlaps between them (see Tables 4.17 and 4.18). Table 4.17. Inflectional vs. periphrastic comparatives, variable rule analysis (Early Modern English) Significant vs. non significant factors (non-significant factors in brackets) Corrected mean 0.68 Significance: 0.005 Log likelihood –163.556 Total no. of comparatives 269

Position

2nd term of comp. Modifiers Establishment in discourse

Attributive Postpositive Predicative Range – than-phrase + than-phrase – Modifiers + Modifiers Established Non-established

Factor weight

%

N

0.61 0.48 0.38 21 [0.53] [0.39] [0.51] [0.44] [0.49] [0.63]

50.2% 5.6% 44.2%

135 15 119

77.3% 22.7% 89.6% 10.4% 9.7% 90.3%

208 61 241 28 243 26

Table 4.18. Inflectional vs. periphrastic comparatives, variable rule analysis (Late Modern English) Significant vs. non significant factors (non-significant factors in brackets) Corrected mean 0.78 Significance: 0.008 Log likelihood –427.592 Total no. of comparatives 834

Position

2nd term of comp.

Modifiers Establishment in discourse

Attributive Predicative Postpositive Range – than-phrase + than-phrase Range – Modifiers + Modifiers Established Non-established

Factor weight

%

N

0.70 0.40 0.20 50 0.0.54 0.41 13 [0.50] [0.51] [0.38] [0.51]

34.1% 60.3% 5.6%

284 503 47

72.3% 27.7%

603 231

78.5% 21.5% 92.3% 7.7%

655 179 769 64

The log-likelihood values indicate a better fit between the data and the model for the EModE period than for the LMode one (–163 for EModE vs. –427 for LModE, respectively). However, no overlaps between factors were observed in either period.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.32 (106)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

As regards significance, the results show that syntactic position is the factor with the largest range94 in either period. Note, in this connection, that the number of significant factors increases (cf. the presence of a second term of comparison) the closer one gets to the present day. On the whole, one may conclude that the variable rule analysis confirms the suggestions put forward above, i.e. the key role played by syntactic position in the selection of comparative strategy.

. Concluding remarks Recent scholarship on the topic suggests that – together with the phonological and/or morphological factors put forward by the standard literature – the selection of comparative strategy depends on a number of syntactic and cognitive variables; namely, the complexity of the context, the position of the comparative adjective and the presence/absence of a second term of comparison, of infinitival/prepositional complements and of adverbial premodifiers (Section 2 and Section 5.1). These studies were mostly based on the analysis of present-day data (but cf. Mondorf 2007); this chapter intended to investigate the extent to which the same criteria apply to previous stages of the language (i.e. Early and Late Modern English (Section 3)). By means of a corpus-based study of the comparative behaviour of (a group of) disyllabic adjectives, I tested the diachronic validity of the syntactic claims put forward by previous literature. The study revealed that, with the exception of the position of the comparative, none of the syntactic factors mentioned above had a significant influence on the distribution of the comparative modes in EModeLModE (Section 4). A study of the semantics-pragmatics of adjective comparison was subsequently carried out (Section 5). For this study, I first examined the semantic-pragmatic functions, cross-linguistically, of attribution and predication and I found that, from a theoretical point of view, they held with respect to the behaviour of comparative adjectives. The data analysis showed that these functions seemed to be less marked than one would perhaps have expected, at least as regards the correlation between newness of information and periphrastic comparatives, which was considered to be only suggestive. Section 6 was devoted to examining the (possible) influence that (a number of) adverbial intensifiers have on comparison. A qualitative investigation of the semantics of much and far showed that these are semantically-homogenising parti. Range can be defined as “the relative strength exerted by a factor group in an analysis of variation” (Tagliamonte 2007: 242).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:26/06/2008; 15:30

F: CI29904.tex / p.33 (107)

Chapter 4. Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in EMode and LMode 

cles; i.e. they trigger a particular interpretation of the (inflectional or periphrastic) comparative forms with which they combine: far always creates a contrast between the comparative adjective that it modifies and the preceding context, whereas much-comparatives can either enhance the quality under comparison or create a contrast with this latter depending on the particular characteristics of the context. The chapter was brought to a close by a consideration of the overall significance of and (possible) interaction between the syntactic and semantic factors examined in Sections 4–6. On the whole, the analyses above contributed to a better understanding of the diachronic distribution of the standard comparative strategies. They nevertheless also brought to the fore a number of issues that need further scrutiny. First, I observed above the mismatch between my data analysis and previous (synchronically-oriented) literature in connection to both the syntactic determinants of comparative variation and the theoretical semantic expectations as regards adjective position. One may argue that these discrepancies may be motivated by the establishment of the periphrastic strategy in the language in a slower fashion than has been standardly assumed, or that perhaps the idiosyncrasies of the adjective types selected for the analysis may have skewed the results in a particular direction. At any rate, a new look at the present-day situation under the same parameters is necessary. Second, the analysis of the semantic influence of adverbial intensifiers revealed the importance of the notion of semantic scale for an adequate description of the comparative behaviour (cf. also my comments in relation to examples (28)–(29) in Section 5.5 above). To the best of my knowledge, only Rusieki (1985) and, more recently, Cruse’s (1986; see also Croft & Cruse 2004) model of antonymy have exploited the notion of scale in connection to the behaviour of comparative adjectives – although not in connection to corpus-based material. These issues will be examined in Ch. 5 below.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.1 (109)

chapter 

Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in Present-day English

.

Introduction95

Chapter 3 above examined the extent to which the distribution of inflectional and periphrastic comparative structures in early and late Modern English is influenced by the same determinants of variation that previous literature associated to the deployment of comparative strategies in Present-day English (cf. among others, Leech & Culpeper 1997; Mondorf 2003, 2006). The results were, however, not conclusive. They suggested that the factors analysed either did not have a noticeable impact on the selection of comparative strategy or when they did, the results sometimes challenged the syntactic/semantic effects that previous literature had associated with them. This chapter constitutes a natural continuation of the investigation carried out in Ch. 4 above, as it revisits the comparative situation in the present-day as well as exploring the notion of semantic scale from a corpus-based perspective.

. The data The data for this study come from the British National Corpus (henceforth BNC). In keeping with the investigation carried out in Ch. 4 above, the adjectives selected for the analysis were disyllabic and belonged to the following three groups: adjectives ending in unstressed vowel (e.g. friendly), in syllabic /l/ (e.g. simple) and in schwa (e.g. mature). Similar selectional criteria to those mentioned in Ch. 4, Section 3, above were applied to the present-day data. The only exception was the percentage distribution of inflectional and periphrastic tokens across adjective types: given the large(r) size of the BNC (as compared to my EModE and LModE sources), it was decided that the less frequent comparative strategy for

. Unless otherwise stated, the emphasis (i.e. italics/bold) in the examples provided through the chapter is mine (VGD).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23



F: CI29905.tex / p.2 (110)


Table 5.1. BNC disyllabic adjectives analysed Type

Adjective

-Ly class

-Y class

Syllabic /l/ class

Inflectional

Periphrastic

lonely lowly friendly lively

11 (73%) 6 (46%) 47 (41%) 55 (60%)

4 (27%) 7 (54%) 67 (59%) 37 (40%)

weighty scary ready empty angry shaky glossy risky sleepy clumsy cloudy cosy noble feeble

19 (76%) 8 (57%) 23 (31%) 11 (68%) 38 (57%) 7 (88%) 7 (70%) 39 (49%) 3 (33%) 12 (75%) 3 (27%) 20 (59%) 20 (65%) 11 (61%)

6 (24%) 6 (43%) 52 (69%) 5 (32%) 29 (43%) 1 (22%) 3 (30%) 41 (51%) 6 (67%) 4 (25%) 8 (73%) 14 (41%) 11 (35%) 7 (39%)

340 (53%)

308 (47%)

Total (18 types, 648 tokens)

each adjective should account for at least 25% (as opposed to 15% in Ch. 4 above) of the total number of examples of the said adjective. Table 5.1 summarises the BNC adjectives that met the required conditions.

. Syntactic and semantic factors conditioning the choice of comparison . The position of the adjective In keeping with Leech & Culpeper’s (1997: 366) study, my early and late Modern English data suggested some kind of correlation between predicative positions and periphrastic comparison. A similar analysis was performed on the BNC data (see Table 5.2), the results showing that the trend is also observable in PDE.96 Note, however, that my results also reveal a noticeable association between attributive slots and inflectional forms.

. For the sake of coherence with the previous chapter, Table 5.2 records postpositive positions independently from the predicative ones.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.3 (111)

Chapter 5. Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in Present-day English

Table 5.2. Attributive vs. predicative uses in the BNC Position

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Total

Attributive Predicative Postpositive Overall distribution

152 (67.9%) 179 (44.4%) 9 (42.9) 340 (52.5%)

72 (32.1%) 224 (55.6%) 12 (57.1) 308 (47.5%)

224 (34.4%) 403 (62.2%) 21 (3.2%) 648 (100%)

Table 5.3. Syntactic function and second term of comparison, cross-tabulation Predicative

Attributive

Postpositive

Total

Without than-phrase

Infl. Perip. Total

119 (40%) 181 (60%) 300

148 (68%) 70 (32%) 218

4 (29%) 10 (71%) 14

271 (51%) 261 (49%)

With than-phrase

Infl. Perip. Total

60 (58%) 43 (42%) 103

4 (67%) 2 (33%) 6

5 (71%) 2 (29%) 7

69 (59%) 47 (41%) 116

Total

Infl. Perip. Total

151 (68%) 72 (32%) 224

179 (44%) 224 (56%) 403

9 (43%) 12 (57%) 21

340 (52%) 308 (48%) 648

. Presence of a second term of comparison As in the previous chapter, syntactic position and second term of comparison were cross-tabulated (see Table 5.3) and only predicative comparatives were looked at in more detail. The contexts in which the comparative form appears without a second term of comparison are more numerous in my data. However, when a than-phrase is attested, inflectional comparatives seem to be preferred. The outcome appears to go against the trend observed for the earlier periods of the language, where periphrastic form were slightly more frequent in combination with than-phrases (cf. Section 4.2 in Ch. 4 above). . Presence of adverbial premodifiers Moving on now to the analysis of comparatives premodified by intensifiers, the BNC data suggest that the proportion of modifiers (in particular much, even and far) with inflectional comparatives in present-day English is slightly higher than with periphrastic forms (see Table 5.4):



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23



F: CI29905.tex / p.4 (112)


Table 5.4. Premodifiers and comparative adjectives in the BNC

With intensifiers Without intensifiers Overall distribution

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Total

70 (46.4%) 273 (53%) 340 (52.5%)

81 (53.6%) 268 (47%) 308 (47.5%)

151 (23.3%) 538 (76.7%) 648 (100%)

. Presence of complements Mondorf ’s (2003, 2006) suggestion regarding the correlation between periphrastic comparatives and infinitive/prepositional complements (IC and PC, respectively) in connection to issues of cognitive complexity was also investigated. All predicative inflectional and periphrastic forms in combination with non-final PCs data were retrieved and compared against the total number of inflectional and periphrastic comparatives in the BNC data. Only three adjectives, i.e. angry, ready and empty provided enough examples for the analysis (see Table 5.5): Table 5.5. Inflectional and periphrastic comparatives with PCs in the BNC Infl. Angry Empty Ready

Without PC Perip.

36 (59%) 10 (71%) 25 (31%)

25 (41%) 4 (29%) 34 (69%)

Infl.

With PC Perip.

2 (33%) 1 (100%) 1 (100%)

4 (67%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Overall distribution Infl. Perip. 38 (57%) 11 (73%) 16 (32%)

29 (43%) 4 (27%) 34 (68%)

The number of periphrastic comparatives with PCs is higher than the corresponding percentage for inflectional comparatives only in the case of angry; with respect to empty and ready, the (single) comparative example attested with a PC in either case is of the inflectional type. On the whole, the low frequency of PCs in combination with disyllabic adjectives renders my results inconclusive. A similar problem was encountered when trying to measure the influence of IC complements on my data. Once all the possible intervening factors were filtered out, the only adjectives that met the conditions for analysis were ready and friendly. Table 5.6 summarises the overall results of the analysis, Table 5.7 breaks down the data in more detail: Table 5.6. Inflectional and periphrastic comparatives with ICs in the BNC With IC

Without IC

Infl.

Perip.

Infl.

Perip.

8 (33%)

16 (67%)

62 (39%)

99 (61%)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.5 (113)


Table 5.7. Comparatives with and without ICs (detailed analysis) in the BNC Infl. Ready Friendly

With IC Perip.

7 (32%) 1 (50%)

15 (68%) 1 (50%)

Infl.

Without IC Perip.

11 (27%) 51 (42%)

30 (73%) 69 (58%)

Overall distribution Infl. Perip. 18 (29%) 52 (43%)

45 (71%) 70 (57%)

The results (see Table 5.7) suggest that the presence of ICs does favour the occurrence of the periphrastic mode of comparison. One must nevertheless be very careful in extrapolating the distributional patterns in my data to adjectives in general, as the they seem to be skewed in favour of the comparative tendencies of ready (which, as illustrated in Table 5.1, tends towards periphrastic comparison in 69% of the cases). . Establishment in discourse The syntactic analysis carried out in the sections above is consistent with that of the previous chapter in that it shows that position is the factor that may influence the selection of comparative strategy most clearly. Focusing now on semantics, the corpus-based investigation carried out on the semantic-pragmatic functions of attribution and predication in Ch. 4, Section 5.4 above, revealed that some of these functions hold with respect to the behaviour of comparative adjectives only on a theoretical basis. More specifically, here I am referring to the distribution of inflectional and periphrastic comparison according to whether they introduce a new quality or describe a quality that has already been established in the discourse. This section sets out to analyse the issue in relation to the BNC data (see Table 5.8). In line with the research carried out in the previous chapter, examples where the comparatives are premodified by adverbial intensifiers were excluded from the tally.97 Furthermore, similar constraints regarding what constitutes ‘establishment in discourse’ were applied (cf. Ch. 4, Section 5.5 above). The data shows that, when the quality under comparison has been established in the context, the proportion of periphrastic forms noticeably increases (from 37.4% to 49.5%) – although inflectional forms are, overall, the most frequent option. As for the question of why this should be so, I refer to discourse analysts such as Halliday, who argues that “lexical cohesion results from the choice of a lexical . In Ch. 4 Section 6 above I explored the effect of adverbial intensifiers on the selection of comparative strategy. The results showed that adverbial intensifiers (or at least the adverbial intensifiers selected for the analysis) did not skew the choice to either comparative strategy but instead served as ‘comparative homogenising’ elements. Similar results were obtained for the present-day data and therefore they will not receive any further attention here.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23



F: CI29905.tex / p.6 (114)


Table 5.8. Comparatives and establishment in discourse in PDE

Established Not established Overall distribution

Inflectional

Periphrastic

Total

273 (50.5%) 67 (62.2%) 340 (52.5%)

268 (49.5%) 40 (37.4%) 308 (47.5%)

241(83.5%) 107 (16.5%) 648 (100%)

item that is in some sense synonymous with a preceding one” (2004 [1985]: 572). As observed above, the key point here is that the periphrastic strategy leaves the (previously mentioned) adjective completely intact, whereas the inflectional one does not. . Determinants of comparative variation in PDE: A variable rule analysis The sections above revisited the syntactic and semantic determinants explored in Ch. 4 (Sections 4 and 5) above in relation to comparative distribution in EModE and LModE. As in the preceding discussion, an understanding of how they simultaneously constrain the choice of comparison is also needed for the PDE data. As in the preceding chapter, Goldvarb was used to measure the significance of the factors. The goodness-of-fit between the data and the model is illustrated in Figure 5.1. Table 5.9 summarises the results of the multivariate analysis.

Figure 5.1. Scattergram (PDE)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.7 (115)


Table 5.9. Inflectional vs. periphrastic comparatives, variable rule analysis (PDE) Significant vs. non significant factors (non-significant factors in brackets) Corrected mean 0.53 Significance: 0.005 Log likelihood –421.207 Total no. of comparatives 648 Factor weight

%

N

Position

Attributive Predicative Postpositive Range

0.69 0.40 0.39 30

34.6% 62.2% 3.2%

224 403 21

2nd term comparison

+ than-phrase – than-phrase Range

0.65 0.47 18

17.9% 82.1%

116 532

Establishment in discourse

Established Non-established Range

0.64 0.47 17

16.5% 83.5%

107 541

Modifiers

– Modifiers + Modifiers

[0.44] [0.52]

76.7% 23.3%

497 151

Table 5.10. Relative strength of significant factors of comparative variation (EModE-PDE) Factors

EModE

LModE

PDE

Position 2nd term of comparison Establishment in discourse Modifiers

21 – – –

50 13 – –

35 18 17 –

The position of the adjective is the factor that seems to exert the greatest influence on the deployment of comparison in PDE. It was also observed above (Ch. 4, Section 7) that the number of significant determinants increases from early to late Modern English (i.e. position (EModE) / position and second term of comparison (LModE)). The present-day situation constitutes a natural continuation to this trend, as ‘establishment in discourse’ has become another statistically significant factor in the data. In addition, note that, from a diachronic perspective, syntactic position appears to be the strongest constraint on comparative variation (see Table 5.10).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23



F: CI29905.tex / p.8 (116)


. Adjective comparison and semantic scales The analysis of the EModE data revealed the presence in the corpora of a number of examples where the comparative (normally an inflectional form) established a contrast with another adjectival quality mentioned in the previous discourse (see Section 5.5 in Ch. 4 above and example (1)): (1) Omnes. A brave blacke villaine. Bal. That’s I; all that brave blacke villaine dwels in me, If I be that blacke villaine; but I am not, A Nobler Character prints out my brow (EMODD.DEKK.NS.)

Examples like (1) above brought to the fore the importance of the notion of ‘semantic scale’, which had so far not been taken into consideration in the study. As observed in Ch. 4, Section 8 above, some previous studies (Rusiecki 1985; Cruse 1986; Croft & Cruse 2004) explored the relevance of the notion in connection with comparative structures. However, as was also observed in the previous chapter, their claims were not tested by a corpus-based investigation. The following section brings together the two aspects (semantic scales and corpora) through an analysis of Cruse’s model of antonymy. . Cruse’s model of antonymy Cruse (1986: 204; cf. also Cruse & Togia 1995; Croft & Cruse 2004) observes that properties “can be conceptualised in terms of “more” and “less”, thus creating a scale.” He further specifies that the system of antonymy comprises not one but two semantic scales: the absolute scale (which “covers all possible values of the scaled property, from zero to infinite”; Cruse 1986: 205) and the relative scale (which is “movable relative to the absolute scale and whose values are directly relatable to the terms of the antonymous pair”; Cruse 1986: 205). The examples under (2)98 below show how the antonymic pair long:short operates on either of the scales: (2) a.

A: How long it is? B: It is quite short b. A: How short is it? B: ?It is quite long

In (2a) long is neutral with respect to the specific length of the referent, i.e. the referent can be intrinsically long or short. This is proved by the fact that a possible answer to the questions would be “it is quite short” without the sentence resulting . The emphasis in (2a) and (2b) is mine (VGD).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.9 (117)


Length (2a) long

(2b) short

Figure 5.2. Impartial and committed readings (from Cruse & Togia 1995: 118)

in awkwardness. In other words, long in (2a) semantically comprises the meaning of long and short and relates to the absolute scale of ‘length’,99 as illustrated in Figure 5.2 above (Cruse & Togia 1995: 118). In examples like (2a) above, where the antonym operates on the absolute scale, Cruse (1986: 208; cf. Cruse & Togia 1995: 118) argues that the adjective has an impartial reading. Conversely, the question in (2b) entails that the referent of the adjective is indeed short, for an answer analogous to that in (2a) (i.e. “it is quite long”) would be deviant. This means that short in (2b) refers only to that part of the scale where long is excluded, that is, to the “relative” scale of ‘shortness’ (i.e. the one represented in Figure 5.2 as short). Cruse (1986: 209) and Cruse & Togia (1995: 118) claim that in contexts such as the one in (2b) (where the antonym operates on the relative scale), the adjective has a committed reading.100 The difference between impartial (absolute scale) and committed (relative scale) readings allows Cruse (1986: 207; also Cruse & Togia 1995; Croft & Cruse 2004) to differentiate three antonymic types, i.e. polar antonyms (see (3) below), overlapping antonyms (see (4) below) and equipollent antonyms (see (5) below). (3) long:short, heavy:light, fast:slow, thick:thin (4) sweet:sour, polite:rude, clean:dirty (5) nice:nasty, hot:cold, happy:sad

Each term of a polar antonym has both committed and impartial interpretations. The comparative examples under (6) below illustrate the impartial uses of the polar antonymic pair heavy:light, as in either case they map on to the scale of ‘weight’ (as opposed to their respective scales of ‘lightness’/‘heaviness’). The examples under (7) feature the corresponding committed readings of each comparative adjective (in these cases the mapping of the adjectival quality takes place within . In fact, it would be in fact possible to reformulate the question as “what is its length?” . Note, however, that short can also have an impartial meaning in contexts like The third Harry Potter book is long, but it’s shorter than the seventh book – where shorter does not mean that the book is intrinsically ‘of reduced length.’



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23



F: CI29905.tex / p.10 (118)


the ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ relative scales; i.e. the boxes are, respectively, inherently heavy/light; cf. also Figure 5.3):

Weight

(6a, b)

(7a) light

(7b) heavy

Figure 5.3. Scalar representation of polar antonyms (from Cruse & Togia 1995: 116–117)

(6) a. This box is light, but it’s heavier than that one101 b. This box is heavy, but it’s lighter than that one (7) a. This box is light, but that one is lighter b. This box is heavy, but that one is heavier

In the overlapping class, both terms have committed interpretations but only one term of the pair has impartial readings (cf. example (8a). Note that (8b) below shows that, unlike polite, rude does not have an impartial interpretation; see also Figure 5.4):

(8a)

polite

Politeness 0 Rudeness rude (8b)

Figure 5.4. Scalar representation of overlapping antonyms (from Cruse & Togia 1995: 116–117)

(8) a. Pam is rude, but she’s politer/more polite than Kay b. ?Pam is polite, but she’s ruder/more rude than Kay

. Example adapted from Cruse (1986: 206). The emphasis is mine (VGD).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.11 (119)


As for equipollent antonyms, the two terms of the pair have committed interpretations only (see (9)102 and Figure 5.5):103

Coldness (9a) hot

Hotness (9b) cold

Figure 5.5. Scalar representation of equipollent antonyms (from Cruse & Togia 1995: 116–117)

(9) a. ?It is cold, but it’s hotter than yesterday b. ?It is hot, but it’s colder than yesterday

I would like to turn now to the analysis of comparative constructions proper, since, as has been shown by examples above, it is in comparative contexts that the differences between impartial and committed readings are better exemplified. . Cruse’s true- and pseudo-comparative constructions Compare the following two examples from the BNC: (10) a.

She moved over to the window, staring out into the darkness. There was a long silence. (. . .) The telephone rang, sounding unnaturally strident in the quiet room. (. . .) They heard Alex Mair’s voice. (. . .) Then there was a longer silence, then Mair’s voice again (BNC.C8T1598) b. Gloria had two white woollen socks. (. . .) One was longer than the other and a different, more yellowy, shade of white (BNC.AC5379)

Example (10a) illustrates a committed use of longer, as it establishes an explicit contrast between the length of the first and the second moment of silence: the second silence is “long to a greater degree” than the first silence, which is intrinsically long. Cruse (1986: 206) calls comparative constructions with committed interpretations “true comparatives”, because, as their name indicates, they establish a real comparison between the degrees of a given property. . The italics in the examples under (9) are mine (VGD). . Cruse (1986: 208) also points to a semantic difference between the three antonymic types. Polar antonyms denote objective properties that are calibrated in conventional units (e.g. weight, speed, length, etc.), equipollent antonyms describe subjective sensations and emotions and overlapping antonyms have an evaluative polarity (one term being commendatory, the other deprecatory).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.12 (120)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

By contrast, in (10b) longer has an impartial reading, for it does not mean that either of the socks has the quality of being long (in fact, both of them could be short, one having ‘greater length’ than the other). Comparative sentences with impartial interpretations are called “pseudo-comparative” constructions (Cruse 1986: 206), because they do not make a real comparison between degrees, but rather they only denote that the referent of the noun (in (10b), one of the socks) has “more of property X” than another referent (in (10b), the other sock), without either of the referents possessing the property itself (in example (10b), the property of being long).104 Cruse & Togia (1995: 128; cf. also Croft & Cruse 2004: 177) establish a correlation between true and pseudo-comparatives on the one hand, and inflectional and periphrastic comparatives on the other, by means of what they call the Principle of Exposure. This (iconic) principle holds that the more “exposed” or transparent an adjective, the greater its correlation with the relative scale (and therefore, with committed interpretations) and vice-versa: the less exposed an adjective, the greater its tendency to be interpreted against the absolute scale. Now, if one examines comparative structures in the light of the Principle of Exposure, one will realise that the adjectival root of inflectional comparative structures is, due to the addition of the suffix -er (e.g. friendlier), somehow less transparent than that of their periphrastic counterparts (i.e. the bare adjectival root preceded by the adverbial quantifier more; e.g. more friendly). From this it follows that inflectional forms should be more easily associated with the absolute scale and, in consequence, with impartial readings. Conversely, periphrastic forms, being more “exposed”, should be more frequently attested in committed constructions. Cruse & Togia (1995: 129; also Croft & Cruse 2004: 178) provide the examples105 reproduced below in order to support their claim: (11) a. Process X is fast, but is nonetheless slower than process Y b. ?Process X is fast, but nonetheless more slow than process Y

They suggest that the reason why more slow in (11b) is deviant when compared to slower in (11a) is that the context requires an impartial interpretation, which, according to the Principle of Exposure, is at odds with the tendency of periphrastic comparatives towards committed readings. In addition, Croft & Cruse (2004: 178) . This idea of impartial constructions where no ‘real’ comparison is established seems to be in line with Hamamoto’s (1993) fuzzy-theoretical approach to adjective comparison. He suggests that “adjectival expressions . . . reflect the utterer’s subjective judgement” of the differences existing in the real world (Hamamoto 1993: 18); in other words, what the speakers perceive as true or real (as opposed to what the reality or truth really is). . The emphasis in the examples under (11) is mine.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.13 (121)


observe that morphological (i.e. inflectional) comparison is the ‘default’ comparative variety and therefore, the one that attracts the priority construal. One may wonder, however, whether another factor favouring the oddness of (11b) above may be that, all other things being equal, monosyllabic adjectives strongly tend towards inflectional comparatives. Unfortunately, neither Cruse & Togia (1995) nor Croft & Cruse (2004) give further illustrative examples of how the Principle of Exposure works on comparatives (especially in disyllabic adjectives, since, as observed above, they are the group that most easily take periphrastic forms). I have already mentioned that Cruse’s antonymic distinctions offer a valuable account of how adjectives map onto the different semantic scales. His system, however, also has some shortcomings. Firstly, as he himself observes (Cruse 1986: 207), only polar antonyms and one term of the overlapping antonymic type have both impartial and committed interpretations. This means that the correlation between impartial readings/pseudo-comparatives/inflectional forms and committed readings/true comparatives/periphrastic forms can only be successfully applied to a small subset of adjectives. Secondly, Cruse’s (1986) and Cruse & Togia’s (1995) scale distinctions are drawn on a limited number of sentence-based examples made up by the linguists themselves (e.g. I observed above that the only examples provided to support the validity of their Principle of Exposure are the ones reproduced in (11) above). Some difficulties arise when one tries to apply their neat classification of antonymic uses to contextualised data. Thus, the comparative examples in Cruse’s studies (1986; Cruse & Togia 1995; Croft & Cruse 2004) seem to suggest that committed interpretations are only established within a single scale. For examples, consider examples (12) and (13) below (taken from Cruse 1986: 207) and their scalar representation: (12) It’s hot today It’s hotter today than yesterday (13) a. This box is less heavy than that one b. This box is not as light as that one

(Coldness) cold

Figure 5.6. Committed interpretations, hotter

(Hotness) hot



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.14 (122)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Weight (13a)

(13b) heavy

light

Figure 5.7. Committed interpretations, heavier vs. lighter

In these examples, a contrast of degree (of hotness/heaviness/lightness) is established within the respective relative scales of hot, heavy and light; in other words, the entities compared share the same adjectival quality (see Figures 5.6 and 5.7). However, it is not difficult to find corpus examples that cannot be accommodated within Cruse’s notion of committedness: (14) Claire watches the two men grapple. They have mud in their eyes, on their stomachs, dripping down their thighs. They are tired, grunting. Keith is by far the most graceful. His skin is smooth and shiny, his muscles ripple. The other man is bigger, clumsier, and Claire cannot believe the bulge between his legs. She wants Keith to win (BNC.HGU1909)

According to Cruse’s classification, clumsy, being the “sub” term106 of an equipollent antonymic pair (i.e. skilful:clumsy), can only have a committed (i.e. contrast of degree) interpretation. However, unlike in examples (12)–(13), in (14) above one cannot interpret the form clumsier as indicating a contrast in the degree of clumsiness between Keith and the “other man” who Claire is observing, since the context makes it clear that Keith is not a clumsy person. What this example reveals, then, is the possibility of establishing a different kind of contrast (see Section 4.3.1.2) through a ‘crossing’ from one scale (in this case, the scale of skilfulness/gracefulness) to another (in this case, the scale of clumsiness; see Figure 5.8). Examples (15) to (17) below further illustrate this cross-scale comparative meaning (observe the ‘jump’ or qualitative change from hostile to friendly in (15) and (16) and from cold to cosy in (17) below). It is perhaps interesting to observe here that the context seems to have an impact on the perception of the comparative scales. In (15) and (16) below we have the same positive adjective being compared, i.e. friendly. However, while in (15) below the change from hostile to friendly seems to occur in a gradual fashion, bringing the two qualities closer together (note, in . The “sub” term (as opposed to the “supra” term) of an antonymic pair conveys a low(er) value of the property (i.e. long, the “supra” term of the antonymic pair long/short, means “more than average length”, while short – the “sub” term – denotes the lack of that property, cf. Ljung 1974: 74).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.15 (123)

Chapter 5. Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in Present-day English 

Gracefulness graceful

Clumsiness clumsy

Figure 5.8. Semantic representation of clumsier in (14)

this connection, the use of turned), in (16) the semantic scale is left implicit and friendly seems to be used in a more absolute sense (Olga Fischer, p.c.). (15) Electronic soup AT&T’s hostile bid for NCR turned a lot friendlier when Ma Bell met the computer company’s asking price of $110 a share, though none of the $7.5 billion will be in cash (BNC.ABJ2955) (16) She woke up in the morning feeling heavy-eyed and with a dull headache lurking behind her eyes. She picked unenthusiastically at the breakfast she made for herself (. . .) Jessamy shaded her aching eyes from its brightness, and wished it would rain. She wanted the weather to be gloomy and overcast, with lots of black clouds to match her mood. “Are you in a more friendly mood this morning?” Julius enquired, moving silently up behind her. Jessamy jumped violently (BNC.H8F2308) (17) “You go down and get it, while I make a fire in the living-room. This place is like a morgue” (. . .) He loped down into the basement, dusted off half a dozen bottles of beer and brought them up, found glasses and an opener and took them into the living-room on a tray. His father, an expert woodsman, had already got a fire going, and the room had lost some of its pristine newness and was looking much more cosy (BNC.CDN1458)

This type of comparative readings needs to be accommodated within a semanticpragmatic classification of comparative adjectives (see Section 4.3 below). . Semantic-pragmatic differences between inflectional and periphrastic comparatives .. The system I concluded above that Cruse’s (1986; Croft & Cruse 2004) antonymic system may be too restricted to accommodate the variation found in English comparatives. Taking the BNC data described in Table 5.1 above as the starting point, in what follows I will propose a somewhat different three-way system of classification of comparative adjectives in English.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.16 (124)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

... Contrast of degree (within a single scale). The prototypical use of a comparative construction is that which establishes an explicit comparison between the degree(s) to which an entity/individual or two entities/individuals possess(es) an adjectival quality. Illustrative examples of this contrastive use are (18) and (19) below: (18) Wahler and Dumas (1986) found that “insular” mothers were more angry and irritable than non-insular mothers towards their children, whether the child was being naughty or good (BNC.CGT708)

Example (18) above summarises the results of an experiment on the behaviour of continental and insular European mothers towards their respective offspring. In this context, the form more angry clearly establishes a contrast between the degrees of irritability of the two subject groups of the experiment. A similar meaning is conveyed by more sleepy in (19) below, where the narrator describes Aunt Louise gradually becoming less and less responsive to the outer world. (19) She sat beside me and bathed and bandaged my knee but Aunt Louise made no sign that she realized what was going on (. . .) In a little while the cold rains of winter would come; a few Christmas cards would appear on the windowsills in the ward, and there would be a token show of paper-chains. Then the grass would recover and the flower-beds would be full of daffodils. So the seasons passed, and Aunt Louise grew more sleepy and conversation almost impossible; it had been a limited conversation at best. Every subject I could think of could be painful to her and in any case would be hard to sustain as a monologue (BNC.AC7656)

Examples (20) and (21) below further exemplify this “contrast-of-degree” meaning in comparatives: (20) These two guitars are very similar in feel (. . .) The Signature’s neck feels glossier, and the action at the bridge has been better set up so that the strings lie well above the ashtray’s sides; otherwise both guitars are very playable (BNC.C9L1727) (21) “What’s going on?” Oliver demanded. And complained that she had refused to let him in when he had returned from the wine bar having forgotten his key. He had slept on a friend’s floor and spent a very uncomfortable night. She said: “I didn’t refuse. I can’t have been there.” “You weren’t supposed to be going out. There was a hush-hush meeting with Eliot and I was to keep out of the way. Remember?” (. . .) Oliver grew more angry, not less, saying there had been rather more to it than supper, hadn’t there? (BNC.G2V113)

I would like to emphasise that the contrast of degree expressed by all the comparative examples included in this category is established within a single relative

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.17 (125)


Awakeness 0 sleepy

Awake Sleepiness

Figure 5.9. Contrast of degree in more sleepy in (21)

scale (see the bent arrows in Figure 5.9, representing example (19) above). This type of comparative meaning corresponds to Cruse’s (1986; Croft & Cruse 2004) committed adjectival readings. ... Contrast of quality (between two scales). The second use of comparatives observed in the data corresponds to those cases in which the comparative construction establishes, like the type discussed in the preceding section, a contrast. However, unlike the examples in Section 4.3.1.1 above, this contrast is not established within a single scale, but between two (opposed) adjectival scales. This ‘jump of scale’ has an important repercussion on the semantics of the comparative construction, as illustrated in (22)–(23) below: (22) It was hard to tell, Loretta thought, which of them was more disappointed (. . .) Tracey regained his wits first. ‘What are you going to do about it?’ – he asked bluntly. Loretta was irritated (. . .) ‘Wait a minute’- Tracey said in a friendlier tone of voice (BNC.HTR7)

Tracey and Loretta have received some bad news and do not know how to react to it. Tracey is the first to pull himself together again and asks Loretta about her plans for the near future. However, he addresses Loretta in a very direct and unfriendly way that annoys her. He tries to correct his error by using a different tone of voice. The tone of voice is precisely the central element in our interpretation of the comparative strategy used. One observes two very different qualifying adjectives (and therefore, two underlying adjectival scales) describing the same tone of voice, blunt and friendly, and the change from one to the other is undertaken without any intermediate stages. Consequently, the second adjective, friendly, cannot convey a higher degree of friendliness, because the previous tone of voice was anything but friendly. What friendlier illustrates is thus a shift in the adjectival scale against which the tone of voice is interpreted; in other words, a qualitative change in the tone of voice. Figure 5.10 illustrates this contrast-of-quality reading.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.18 (126)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Kindness/ Friendliness

friendly/kind Bluntness blunt

Figure 5.10. Contrast-of-quality in friendlier in (22)

(23) The French and British could not agree about what to do and the situation drifted; the one thing which the French were determined not to have was a permanent British occupation. Yet this was the outcome. In June 1882 riots at Alexandria killed many Europeans. The British hoped that the Turks would restore order and break the nationalist movement; the French were more ready to come to terms with its leaders (BNC.CM61565)

Example (23) describes the attitude of both the British and the French towards the nationalist rebellions in Turkey. Whereas the British are willing to stop the rebellion, the French seem to entertain the idea of supporting the leaders of the nationalist movement in order to put an end to the British occupation in the area. In this context, then, more ready does not contrast the degree of willingness of both French and British to end the conflict but rather the disparity between the attitudes of both nations (willing v. unwilling to stop the riots), and ultimately, it highlights the jump from one scale (unwillingness) to another (readiness; see Figure 5.11).

ready

unwilling

Figure 5.11. Contrast-of-quality in more ready in (23)

Further examples of this comparative use are provided by (24) to (27) below: (24) The relationship between the nationalists and Tories on a personal level is also rather different. The frosty duelling between Salmond and Lang is light years away from the cosier relations between Plaid Cymru president, Dafydd Wigley, and Hunt. Salmond and Lang clearly do not like one another. It is personal and not explained solely by the fact that Lang has a marginal seat and the SNP is the main competitor. In contrast, Hunt attended Plaid’s Christmas party (BNC.K5M969)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.19 (127)

Chapter 5. Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in Present-day English 

(25) Once more the liveried waiters appeared with the Don Perignon, while the teenage Crown Prince acted as disc jockey on the balcony. The Shah asked Mrs Carter and King Hussein, each of them only about five feet high, shuffled around like two little mechanical dolls, staring distractedly over each others tiny shoulders. Lesser mortals stepped out as best they could. At times the Crown Prince swapped the staid dance music for rather more lively rock and roll (BNC.G3R2118) (26) It is a house which has given rise to much aesthetic conjecture (. . .) it is called the Red House because it is built of deep red brick, an unusual medium for a man of means, who was normally expected to build in something nobler. It rather resembles a Victorian village school in outline (or perhaps Victorian village schools resemble it!) (BNC.AB41424) (27) Her belly was growing huge, it overshadowed her. She was suffocating, it was squashing her, pinning her to the ground. She could hear cars and lorries swooshing past and tried desperately to call for help but she had no breath. The belly continued to grow, blocking out the light. She felt the skin on it stretched to bursting point, the pain was awful. She opened her eyes. It was dark. The belly was gone. She was all right, she was awake. Alan sighed and turned over, and she curled herself around his curved back, and waited for a more friendly sleep to claim her (BNC.H8N3573)

As I observed above, this kind of contrastive meaning does not seem to be explicitly accounted for by Cruse’s (1986) classification. Note, also, that the scalar contrast described in this section may be related to Cruse’s committed readings in that the “scale-crossing” always takes place between two relative scales. The meaning that the comparatives in this group convey is, nevertheless, very different from that associated with Cruse’s committed readings (contrast of quality vs. contrast of degree, respectively), and therefore I have opted for considering them a subtype of contrastive meanings. ... Non-contrastive readings. Cruse’s binary system differentiated between committed comparative constructions (i.e. “true comparatives”) and impartial comparative constructions (i.e. “pseudo comparatives”, see Section 4.2 above). My last comparative type is somewhat similar to Cruse’s pseudo-comparative group in that the comparative constructions included here do not establish an explicit scalar contrast either within a single scale or between two scales. However, my noncontrastive type is possibly more general than Cruse’s pseudo-comparative type. More concretely, in defining the non-contrastive type I will draw on the different types of focus made in Functional Grammar. Lambrecht (1994: 207, 213) defines focus as the “semantic component of a pragmatically structured proposition whereby the assertion differs from the presupposition”; the information

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.20 (128)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

which is not shared between the speaker and the listener. It is in this sense (i.e. non-recoverability in the discourse situation) that focus can be equated with ‘new information’ (although it can be ‘identifiable’, i.e. it can belong to the knowledge of both speaker and listener).107 In addition, Siewierska (1991) makes a twoway distinction between focus types, i.e. that of contrastive and new/completive foci. The former “introduces information which the speaker assumes to be directly opposed to a restricted range of alternatives deemed to be entertained by the addressee” (Siewierska 1991: 178); the latter “denotes information that is simply intended to fill a gap in the pragmatic information of the addressee” (Siewierska 1991: 178). Relating this to the functions of comparatives, I suggest that Cruse’s committed reading type (i.e. my contrast-of-degree type) and my contrast-of-quality type are both contrastive in the FG sense of defeating some expectation that the speaker assumes that the hearer has. My non-contrastive type (which subsumes Cruse’s pseudo-comparative or impartial type) is so called because it does not defeat any such expectation/assumption, but simply provides “new” information. Consider the following examples: (28) He would tell a player, “Never mind what the other team does – this is what you are going to do.” He believed his tactics would win, regardless of how the opposition played. Sometimes it didn’t work, but usually it did. (. . .) The approach was a reaction to the days when teams took the field without any overall plan of how they were to set about winning, when the only initiative that came from management was to encourage friendships in the team so that players were more ready to discuss tactics among themselves (BNC.B0L990) (29) “Divine august Frederick is in character and appearance such man that he deserves to be studied even by those not in close contact with him. Both God and nature have combined to bestow lavishly upon him the gift of perfect happiness. His character is one that not even those envious of his power can disparage him. His body is well proportioned. He is shorter than the tallest of men, yet taller and more noble than those of middle height” (BNC.ASW761) (30) The bride and groom knelt before the altar, and behind them the benches were packed with nobility from all over Portugal. João had been out with Fernando for most of the previous night and looked pale and tired, but Maria Ines said this was all to the good, because it made him look older and readier to take on the responsibility of a wife (BNC.EWH1058)

. See Lambrecht’s (2004: 206) criticisms of traditional views of focus as the ‘new’ information of the sentence.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.21 (129)

Chapter 5. Inflectional v. periphrastic comparison in Present-day English 

(31) Millions go it alone BRITONS have become a lonelier nation in the last 10 years, according to Census figures. More than one in four households were one-person homes at last year’s count, a four per cent increase on the 1981 figure. The Census counted 54,888,444 people in Britain – one fifth of them children. One in three households still had no car (BNC.CBF13578)

In (29), the comparative more noble occurs in a coordinate structure with the inflectional form taller. According to what was suggested in Ch. 4, Section 5.3 above, one may expect different comparative strategies in either member of the coordinate structure when the comparative forms do not perform the same semanticpragmatic function. In keeping with this idea, I would like to argue that the reason why the second adjective in this example (i.e. noble) takes periphrastic instead of inflectional comparison is because, unlike the first adjective (tall, which has been already mentioned in the context), noble conveys “new” information which serves to offer the reader a more complete picture of the “divine Frederick”. Furthermore, the last example above (31) serves to show how my noncontrastive type may be more general than Cruse’s impartial type. In determining what Cruse’s analysis of the example would be the first challenge that one faces is finding the antonym of lonely, used in this way. Wordnet108 does not give any direct antonyms, only indirect ones (that is, words that are the antonyms of other words that are semantically similar to lonely). This constitutes the first problem for classification in terms of Cruse’s impartial/committed distinction, since we have seen that that depends on there being a clear antonym. Even if we disregard this, it is not obvious that Cruse’s typology can be applied to this case. From the indirect antonyms given by Wordnet, the most plausible suggestions are accompanied/attended (via unaccompanied) and social (via unsocial). (The other suggestions, elated and accessible are not connected with the principal idea conveyed by the example, namely, that Britons are increasingly unmarried or at any rate form one-person households). In any case, Cruse’s impartial/committed distinction does not apply: accompanied/attended v. unaccompanied (lonely) are probably complementaries (that is, being one thing excludes being the other, Cruse 1986: 198), while the social v. unsocial (lonely) distinction seems to be of the overlapping type (cf. “John is unsocial but more social than Harry” but “*John is social but more unsocial than Harry”; observe that the impartial/committed distinction only applies to the “supra” term of a pair of overlapping . WordNet is an on-line lexical dictionary developed by the Cognitive Science Laboratory at Princeton University that organises English grammatical categories into synonym sets (each representing one underlying lexical concept). For further information, see http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/∼wn/ (accessed 21-01-2008).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.22 (130)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

antonyms – unsocial/lonely would be the “sub” term). According to Cruse, then, lonelier should automatically qualify as committed. However, it is not at all clear that this is the case: there is no clear sense in which Britons are said to be lonely (i.e. to possess “the quality of loneliness”) to some considerable degree. The new/completive type does not face these problems. To the extent that example (31) does not portray any real contrast with the preceding context (either in terms of the same or a different scale), the example is straightforwardly accommodated. ... Conclusion. Before proceeding to the quantitative analysis of the data, I would like to offer a schematic summary of the three-way typology of the semantics-pragmatics of English comparatives described above (see Figure 5.12).

Non-contrastive

New/Completive “Britons have become a lonelier nation” Contrast of degree “She is pretty but her sister is prettier” (Within a single scale)

Contrastive Contrast of quality (Change of scale)

“First release will either be the atmospheric Tomorrow's Day’, or the livelier ‘It’s Like This’”

Figure 5.12. Semantic-pragmatic comparative types

. Analysis of the data The sections above described the different comparative types attested in my data. The next step of the investigation will be to examine whether the distribution of these comparative types sheds any light on the semantics-pragmatics of inflectional and periphrastic forms in Present-day English. I initially considered attributive and predicative uses of comparatives separately, as this would allow me to determine whether syntactic position has any influence on the (semantic-pragmatic) distribution of the two comparative modes. Postpositive examples were discarded from the tally due to their low frequency. Tables 5.11 and 5.12 summarise the results obtained from this preliminary analysis. As for attributive positions, non-contrastive (i.e. completive) uses are mostly conveyed by inflectional forms. Regarding the two contrastive uses (i.e. qualityand degree-contrast), one may observe a preference for inflectional comparatives towards quality-contrast readings and of periphrastic comparatives for degreecontrast interpretations.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.23 (131)


Table 5.11. Semantic-pragmatic classification of attributive comparatives Completive Inflectional Periphrastic

36 (84%) 7 (16%)

Attributive Change Scale (quality contrast)

Same Scale (degree contrast)

65 (68%) 30 (32%)

51 (59%) 35 (41%)

Overall distribution 152 (68%) 72 (32%)

Table 5.12. Semantic-pragmatic classification of predicative comparatives Completive Inflectional Periphrastic

57 (64%) 32 (36%)

Predicative Change Scale (quality contrast)

Same Scale (degree contrast)

42 (54%) 36 (46%)

80 (34%) 156 (66%)

Overall distribution 179 (44%) 224 (56%)

Interestingly, the tendencies observed for (inflectional/periphrastic) comparatives in attributive position seem to hold in general terms when they occur in predicative positions (see Table 5.12). Periphrastic comparatives are consistently associated with contrast-of-degree types (156 examples);109 non-contrastive uses being, again, their least preferred readings (32 examples). Inflectional comparatives are also frequently attested in contrast-of-degree readings (80 examples); however, as in the case of attributive uses, they also constitute the main strategy to express the non-contrastive and the contrast-of-quality types (57 and 42 tokens, respectively). The main conclusion to be drawn from this analysis is that inflectional and periphrastic comparatives appear to maintain a (relatively) constant pattern of use irrespective of the syntactic position that they occupy; in other words, the theoretical distinctions between comparative types in attributive and predicative positions drawn in Ch. 4, Section 5.4 above do not seem to be as noticeable as one would perhaps have expected. Note, however, that although for both inflectional and periphrastic comparatives there is a relatively strong association between predicative positions and contrast-of-degree readings (the comparative type that one could associate with ‘given’ information, as the comparative contrast is established within a single semantic scale whose nature is actively known by the speaker), the tendency is especially marked in the case of periphrastic constructions. Table 5.13 summarises the overall figures for inflectional and periphrastic comparatives in my data. . Note that in predicative positions the percentage of periphrastic comparatives in degreecontrast readings is higher (67%) than that of inflectional forms (33%).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23



F: CI29905.tex / p.24 (132)


Table 5.13. Semantic-pragmatic classification of comparative (total numbers)

Inflectional Periphrastic

Attributive + predicative adjectives Completive Change Scale Same Scale (quality contrast) (degree contrast)

Overall distribution

93 (70%) 39 (30%)

331 (53%) 296 (47%)

107 (62%) 66 (38%)

131 (41%) 191 (59%)

Table 5.14. Degree-contrast type vs. the other semantic-pragmatic types (total numbers)

Inflectional Periphrastic

Attributive + predicative adjectives Same scale Other uses (degree contrast) (completive + quality contrast)

Total

131 (41%) 191 (59%)

291 (54%) 251 (46%)

200 (66%) 105 (44%)

The results confirm the outcome obtained in Tables 5.11 and 5.12: periphrastic comparatives are preferred for the conveyance of contrast of degree readings (59% of the total), whereas the completive and contrast-of-quality types are more frequently attested with inflectional forms (70% and 62% of the cases, respectively). The association between the periphrastic mode and contrast-of-degree readings (as opposed to the other meanings, taken together, see Table 5.14) turns out to be statistically very highly significant (p < 0.001); conversely, the inflectional mode strongly correlates with the other two semantic-pragmatic types. .. Conclusion Periphrastic comparatives are more strongly associated with the conveyance of contrast-of-degree, whereas inflectional comparatives are widespread among the three comparative types described in Sections 4.3.1.1–4.3.1.3 above. A plausible explanation for the pervasive use of inflectional forms in all comparative types is that the inflectional mode is the default comparative strategy in English (see Ch. 2 above; Biber et al. 1999: 525 and Croft & Cruse 2004: 178), and therefore, the mode to which speakers resort on any occasion. In addition, the preference of periphrastic comparatives for degree-contrast readings confirms the suggestions put forward by previous literature (e.g. Curme 1931; cf. also Ch. 4 Section 5.4.2 and Ch. 3, Section 6 above); namely, that periphrastic comparatives are more salient comparative structures because of their having an unbounded, potentially stressed morpheme (i.e. the adverbial intensifier more) as comparative marker. It is not difficult to imagine, then, that in contexts where the adjectival quality under consideration is present in the context – as it is in those cases where the contrast takes place within a single scale – the notion of de-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.25 (133)


gree becomes crucial, hence the need to give preference to the structure that most clearly emphasizes the idea of contrast of degree (i.e. periphrastic comparison).

. Concluding remarks A comparison of the distribution of inflectional and periphrastic forms in presentday English and in the previous stages of the language supports the suggestion put forward in Ch. 4, Section 8 above, i.e. that the establishment of the English (standard) comparative system appears to have been a very gradual process. Previous literature (Kytö 1996; Kytö & Romaine 1997) records the spread of periphrastic forms as an alternative to inflectional comparatives in written environments from the late ME period. The investigation carried out in this and the previous chapter complements and adds further precision to this claim, as it deals with the intralinguistic accommodation of the new variant to the system (or, vice-versa, the flexibility of the system to accommodate the new variant). It suggests that position is, amongst the factors considered, the one that has had the greatest influence on the selection of strategy across periods. (In this respect, observe that greater morphological/phonological length is perhaps the most immediate differences between inflectional and periphrastic forms). However, by its side, the number of comparative constraining factors appear to have increased gradually the closer one gets to the present-day. On the subject of semantics, this chapter has concentrated on the way in which comparatives map onto different semantic scales (Section 4 above). Cruse’s (1986, Cruse & Togia 1995; Croft & Cruse 2004) study of antonymy proved to be a useful starting point; yet his/their system (based on the introspective judgement of the linguist(s)) did not allow for the accommodation of the comparative variation encountered in corpus data. A slightly different typology of the semantics of adjective comparison was thus outlined and tested against the data, the main conclusion being that comparative constructions can map onto three (instead of two) readings (i.e. non-contrastive, contrast-between-scales and contrast-within-scale readings). In addition, the application of this three-way comparative typology to the data under consideration confirmed the suggestions made by previous scholars in passim, i.e. that there is indeed a semantic-pragmatic difference between inflectional and periphrastic comparatives regardless of what antonymic type they belong to (note that Cruse’s true- v. pseudo-comparative distinction could only be properly applied to polar antonyms and the ‘supra’ term of the overlapping antonymic type) or the syntactic position of the comparative. Perhaps as a result of their being the default comparative structure of the language, inflectional comparatives are rather widespread among the three semanticpragmatic types mentioned above. By contrast, periphrastic comparatives show



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:23

F: CI29905.tex / p.26 (134)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

a strong tendency for conforming to the contrast-of-degree type. One may suggest that in those cases where the comparative elicits a contrast-of-degree reading, the adjectival scale on which the comparison is taking place is recoverable from the context and therefore, the primary need is to foreground the idea of contrast of degree. Periphrastic comparatives appear to be a more suitable structure than inflectional forms for these environments, as their morphosyntactic configuration allows them to emphasise the idea of degree through the independent (and therefore stressable) particle more, leaving the adjective itself intact (cf. Curme 1931). I would like to emphasise that, although the analyses here and in Ch. 4 above have brought forward new insights into the nature of English comparative constructions, a number of closely related questions are in need of further investigation. The tripartite scalar division of comparatives rightly predicted the preference of periphrastic comparatives for contexts in which the adjectival quality has been previously established in the context. However, only those instances in which the establishment in discourse was lexically signalled were taken into consideration. Other (perhaps less straightforward but equally valid) ways of establishing giveness in discourse are possible and therefore should be explored. This brings us to another issue: the influence of discourse features when trying to determine the adjectival scales on to which comparatives map. Again, the application of Cruse’s (1986) and Croft & Cruse’s (2004) model to independent comparative sentences does not seem to pose major problems. The situation is nevertheless more complicated when contextualised examples are considered. In some contexts, more than one antonym is possible for the selected adjective; this, in its turn, has an impact on determining the type of antonymic pair (i.e. polar, equipollent, overlapping) and the semantic scales under consideration. Finally, my analysis has followed earlier scholarship in distinguishing between attributive, predicative and postpositive comparative adjectives as a whole, without taking into consideration that attributive comparatives may appear embedded in predicative constructions (e.g. “Ramsey helped the Anglo-Catholic members of the Conference to take a more friendly attitude to the South India Church” (BNC, A68 2423); “it would be hard to imagine a lonelier place in the British Isles” (BNC H0C 1140). An interesting question for further research would thus be whether these embedded attributive constructions show any noticeable difference in their semantic behaviour with regard to ‘pure’ attributive and/or predicative constructions.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.1 (135)

chapter 

Double periphrastic comparatives in English Linguistic development

.

Introduction110

As observed in Ch. 1 above, any diachronic study is, by default, carried out in hindsight. This is probably the reason why the linguistic features that first attract the attention of the historical researcher are often those that either have become part of the present-day standard language or constitute the most frequent strategy of a (sub)system in previous stages of the language (cf. Milroy 2005: 324ff. on the ideologically-biased nature of diachronic linguistic descriptions). The topic of the following two chapters of this book constitutes a good example of the latter tendency. Ch. 2 and Ch. 3 above focused on issues on the development of simple (inflectional and periphrastic) comparative strategies. However, alongside simple comparatives, there exists a third comparative strategy in English, i.e. double comparative forms. These are hybrids formed by the combination of more with adjectives already inflected for comparison (e.g. more older) or by the addition of inflectional endings to suppletive comparative adjectives (i.e. worse : worser, less : lesser). As mentioned in previous chapters (Ch. 1, Ch. 2), the development and competition between the standard comparative strategies (i.e. simple inflectional and periphrastic comparatives) have been subject to scholarly investigation (e.g. Kytö 1996; Kytö & Romaine 1997, 2000; Leech & Culpeper 1997; Mondorf 2002, 2003; Suematsu 2004; Janecka 2006); by contrast, double comparatives have been seen as marginal and, as a result, no in-depth study has been produced on any aspect of their evolution. Some scattered comments on the social history of double forms appear in Kytö (1996: 129), Kytö & Romaine (1997: 333, 2000), Denison (1998: 128) and Blake (2002: 46; see quotation (1) below): (1) At all periods, however, the primary variants have been the inflectional and periphrastic types. Double forms have always been marginal. Although once . Unless otherwise stated, the emphasis (i.e. italics/bold) in the examples provided through the chapter is mine (VGD).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.2 (136)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

used in the literary language, they gradually disappeared from the written language under the influence of standardisation. Both eighteenth-century and modern grammarians have condemned them (Kytö & Romaine 2000: 173 [emphasis added])

In addition, Schlüter (2001) examines the influence of prosody on the linguistic distribution of worser in Early Modern English, where she reaches the conclusion that: (2) Functional factors seem to have determined the evolution of the morphological variation pattern investigated in this article [worse vs. worser]. First, analogy and system congruity give rise to the regularized comparative worser. Then, rhythmic alternation (. . .) has the greatest explanatory force for both its synchronic distribution in the 16th and 17th centuries and its diachronic preservation across periods. Finally, stigmatization and standardization lead to its eventual disappearance (Schlüter 2001: 205)

As may be obvious from the above, more research is needed on the topic. Through the analysis of relevant historical corpora, the present chapter and Ch. 7 below aim at contributing to a better understanding of the history of double comparative forms. One should note that, by double comparison, I am referring here to double periphrastic forms only (i.e. forms like more better, more lovelier), as double inflectional comparison appears to be restricted to a number of irregular comparative bases (e.g. worse, less, near). By contrast, double periphrastic comparison occurs in a wide(r) range of adjectives, thus constituting a real comparative alternative to simple inflectional and/or periphrastic forms (for a study of the development of the double inflectional forms worser and lesser, see González-Díaz 2007). More specifically, this chapter is devoted to the linguistic development of double periphrastic comparatives, i.e. the origin and position of double periphrastic forms within the system of adjective comparison as well as the factors that seem to determine the selection of double periphrastic forms over the simple inflectional and periphrastic ones. The chapter is organised as follows: Section 2 outlines the chronology of double periphrastic comparatives and Section 3 examines them in the light of recent cross-linguistic research on doubling. The conclusions reached on this (mainly theoretical) section are put to the test through a corpus-based analysis of the linguistic distribution of double forms across periods (Section 4). The latter data analysis shows that the number of double periphrastic forms seems to decrease over time; the possibility of this decrease being related to the rise of other (roughly) equivalent constructions is explored in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 summarises the main conclusions reached in the preceding sections.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.3 (137)

Chapter 6. Double periphrastic comparatives in English 

. The origin of double periphrastic comparatives In general terms, accounts of the origin of double periphrastic comparatives appear in the form of very general remarks in connection with the origin of simple periphrastic structures. Curme (1931: 503) and Kytö & Romaine (1997: 330–331) do not give a specific date for the rise of double periphrastic forms. Kytö & Romaine note, however, that “the [simple] periphrastic forms first appeared in the thirteenth century” and that the availability of these new periphrastic comparatives alongside the old inflectional comparatives “added yet one more option to the system” (1997: 331). This opinion is shared by the editors of the OED, who find the first instance of double comparison in Layamon’s Brut (c1275 [? a1200] þu eær. . . mare hærdere; “you are more harder”).111 The analysis of the comparative forms attested in the Toronto Corpus, however, reveals that double comparatives appear in OE already (see Ch. 2, Section 2.1 above); and, more specifically, that they occur in texts from the second half of the ninth century onwards (see Table 6.1). Table 6.1. Double periphrastic comparatives in OE OE examples

Translation

Text

Ma wyrse Mare heare Swiðor bettra Swiðor (. . .) eadmodra

More worse More higher More better More humbler

DEFE.LS. ANON.NI. FARM.RW. ÆLF.HO.

Also, in Ch. 2 above (Sections 3.1.1–3.1.3), I observed that the earliest instances of periphrastic comparison in OE were formed by the combination of the adverbial intensifiers ma, bet and swiþor with participles and adjectives in positive degree. As Table 6.1 shows, the first double periphrastic comparatives combine the features of both their simple counterparts, i.e. they consist of the pre-position of the adverbials ma and swiþor to a comparative adjective. Three out of the four double periphrastic examples attested in the Toronto Corpus come from OE translations of Latin texts. One of them is an addition to the original text (i.e. mare heare; see example no. 22 in Table 2.11, Ch. 2 above); the other two are glosses written above the Latin text (swiðor bettra, ma wyrse; see examples no. 6 and 13 in Table 2.11, Ch. 2 above). One may argue that in the latter cases, the use of a double comparative in the OE rendering is the result of the . In the second edition of the OED, this example is included in the entry for more as a marker of double comparison but it is not considered a double comparative form proper because the use of mare (PDE more) in mare hærdere is, according to the editors, not pleonastic. This comment has nevertheless disappeared from the last edition.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.4 (138)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

translator’s intention to create a perfect structural correlation between the English translation and the Latin original (see (3) below): (3) LAT. quanto magis melior est homo oue itaque licet sabbatis bene facere OE hu miccle mae þ swiþor bettra is monn þonne scep forþon is alefed on reste-dagum god to doanne (TOR.FARM.RW.) “how much more better is a man than a sheep because (he) is allowed to do good on Sabbath”

The last example comes from Ælfric’s Catholic Homilies. This work, although influenced by Latin sources, was written originally in OE (see example (4) below): (4) he bið swa micele wlitegra ætforan Godes gesihðe, swa he swiðor ætforan him sylfum eadmodra bið (TOR.ÆLF.HO.) “he was so much fairer in front of God’s eyes as he was more humbler in front of himself ”

The examples are too limited to draw any definitive conclusions, yet one may suggest that the coming into the language of the double periphrastic forms may have been a native process. Indirect support to this idea may be provided by Godden’s (1992: 514) argument that, although the origins of OE vernacular prose tradition can be primarily found in Latin prose, most OE writers showed a strong resistance to take Latin as a model and preferred to develop both a vocabulary and a syntactic structure system based on native idiom.

. Double periphrastic comparatives in cross-linguistic perspective As observed in the preceding chapters (Ch. 2, Sections 4 and 5; Ch. 5, Sections 3 and 4) some suggestions were made as to what determines the choice between simple inflectional and simple periphrastic forms (cf. Rusiecki 1985; Kytö 1996; Kytö & Romaine 1997; Leech & Culpeper 1997; Mondorf 2000, 2003); however, to date, no investigation along these lines has been carried out with regard to double comparatives. A similar question can then be put forward here: in what way(s) are double periphrastic forms used differently from simple inflectional and periphrastic comparatives? In other words, under what conditions is a double periphrastic comparative favoured over a simple (inflectional / periphrastic) one? Typological research on doubling may come in handy at this stage for, as their name indicates, double periphrastic comparatives result from the ‘replication’ of a comparative morpheme. Gill (2005: 31) distinguishes two different types of linguistic doubling, repetition and reduplication. The main difference between the two phenomena is that repetition “applies across words, and is therefore subsumed under syntax or dis-

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.5 (139)

Chapter 6. Double periphrastic comparatives in English 

course,” whereas reduplication “applies within words, and is consequently taken to be part of morphology” (2005: 31). Now, if one applies Gill’s broad definition of reduplication/repetition to double comparative constructions, one could argue that, at first sight, they fall between the two concepts. On the one hand, both more and -er are morphologically dependent constituents of the adjectival base. On the other, one should bear in mind that one of the comparative morphemes of the double form is realised by an independent adverbial lexeme (more) which is external to (as opposed to ‘within’) the adjectival base (see (5)). (5) I support a Saturday meeting particular during the budget process, because it’s more easier for me (BNC.J3R596)

Gill, however, also provides six more specific criteria for distinguishing the two phenomena (see Table 6.2). Table 6.2. Repetition vs. reduplication (adapted from Gill 2005: 33)

1 2 3 4

Criterion

Repetition

Reduplication

Unit of output Communicative reinforcement Interpretation Intonational domain of output

Greater than a word Present or absent Iconic or absent Within one/more intonation groups Contiguous or disjoint Two or more

Equal to or smaller than word Absent Arbitrary or iconic Within one intonation group

5 Contiguity of copies 6 Number of copies

Contiguous Usually two

On the basis of these criteria, one may initially suggest that double comparatives are reduplicative rather than ‘repetitive’ constructions. Observe that: a. the doubling structure is never greater than a word (i.e. the adverb more/-er, crit. 1), b. the whole of the double comparative structure is always placed within a single intonation group (crit. 4) and c. the number of copied morphemes is always two (crit. 6) Note, however, that there are a number of counter arguments to this suggestion. Two of Gill’s criteria (2 and 5) seem to place double forms outside the reduplicative category. Without further investigation, one could suggest that the reason for the repetition of the comparative morpheme is the need to ensure a successful transmission of the (comparative) message (in a similar way that vocatives try to attract the attention of the speaker’s addressee; criterion 2). As for criterion 5, one may observe that the reduplicating items in a double comparative construction are syntactically separated from one another. Issues of reinforcement (criterion 2) will be analysed in more detail when dealing with the semantics of the double

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.6 (140)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

comparative construction (see below). In addition, one should observe that recent literature (cf. Nelson 2005; Shaw 2005) points to the existence of disjointed reduplication in languages that clearly possess reduplicative processes (criterion 5). However, the most important counter-argument to the idea that double comparison is a case of reduplication hinges on the way in which the concept has been defined in typological research. Traditional accounts claim that reduplication consists in a “systematic repetition of phonological material within a word for semantic or grammatical purposes” (Rubino 2005: 11; cf. also Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 2; Inkelas 2005: 66), where the duplicating material takes the form of the whole word/base (total reduplication) or a specific phonological sequence within it (partial reduplication). Witness, in this connection, some textbook examples of reduplicative processes (from Walpiri and Pangasinan, respectively): (6) kamina (‘girl’) → kamina-kamina (‘girls’) [total reduplication; cf. Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 1] plato (‘plate’) → papláto (‘plates’) [partial reduplication; cf. Rubino 2005: 11]

Admittedly, English double comparison falls outside this definition of reduplication, for it does not either replicate the adjectival base in any way or seems to be a phonologically-motivated process. Recent work on the topic, however, advocates a broader definition of reduplication, where morphologically-based reduplicative phenomena are also considered (cf. Singh 2005; Inkelas 2005). In this respect, one of the most elaborate proposals is Inkelas & Zoll’s (2005) Morphological Doubling Theory (MDT),112 which takes the notion of construction as the key concept to explain morphological reduplicative processes. In their view, a construction is “any morphological rule or pattern that combines sisters into a single constituent” (Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 12). In addition, the ‘sisters’ of any reduplicative construction are subject to the following two tenets: a. Thesis of morphological targets: a reduplication construction calls for morphological constituents (affix, root, stem or word), not phonological constituents (mora, syllable or foot) b. Thesis of semantic identity: reduplication calls for semantic identity of its daughters, not phonological identity (Inkelas & Zoll 2005: 25) Double periphrastic comparison may fit in with this approach to reduplication: it is a construction that derives from the copying of a morphological constituent, namely, (an abstract) comparative affix. This abstract morphological constituent takes the form of two different phonological outputs which are, broadly speaking, semantically similar, i.e. the affix -er and the pre-posed adverb more. . See Inkelas & Zoll (2005: 6) for a list of theoretical frameworks to which MDT is related.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.7 (141)

Chapter 6. Double periphrastic comparatives in English

It is perhaps instructive to consider at this point recent work by Lehmann (2005: 26) on hypercharacterisation (i.e. “pleonasm at the level of grammar”). He argues that, whereas reduplication is normally a purely formal matter (i.e. same form being repeated), hypercharacterisation is semantically-oriented, i.e. it involves the repetition of a grammatical function in another form which is nearly synonymous. In Ch. 5 Section 4 above I observed that inflectional and periphrastic comparatives, while similar in their function, are different in terms of their semantic-pragmatic characterisation. Lehmann (2005) classes double comparison in English as a case of hypercharacterisation of the phatic type (2005: 36) which, according to him “evince[s] a desire to equip a naked. . . adjective with a companion so that it need not stand alone. . . The modifier is not stressed and in most cases cannot even be stressed because there is no possible contrast” (Lehmann 2005: 29). The discussion of the nature of double periphrastic forms has so far been theory-driven; empirical research is needed in order to confirm or reject these postulates. Section 4 below will thus be devoted to a corpus-based analysis of these theoretical issues.

. Double periphrastic comparatives: An analysis As noted in Section 2 above, some scattered examples of double periphrastic forms start to crop up in texts from the 10th century (see examples (7)–(8) below).113 However, they do not seem to spread and become (relatively) frequent114 in the language until Late Middle English (henceforth LME; Mustanoja 1960: 281). Taking this into consideration, the ME period was taken as the starting point of the investigation. As regards the corpora, the lack of spoken records up to almost the presentday restricts the investigation of previous stages of the language to written material. Previous scholarship has nevertheless pointed out that some written domains are more speech-like than others (e.g. letters in EModE, cf. Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003: 2) and therefore, in order to make the analysis as comprehensive as possible, a variety of text-types was selected. Table 6.3 summarises . Although they are outside the scope of the present investigation, it is worth pointing out that the double inflectional forms worser and lesser do not appear until the ME period (cf. Mustanoja 1960: 281). . In their studies on the competition between inflectional and periphrastic double forms, Kytö (1996: 128) and Kytö & Romaine (1997: 337) show that double forms are, at all periods, notably less frequent than their simple counterparts.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.8 (142)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Table 6.3. Corpora and double comparative forms across periods Periods Corpora

No. No. double forms words/corpora [tokens/thousand words]

ME

4,370,000

106 [0.02]

8,545,374

56 [0.007]

14,411,584

14 [0.0009]

97,626,093

47 [0.0005]

ME part of the Helsinki Corpus, Corpus of ME Prose and Verse EModE EModE part of the Helsinki Corpus, CEEC, EModE part of the Lampeter Corpus, Corpus of English Dialogues, Corpus of EModE drama LModE ARCHER (British part), the ZEN and the Corpus of Late Modern English Drama and Fiction PDE BNC

the corpora used in this study and provides the number of double periphrastic comparatives attested in each of the periods analysed. The analysis of double forms across periods suggests that, in general, the occurrence of double periphrastic comparatives is in some way associated with a number of linguistic factors. These factors – as well as the way in which they are related to the distribution of double periphrastic form across the different periods of the language – are described in more detail in the sections below. . Second term of comparison In my data, double forms seem to combine with a second term of comparison that sets a high reference point – which the double form is compared with, and which it (often metaphorically) exceeds (see (7)–(10) below): (7) Ryght so herd he a voys that said syr launcelot more harder than is the stone (. . .) and more naked and barer than is the leef of the fygge tree (CMEPV.CAXT.MD.) (8) þis sterre þat þus was schewed is no-þing liche to þe sterres þat be peynted here in diuers plasys: for hit hadde many long strakes and beemes, more brennyng and more liŠter þan a bronde of fuyre, and as a Egle fleyng and betyng þe eyr with his wynges (CMEPV.ANON.TK.) (9) King of France Up princes! And with spirit of honour edged More sharper than your swords, hie to the field (EMODD.SHAK.H5.III,v) (10) what ere she were hearing of thy distresse, could she forbeare to pitty thee? No, no, were her hart more harder then the Diamond (CED.ANON.MR.)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.9 (143)

Chapter 6. Double periphrastic comparatives in English 

All the examples above share a common trait, namely, that the element/individual described by the double comparative form (e.g. Sir Launcelot / the princes’ commitment to the fight / a star / her heart) is set against another element (e.g. a stone / a sword / fire / a diamond). This element possesses the compared adjectival quality to a high degree – as shown by the fact that the latter constitutes one of its permanent properties. Witness, in this respect, the definitions that the OED provides for stone (in relation to more harder in (7)), fire (in relation to more lighter in (8) above), sword (in relation to more sharper in (9)), or diamond (in (10) above): (11) The natural agency or active principle operative in combustion; popularly conceived as a substance visible in the form of flame or of ruddy glow or incandescence (OED, fire, n.) A weapon adapted for cutting and thrusting, consisting of a handle or hilt with a cross-guard, and a straight or curved blade with either one or two sharp edges and a sharp point (OED, sword, n.) A piece of rock or hard mineral substance (other than metal) of a small or moderate size (OED, stone, n.) A very hard and brilliant precious stone, consisting of pure carbon crystallized in regular octahedrons and allied forms (in the native state usually with convex surfaces), and either colourless or variously tinted. It is the most brilliant and valuable of precious stones, and the hardest substance known (OED, diamond, n.)

A similar explanation applies to examples (12) and (13) below – although in this case we are not dealing with the comparison of adjectival qualities but of nominal properties. Neither founder nor harlot are normally considered gradable nouns (i.e. someone either is or is not a harlot / the founder of a religious community); however, the context coerces them into gradable interpretations where they hyperbolically stand for a high degree of ‘harlotness’ and ‘founderness’ – that the double comparative exceeds. (12) These maner of wymmen whiche take to theyr peramours and loue suche folke, I hold them of none extyme ne valewe, but that they be more gretter harlottes than they that ben dayly at the bordell (CMEPV.TOUR.KN.) (13) In consideration whereof if it may please your goodness (. . .) to be meane and sewter for your owne power Pryory, that it maye be preserved and stond, you shalbe a more higher Founder to vs than he that first founded oure Howse (CEEC.MESS.LET.)

Now compare examples (7)–(10) above with (14)–(15) below.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.10 (144)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

(14) But the serpent was sotyller than all the beastes of the felde which ye Lorde God had made, and sayd vnto the woman (HEL.ANON.OT.) (15) the Sickness of the Soul, since we do not think those whose Bodies are distempered to be worthy of our Hate, but rather of our Compassion, much less are those over whom Vice, more cruel than any bodily Distemper, hath gain’d the Ascendant to be adjudged so, but are rather to be looked upon as Subjects of our Pity (HEL.PRES.BO.)

In these cases, the entity referred to in the than-phrase (i.e. beasts, distemper) does not possess the compared quality as one of its inherent properties (cf. the OED definitions below): (16) A living being, an animal. . . still widely applied in dialect and colloquial use, including e.g. newts, insects, centipedes. a. In early times, explicitly including man. Obs. b. In later times, applied to the lower animals, as distinct from man (OED, beast, n.) Derangement or disturbance of the ‘humour’ or ‘temper’ (according to mediæval physiology regarded as due to disturbance in the bodily ‘humours’ . . .); a being out of humour; ill humour, ill temper; uneasiness; disaffection. Deranged or disordered condition of the body or mind (formerly regarded as due to disordered state of the humours); ill health, illness, disease (OED, distemper, n.)

This suggests that, in comparison to examples (8)–(10) above, the forms sotyller and more cruel are not set against a similarly high standard of comparison. .. Distribution across periods The data analysis shows that the combination of double forms with this type of second term of comparison is almost exclusively restricted to the earlier periods of the language (i.e. ME and EModE see Table 6.4). There is one token of a similar construction in LModE. In these cases, however, the double forms are premodified by the adverbial intensifier much, which suggests that this particular example is slightly different from the cases examined above. Table 6.4. Distribution of double comparatives with high-degree than-phrases in the corpora Period

Tokens/total no. of examples

ME EModE LModE PDE

32 (30%) / 106 9 (16%) / 56 1 (7%) / 14 0 (0%) / 47

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.11 (145)

Chapter 6. Double periphrastic comparatives in English 

(17) Eccles [In a confidential tone.] I’ve got a friend waiting for me outside. [Goes up R.] I want to have a word with – And may you never “know how much more sharper than a serpint’s tooth it is to have” a marriageable daughter! (LMODF.ROBE.CA.III)

It should be noted at this point that simple inflectional and periphrastic forms also appear in combination with this type of high-degree second term of comparison (see examples (18)–(19) below): (18) I learned by inquiry of the skillful Jeweller that cut it, that it was so far from having the softness of an Emerald, that he found it harder than blew Saphyrs themselves, which yet are Gems of great hardness, and by some reputed second to none, but Diamonds (HEL.BOYL.EM.) (19) The form in that case, doth not perhaps much add, or diminish; But to prefer any of the two last, before the first, is to deny that faith and experience which all good History hath taught us; And, as the case stands in this Nation, where Monarchy more ancient than History it self, and so venerable and acceptable to the spirit and genius of the whole body of the People (LAMP.ANON.EMA.) (20) OED’s entry for history: 3. That branch of knowledge which deals with past events, as recorded in writings or otherwise ascertained; the formal record of the past, esp. of human affairs or actions; the study of the formation and growth of communities and nations. (. . .) ‘Ancient History’ is also humorously used in the sense of ‘matters which are out of date, or which no longer form part of practical politics’, and colloq. of comparatively recent events which are regarded as nevertheless far back in a person’s experience (OED, history, n.)

Thus, in order to substantiate the (supposed) tendency of double forms for occurring with this type of than-phrases, I compared the proportion of than-phrases (both ‘ordinary’ and ‘high degree’) collocating with double periphrastic and simple periphrastic forms across periods. Table 6.5 summarises the results (for ME and EModE). The results indicate that double periphrastic forms occur more frequently with a second term of comparison, regardless of whether it conveys a high degree of comparison or not. In addition, note that the figures for ‘high-degree’ thanphrases are notably higher with double than with simple inflectional forms (e.g. 30% vs. 2%; 20% vs. 0.5% in ME and EModE, respectively).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.12 (146)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Table 6.5. Simple and double periphrastic comparatives with/out a than-phrase in ME and EModE ME Without With Total than-phrase than-phrase116 Simple comp. 1108 (72%) Double perip. 54 comp. (51%)

429 (28%) / 33 (2%) 52 (49%) / 32 (30%)

1537 (100%) 106 (100%)

EMODE115 Without With Total than-phrase than-phrase 4638 (88%) 20 (49%)

605 (12%) / 25 (0.5%) 21 (51%) / 8 (20%)

5243 (100%) 41 (100%)

. Establishment in discourse Across periods, double periphrastic forms are attested when the quality under comparison is set by the context (as ‘given’ information; see Brown & Yule 1987: 171). The established quality often takes the form of a comparative (rather than of a positive) adjective. This comparative form denotes a high standard of the adjectival quality – from which the double comparative scales upwards (see examples (21) and (22) below): (21) For all yonge folke that troue and be counsailed by the techinge and ensaumples of the olde wise (. . .). So that hereby is a good ensaumple how euery yonge man or yonge woman owithe to receyue the doctrine and techinge of hem that bene thaire eldres, and wiser thanne they; (. . .) but the yonge folkes now a dayes lust not to do there after, but they haue dyspite whanne they be blamed of thayre folye, and whanne they be more wyser thanne suche as be moche more cunninge, and as haue seyn the cours of the worlde longe tyme afore thaire birthe (CMEPV.TOUR.KN.)

The text elaborates on the benefits of having young people be advised by their elders. The wisdom of the elders is the element around which the use of the comparative forms spins. The (compared) quality is first established by means of the positive adjective (wise). Then, the simple inflectional comparative enhances the greater extent to which the quality is possessed by the elders (wiser, i.e. “greater in wisdom”) and, at the same time, it serves as the basis on which the double comparative builds up a higher degree of the quality (more wyser). (22) No rearde ne ssel þer by y-hyerd / bote. wo: wo. wo hy habbeþ: and wo hy gredeþ. Þe dyeules tormentors pyneþ. and to-gydere hy byeþ y-pyned. ne neure . For this analysis I considered only the dramatic subsection of the corpus, dramatic texts being the genre in which the proportion of double forms is highest (41 out of the 56 tokens). . The table reads: “from the 429 tokens of a simple periphrastic comparative with a thanphrase, 33 examples convey a very high standard of comparison, etc.”

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.13 (147)

Chapter 6. Double periphrastic comparatives in English 

ne ssel by ende of pyne: oþer reste. þellich is helle / an a þousend zyþe worse. And þis ich yzez ine helle / and a þousendziþe more worse (CMEPV.MITC.AY.)

Likewise, in (22) above, the progression of comparison is symmetrically established. The text echoes the traditional description of the torments of hell (þellich is helle / an a þousend zyþe worse). However, the narrator, in his aim of getting his moralising message across, claims to have seen its real nature, emphasising that what he has seen of it is much worse (a þousendziþe more worse) than what tradition supposes (cf. also (23) below): (23) Touchstone Why, do not your courtier’s hands sweat? and is not the grease of a mutton as wholesome as the sweat of a man? Shallow, shallow. A better117 instance, I say; come. Corin Besides, our hands are hard. Touchstone Your lips wil feele them the sooner. (. . .) Touchstone Shallow a-gen: a more sounder instance, come (EMODD.SHAK.AYL.III, ii)

.. Distribution across periods As regards the incidence of this factor across periods, one should note that the bulk of examples comes, like in Section 4.1.1 above, from ME and EModE (see Table 6.6): Table 6.6. Double comparatives and establishment in discourse across periods Period


ME EModE LModE PDE

36 (34%) / 106 10 (18%) / 56 0 (0%) / 14 0 (0%) / 47

. Adverbial premodifiers Finally, the data analysis reveals that double periphrastic forms show a tendency to combine with degree intensifiers (see (24) to (26) below). Usually, the intensifier appears as the pre-modifiers of the comparative form – although cf. example (25) below: . Following Halliday (2004 [1985]: 572) and Hoey (2001: 41), I consider instances of previous mention in discourse not only cases of exact lexical repetition, but also examples in which a cohesive link is (as in this example) established by a partial synonym (i.e. better/more sounder).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.14 (148)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

(24) and all her wille and her cause was acordyng in one: than þei were moche more gladdere and more feruent in her weye (CMEPV.ANON.TK.) (25) King Away, he growes more weaker still: I will do it, Or heaven forget me ever (EMODD.FLET.ML.IV, i) (26) Bruce Yeah well what class are you in now? PS00 Mr . . . Bruce Now what, what, how long, how many years have you been here, this class? PS00 Er three years. Five. Five Bruce Five years? PS00 Yeah (. . .) PS00 Who can remember that police dog coming here? Yeah? We’ll he’s still working but cos that dog is a lot older and a lot more grumpier. They can’t take the dog to the schools any more (BNC.FM789)

.. Distribution across periods I observed above that the factors described in Section 4.1–4.2 above (i.e. a highdegree second-term of comparison/establishment of the quality under comparison) seemed to be operative in ME and EModE only. By contrast, examples of double forms in combination with intensifiers are attested in later periods as well (see Table 6.7): Table 6.7. Double periphrastic comparatives and intensifiers across periods Period


ME EModE LModE PDE

8 (8%) / 106 7 (13%) / 56 1 (7%) / 14 17 (36%) / 47

There is an interesting difference between the earlier (i.e. ME/EModE) and the present-day examples. In ME and EModE, double forms exclusively combine with amplifiers of the subtype of ‘boosters’, which, as Quirk et al. (1985: 590) state, “denote a high degree, a high point on a scale” (see examples (27)–(29) below): (27) Eccles [In a confidential tone.] I’ve got a friend waiting for me outside. [Goes up R.] I want to have a word with – And may you never “know how much more sharper than a serpint’s tooth it is to have” a marriageable daughter! (LMODF.ROBE.CA. III)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.15 (149)

Chapter 6. Double periphrastic comparatives in English 

(28) Captive-bred Pretty tetras, have a much more brighter colouration than wildcaught specimens, the latter of which tend to lose this brightness over a period of time when kept in an aquarium (BNC.CLT717) (29) Soto If it be by my meanes let me; I am glad I am not kill’d, and far more gladder My gentleman-like humours out: I feele ‘tis dangerous, And to be a gentleman, is to be kill’d twice a week (EMODD.FLET.WP. I, iii)

Boosters such as much (and, to a lesser extent, a lot) also account for an important number of these premodified examples in PDE (10 out of the 17 tokens). However, unlike in previous periods, PDE double forms also combine with downtowners118 (e.g. slightly, a bit; 7 examples, 41% of the premodified double comparative examples; see (30)–(31) below): (30) PS000 He’s not much of a character, he’s sort of a cardboard character isn’t he, he’s just the other man, the man that they want to marry Juliet. He’s we don’t really get to know him as a person PS000 So let’s see if there’s anyone a bit more meatier and we get to know their character a bit more (BNC.JK5222) (31) Terence Now right! Well I am going to have to look at them both. And see if I, I like them both. There’s there’s A lot of work gone into those. . . Erm if I am honest I think I found Holly’s easier to understand on a first reading but may be because I think perhaps read it. Perhaps in a slightly more clearer way than you did (BNC.KE21619)

In (31) above, Terence has to decide which story is best, Lucy’s or Holly’s. He seems to prefer Holly’s due to its clearer style. In this context, the double comparative does not emphasise that one of the stories is of a far superior quality than the other but it just establishes that one is better expressed. (In fact, the quality of the stories is so much alike that later in the conversation he admits that he has to make up his mind again). As in the previous sections, the relevance of the observation was tested by means of comparing the frequency distribution of these boosters with both simple and double comparative constructions. Table 6.8 indicates that double periphrastic comparatives collocate slightly more frequently with intensifiers than their simple (inflectional and periphrastic) counterparts in ME and EModE:119 . Note that this combination is attested in the BNC spoken subcorpus only. . The chi-square test shows that the difference is very highly significant (p < 0.001) for both the ME and the EModE period.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.16 (150)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Table 6.8. Simple and double comparative forms with/out adverbial intensifiers in ME and EModE Without intensifiers [tokens/ thousand words]

ME With intensifiers [tokens/ thousand words]

Total

Without intensifiers [tokens/ thousand words]

EMODE120 With intensifiers [tokens/ thousand words]

Total

Simple 6744 (97%) comp. [1.5]

209 (3%) [0.05]

6953 494 (98%) (100%) [0.06]

11 (2%) [0.001]

505 (100%)

Double 98 (92%) comp. [0.02]

8 (8%) [0.002]

106 34 (83%) (100%) [0.004]

7 (17%) [0.0008]

41 (100%)

As for Present-day English, I initially tried to compare their frequency with both simple and double comparatives in the BNC. However, the BNC retrieval software did not allow for grammatical searches unless they were part of a collocation and the first item of the collocation was lexically specified (i.e. it was possible to run a search to find all the examples of [more + AJC (=comparative adjective)] but no data was retrieved when [AJC (=comparative adjective)] was introduced as the search term). Therefore, I could not obtain the total number of inflectional comparatives of the subcorpus. Furthermore, the size of the BNC (c100 million words) made any manual search an impossible option. As a partial solution, I compared the proportion of inflectional and periphrastic forms with and without intensifiers in other corpora121 of a more manageable size: the FLOB and the LOB (in relation to the double forms attested in the BNC written corpus) and the London-Lund Corpus (with regard to the spoken double forms), assuming that the figures obtained from the analysis of these corpora would roughly correspond to those of the BNC, had this latter corpus been of a similar size. The breakdown of the data is given in Table 6.9. Moving on to the results, the comparison of the BNC written data with that of FLOB and LOB needs to be taken as merely indicative, for, as noted above, there are 8 tokens of double forms in the BNC written subcorpus and in only 2 of them the double form is premodified. As for the spoken data, the results suggest that adverbial premodifiers (or, at least, the adverbial premodifiers that occur with double forms in the BNC) are still . Again, the data for double periphrastic forms in EModE is based on the drama subcorpus only. . The only intensifiers considered in the analysis were those occurring in combination with double forms in the BNC, i.e. much, a lot, slightly and a bit.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.17 (151)


Table 6.9. Simple/double comparative constructions in (written) British PDE with/out intensifiers (LOB/FLOB) Simple comp. without intensifiers [tokens/thousand words]

Simple comp. with intensifiers [tokens/thousand words]

2651 (95%) [2.1] 2175 (94%) [1.7]

131 (5%) [0.1] 139 (6%) [0.1]

LOB122 FLOB

Total 2782 (100%) 2314 (100%)

Table 6.10. Simple/double comparative constructions in (spoken) PDE with/out intensifiers (LLUND corpus) Without intensifiers With amplifiers [tokens/thousand [tokens/thousand words] words]

With downtowners Total [tokens/thousand words]

London-Lund 592 (84%) simple comp. forms [0.5]

91 (13%) [0.07]

19 (3%) [0.03]

702 (100%)

BNC double comp. forms

10 (27%) [0.001]

7 (19%) [0.00007]

37 (100%)

20 (54%) [0.0002]

more strongly associated with double periphrastic than with simple inflectional and periphrastic forms. . Linguistic distribution of double comparatives: Concluding remarks Table 6.11 summarises the distribution of double periphrastic comparatives across the linguistic factors discussed in Section 4.1–4.3 above. Table 6.11. Linguistic distribution of double periphrastic comparatives across periods Factors 1. With a second term of comparison expressing a very high quality 2. Quality previously established by the context 3. With intensifiers 4. No apparent reason for using a double form Total

ME 32 (30%) 36 (34%) 8 (8%) 30 (28%) 106 (100%)

EMODE

LMODE

9 (16%) 1? (7%) 10 (18%) 7 (13%) 30 (53%) 56 (100%)

0 (0%) 1 (7%) 12 (86%) 14 (100%)

PDE 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 17 (36%) 30 (64%) 47 (100%)

. The reader should be alerted to the fact that there is a time gap of c30 years between the FLOB and LOB. The LOB was compiled in the 1960s, whereas the FLOB corpus dates from the 1990s. Any differences in the distribution of double forms in these two corpora would therefore be useful in order to track change in progress.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28



F: CI29906.tex / p.18 (152)


What does this distribution tell us about the use of double forms? And, more importantly, to what extent does it correlate with the hypotheses put forward in Section 2 above? Two out of the three factors examined (i.e. high-degree second term of comparison and establishment in discourse) seem to provide support to the idea that double periphrastic comparatives are indeed more emphatic structures than their simple (inflectional and periphrastic) counterparts. Note, however, that this explanation is not fully compatible with the data. First, one may interpret the fact that double comparatives co-occur with intensifiers (factor 3) as a counterargument to the hypothesis, as it could be suggested that it is the presence of the intensifier that gives the double form a higher comparative load. Consider, for instance, example (32) below: (32) Bruce Now what, what, how long, how many years have you been here, this class? PS00 Er three years. Five. Five Bruce Five years? PS00 Yeah (. . .) PS00 Who can remember that police dog coming hesere? Yeah? We’ll he’s still working but cos that dog is a lot older and a lot more grumpier. They can’t take the dog to the schools any more (BNC.FM789)

The two qualities attributed to the dog (old and grumpy) are coded in two different comparative constructions (i.e. a simple inflectional and a double periphrastic comparative) and joined together by means of coordination. According to Schachter’s Coordinate Constituent Constrain, in order for two elements to form a coordinate structure, they must not only “belong to the same syntactic category” but also have “the same semantic function” (Schachter 1977: 90). Applying this idea to the example above, one may argue that either comparative form of the utterance carries a similar comparative load (that of the inflectional form older), which in both cases is further emphasised by the amplifier a lot. It has also been noted above that in PDE some double comparatives are premodified by downtoners (7 examples, see (30)–(31) above). As Quirk et al. note, downtowners “have a lowering effect, usually scaling downwards from an assumed norm” (1985: 590). This “lowering effect” is clearly at odds with any emphatic meaning (cf. in this connection Paradis’ (1997) idea of semantic harmony between collocates). Furthermore, the data shows that there are a noticeable number of examples in each period for which no explanation in terms of emphasis – or, more generally, in terms of any of the factors mentioned above – can explain the occurrence of

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.19 (153)


a double form (see examples (33)–(34) below). Take, for instance, example (33) below: (33) PS0CR Henry, you’re going the wrong way, as usual. Ginny This way, it’s more easier to see, not quite so many leaves PS0CR Good boy (BNC.KC93522)

Henry, one of Ginny’s dogs, strays and steps into a path with thick vegetation. Ginny urges him to follow her into a path that seems to be clearer of vegetation. The phrase not quite so many leaves indicates that the visibility of the path that Ginny took has improved; however, it also means that there are still leaves that block the sight and therefore, more easier cannot be interpreted as implying that the visibility is far better than before. The same line of reasoning (i.e. double forms being used in contexts where simple forms could be used) applies to examples (34)–(35) below: (34) ‘How had she the Assurance to wear a Gown which young Madam Western had given to Mother! If one of us was to wear it, I think,’ says she, ‘I myself have the best Right; but I warrant you think it belongs to your Beauty. I suppose you think yourself more handsomer than any of us’ (LMODF.FIEL.TJ.) (35) “That ain’t as good a word as circumwented, Sammy,” said Mr. Weller gravely. “Think not?” said Sam. “Nothin’ like it,” replied his father. “But don’t you think it means more?” inquired Sam. “Vell p’raps it is a more tenderer word,” said Mr. Weller, after a few moments’ reflection. “Go on, Sammy” (LMODF.DICK.PP.)

Finally, a close look at Table 6.11 reflects a change in the linguistic distribution of double forms around 1700. From the three factors that were associated with the occurrence of double forms in ME and EModE, only one, i.e. the presence of adverbial premodifiers, seems to be still operative in the present-day.123 This raises an important question, i.e. the extent to which the other two factors (second term of comparison/establishment in discourse) can be consider valid linguistic criteria across periods (as opposed to a mere artefact of the corpora). On the whole, one may conclude that, while a linguistic analysis of double forms provides us with some answers as regards the differential nature of double (as opposed to simple) comparative forms, the analysis is by no means completely satisfactory, as it unearths a number of interesting (and, so far, unexplainable) ‘gaps’ in the history of double forms that need addressing. One possible explanation for these ‘gaps’ could be the appearance in the language of . Note, also, the comments above on the occurrence of downtowners as modifiers of double periphrastic forms in PDE.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.20 (154)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

a construction whose semantics is similar to that of double periphrastic forms and which could have taken over the environments formerly occupied by double periphrastic forms. This hypothesis is explored in the next section.

. The influence of even on the development of double periphrastic comparatives Table 6.12 (a modified version of Table 6.3 above) charts the distribution of double periphrastic forms across periods. Table 6.12. Frequency of double periphrastic forms across periods Period

No. double forms

No. of words in corpus

No. double forms/thousand words

ME EModE LModE PDE

106 56 14 47

4,370,000 8,545,374 14,411,584 97,626,093

0.02 0.007 0.0009 0.0005

ME is the period in which double periphrastic forms are most frequent (0.03), while PDE has the lowest frequency rates. The data also shows that the decrease of double periphrastic forms started already in EModE. One may thus wonder whether the reasons noted by earlier scholarship for the disappearance of double forms – i.e. the influence of standardisation and prescriptivism – may provide a better account for the phenomenon or whether, on the contrary, factors other than sociolinguistics should also be taken into consideration. In line with the suggestions put forward above with regard to the connection between iconicity and reduplication (see Section 3 above), I argued that some examples of double periphrastic comparatives seemed to convey a more emphatic meaning than their simple (inflectional and periphrastic) counterparts in ME and EModE (see Section 4.2 above).124 In this connection, it could be suggested that the combination of even and a simple periphrastic comparative is, in many cases, an accurate paraphrase of the meaning of double forms (see examples (36) and (37) below): (36) These maner of wymmen whiche take to theyr peramours and loue suche folke, I hold them of none extyme ne valewe, but that they be more gretter harlottes [→ even more great/greater harlots] than they that ben dayly at the bordell (CMEPV.TOUR.KN.) . It has already been mentioned that the data available for OE is too limited to draw any definitive conclusion on the distribution of double forms.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.21 (155)


(37) In consideration whereof if it may please your goodness (. . .) to be meane and sewter for your owne power Pryory, that it maye be preserved and stond, you shalbe a more higher Founder [→ even higher/more high Founder] to vs than he that first founded oure Howse (CEEC.MESS.LET.)

The semantic similarity between both constructions (i.e. [even + simple comparative] and double comparison) is closely related to the meaning of even. As Shannon (1978: 38) observes, even is an operator that maps upwards between two points (A and B) of a given scale; the starting point (A) of the mapping being placed neither in the low nor in the medial section of the scale, but rather higher up on the scale (otherwise the sentence would be considered odd or ungrammatical; e.g. ?This is even good). Applying this general idea to comparatives, one may suppose that if the quality that the even-proposition takes as the starting point carries by default the idea of a “high degree of a quality X”, then, the even-proposition itself will convey an additional comparative load – which is very much in line with the semantics of double comparatives. In view of this, one could tentatively hypothesise that the appearance of the [even + simple comparative] construction may also have had an influence on the (virtual) loss of double periphrastic forms, i.e. it may be that the combination of even with simple comparatives gradually superseded double forms in contexts where the speaker wants to convey a very high comparative load, spreading to other contexts later on. The present section will explore this hypothesis by means of a study of the rise and the development of even as modifier of comparative constructions. . Analysis of the data Section 2 above showed that double periphrastic comparatives appeared in OE. However, given that the number of both simple and double periphrastic forms attested in the latter period is very limited and that previous scholarship (Kytö & Romaine 1997: 339) point to ME as the period in which inflectional and periphrastic forms were most evenly distributed, I decided to take ME as the starting point for my analysis of the [even + simple comparative] construction. With the aim of carrying out a coherent study, the corpora selected were those used in previous sections of this chapter. I observed above (see Section 4.3.1) that double comparatives do occur with adverbial intensifiers – i.e. much, far, still – throughout the different periods of the language. Table 6.13 provides further information about the distribution of double forms, as it shows that the [even + simple comparative] construction and double comparison are in complementary distribution (i.e. double comparatives are never attested in combination with even). Also interesting is to observe that,



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.22 (156)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Table 6.13. Even as a modifier of simple and double comparatives Period

Even + simple infl. comp.

No. / thousand words

Even + simple perip. comp.


Even + double comp.

ME EModE LModE PDE

0 3 62 1961

0 0.0004 0.004 0.02

0 0 57 3609

0 0 0.003 0.04

0 0 0 0

Table 6.14. Distribution of double periphrastic comparatives and the [even + simple comparative] construction Period

Even + simple (infl./perip.) comp.


Double perip. comp. (without intensifiers)


ME EModE LModE PDE

0 3 119 5570

0 0.0004 0.007 0.06

98 49 13 30

0.03 0.007 0.0009 0.0003

although some examples are found in EModE, even does not seem to become very frequent as a modifier of inflectional and periphrastic forms until LModE; Presentday English being the period in which the proportion of even in combination with simple comparative forms is highest. The following table charts the historical distribution of both double periphrastic comparison and the [even + simple comparative] construction.125 (In order to eliminate the (possible) influence that the presence of intensifiers other than even may have had on double comparatives, those examples where double forms combine with intensifiers have been excluded from the tally). The results are very much in line with those illustrated in Table 6.12 (i.e. double periphrastic forms are more frequent in ME than in other periods). They also show that the most significant decrease in the frequency of double periphrastic forms occurred already in EModE – i.e. earlier than the establishment of the [even + simple comparative] construction. Finally, Table 6.15 summarises the diachronic distribution of double forms with and without intensifiers. In spite of the lack of statistically relevant data for the LModE period, the proportion of double periphrastic forms in combination with adverbial particles seems to increase as one moves towards PDE (i.e. 8% in ME as against 36% in . The figure for simple comparatives includes both inflectional and periphrastic forms.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28

F: CI29906.tex / p.23 (157)


Table 6.15. Double periphrastic comparatives and intensifiers Period

Double forms (with intensifiers)

Double forms (without intensifiers)

Total

ME EModE LModE PDE

8 (8%) 7 (12%) 1 (7%) 17 (35%)

98 (92%) 49 (88%) 13 (93%) 30 (65%)

106 (100%) 56 (100%) 14 (100%) 47 (100%)

PDE). Note, however, than in 7 out of the 17 cases of premodified PDE double forms, the intensifiers combining with the double comparatives are of the downtowner type (which, in its turn, may indicate that the lack of emphatic meaning of the former). . Conclusion The results of the analysis do not provide convincing support to the hypothesis that the rise of even as a modifier of (simple) comparative constructions may have had a noticeable influence on the disappearance of double periphrastic forms from written domains, as they show that the frequency of double periphrastic comparatives started to decrease before even began to spread as a modifier of simple periphrastic forms.

. Concluding remarks As observed above, from an iconic perspective, “more of the same form implies more of the same meaning” (Lakoff & Johnson 1980). According to this idea, then, double periphrastic comparatives should be considered more emphatic comparative constructions that their simple inflectional and periphrastic counterparts. Nevertheless, the present chapter has shown that this is neither the full story nor the most accurate one. The claim that double periphrastic comparatives are distributionally different from the simple comparative forms in terms of emphasis only holds for a limited number of examples in ME and EModE, where the occurrence of double forms appears to be linked to number of contextual factors (i.e. presence of adverbial intensifiers and of a second term of comparison conveying very high reference point or of the compared quality) that shift in importance as one advances into the modern period. From LModE onwards, however, their comparative force is very much in line with that of simple periphrastic forms. The presence of downtowners as premodifiers of double comparative forms in Present-day English seems to provide further evidence in favour of this claim.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:28



F: CI29906.tex / p.24 (158)


One could hypothesise that an (alleged) loss of emphatic meaning could have played an important role in the virtual disappearance of double comparatives in LModE; i.e. once they became semantically similar to simple forms, their presence in the language may have been felt as no longer necessary. This hypothesis is, however, not very plausible as the data analysis demonstrates that double periphrastic comparatives seem to be re-appearing in specific written domains in Present-day English. Another tentative intra-linguistic hypothesis for the disappearance of double periphrastic forms is that other emphatic comparative structures could have gradually spread in LModE, taking over the environments formerly occupied by double periphrastic forms. In keeping with this idea, I analysed the rise and spread of even as modifier of simple comparative constructions, for the pre-position of this particle to simple comparatives appears to give these latter an emphatic meaning very similar to that of double comparatives. The results showed that even did not established itself as a modifier of comparatives until the eighteenth century, while the frequency of double periphrastic forms started to decrease already in EModE. Consequently, I suggested that the spread of the even construction could not have been the main reason for the disappearance of double forms. (In fact, one may claim a reverse cause-effect process: given the semantic similarities between both constructions, the disappearance of double periphrastic comparatives may have favoured the spread of the [even + comparative] construction). On the whole, then, one may conclude that linguistic factors cannot solely account for the changes which occurred in the development of double periphrastic comparatives in a satisfactory manner. As noted in Section 1 above, previous scholarship has commented on the impact of social factors (i.e. standardisation and prescriptivism) on the development of double forms. This claim, however, has never been either further developed or tested against the data. In this respect, the results obtained in this chapter indicate that the decline of double periphrastic forms started in EModE (in other words, earlier than the influence of the eighteenth-century prescriptive tendencies were operative). Further research on the issue is provided in the next chapter by means of a detailed investigation of the socio-stylistic distribution of double periphrastic forms.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.1 (159)

chapter 

Double periphrastic comparatives A socio-stylistic analysis

.

Introduction126

The previous chapter suggested that intra-linguistic factors cannot satisfactorily account for the changes that occurred in the distribution of double periphrastic comparatives in the history of English. This chapter aims at shedding more light on the issue by means of a study of the socio-stylistic evolution of these double forms. As noted in the previous chapter (Ch. 6, Section 1), a number of comments on the social evolution of double periphrastic forms can be found in the previous literature on comparison. These comments, however, focus on two particular periods of their evolution; i.e. EModE (when they frequently appeared in literary language) and Present-day English, when they are said to survive mainly in popular speech (Kytö 1996: 129). Further research on the topic is therefore needed in order to not only obtain a more complete picture of the socio-stylistic development of double periphrastic forms, but also to provide an answer to the questions raised at the end of the previous chapter on the nature of these forms. This chapter provides such an investigation. For the sake of consistency with previous analyses, the corpora used in the following sections are similar to those analysed in Chapter 6 above (see Ch. 1, Section 2.2 for a list of the corpora). Before proceeding further, however, it is important to note that the lack of spoken records restricts the material examined for the earlier periods of the language (i.e. ME to LModE)127 to written texts (philosophical or scientific essays, religious

. Unless otherwise stated, the emphasis (i.e. italics/bold) in the examples provided through the chapter is mine (VGD). . The only exception being The Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760 (cf. Kytö & Walker 2006). As its title indicates, the Corpus features oral texts. Within these texts, the editors make a distinction between ‘constructed’ dialogue (i.e. drama, fictional or didactic dialogue) and ‘authentic’ dialogue (i.e. trial proceedings, witness’ depositions). Note, however, that even in the cases of ‘authentic dialogues’, their ‘oralness’ is to a certain extent compromised by the degree of accuracy adhered to by the officials transcribing the texts.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.2 (160)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

treatises, private letters, literary texts, etc.). This poses some complications as regards the social analysis of double forms for, as previous scholarship has shown, the relation between literary and ‘real-life’ language is not a straightforward one: (1) To speak of a novel as ‘mirroring’ life is, indeed, seriously misleading in relation to questions of style, since every work of literature contains in every word a selective and purposive nature that is quite different from the haphazard and arbitrary quality of life itself (. . .) [I]t seems probable that the whole concept of realism as applied to fictional speech is often based on an inadequate or inaccurate notion of what spontaneous speech is really like (Page 1973: 1, 3) If we are to read anything written between Chaucer in the late medieval period and Johnson in the eighteenth century, we have to be prepared to set aside some of the stylistic assumptions we have acquired from modern literature. Writers in the earlier period did not turn immediately to the range and variety of speech as the central influence on their style (Gilbert 1979: 6) The point should perhaps be emphasised that linguistic realism is not attempted in literature (Blake 1981: 14)

In other words, without further investigation, one cannot straightforwardly assume that what is being portrayed as the words of a character coming from a particular social group is a close reflection of real-life linguistic practices. This aspect will be taken into consideration in the analyses of double comparatives carried out in the following sections. . Double comparatives in Old English The Anglo-Saxon period saw the development of the English prose style, especially under the patronage of King Alfred (Godden 1992: 513). Interpreting the Viking attacks during the early years of his reign as a punishment “for their intellectual sloth” (Scragg 2001: 90), King Alfred tried to improve the cultural level of his kingdom by instigating the translation of a series of Latin texts (“the ones most necessary for men to know”).128 Religion played a crucial role in this incipient Anglo-Saxon cultural development. As observed above, King Alfred attributed the difficulties that his people were enduring to a divine revenge; note, also, that the scribal schools were placed . For-þi me þingð betere, ˙gif g˙eow swa þincð, ðæt we eac sume be˙c, þa þe niedbeþyrfsta syn eallum mannum to witanne þa we þa on þæt ˙geþeode wendon þe we ealle ˙gecnawan mæ˙ge (King Alfred’s letter to bishop Wulfsige; Scragg 2001: 92).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.3 (161)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives

Table 7.1. Double periphrastic comparatives in OE OE examples

Translation

Text

Ma wyrse Swiðor (. . .) eadmodra Swiðor bettra Mare heare

More worse More humbler More better More higher

DEFE.LS. ÆLF.HO. FARM.RW. ANON.NI.

in religious institutions and, as a consequence, a good deal of the translations made from Latin dealt with religious and/or philosophical matters. Furthermore, it was through religious writing that the authors of the period could best promote the Anglo-Saxon culture; the possibility of translating Latin texts into the vernacular ultimately demonstrating that, similarly to Latin, OE could be a vehicle to transmit culture.129 In this respect, Godden (1992: 514; see also Ch. 6, Section 2 above) remarks that OE writers, although in many cases starting from Latin prose models, tried to create a prose style based on native idiom. OE double periphrastic comparatives occur exclusively in religious texts (4 examples; see Table 7.1 and examples (2) to (5)). (2) gif lator syllan synn ys miccle ma wyrse ys (TOR.DEFE.LS.) “if the sin is admitted later, much more worse it is” (3) and he bið swa micele witlegra ætforan Godes gesihðe swa he swiðor ætforan him sylfum eadmodra bið (TOR.ÆLF.HO.) “and he will be so much fairer in the sight of God as he shall be more humbler before himself ” (4) hu miccle ma þ swiðor bettra is mon þonne scep forþon is alefed on reste-dagum god to doanne (TOR.FARM.RW.) “how much more better is a man than a sheep because he is allowed to do good on Sabbath” (5) Ac þeac þe hi wæron on swa mycelan wurðscipe wunigende swa þeah hi hæfdon mare heare geþanc to þam upplican rice þonne ænigum geglænge to hæbbone on eorðe (TOR.ANON.NI.) “and yet that they were living on so much worship that they had more higher consideration for the celestial kingdom than for any splendour to be had on earth”

Godden (1992: 520) claims that variations in register are not easily identified in OE prose. However, with regard to religious prose such as homilies, sermons or . The idea that English was suitable in this respect is supported by Godden’s (1992: 514) observation that OE authors hardly ever indicated that they encountered serious problems in translating Latin into the vernacular.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.4 (162)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

gospels – note that all OE double periphrastic comparatives occur in these text types – he suggests that “there is no reason to suppose that they represent a form of language close to speech or that they are in any way a record of discourse which originated in oral improvisation.” He also observes that, with the exception of the opening (men þa leofsta/leofan man; i.e. dearly beloved), the mode of address of these texts appears to be rather formal. (This, of course, does not mean that the writers did not try to adapt their writings in some way to popular audiences; e.g. Ælfric claims that he prefers to use “simple and very open” language in order that his writings reach simple and unlearned listeners/readers; Godden 1992: 521). In sum, the fact that OE double periphrastic forms appear in religious domains may indicate that, although perhaps also part of the everyday spoken language, they were not by any means considered vulgar or colloquial comparative devices, inappropriate for formal writing styles.130

. Double comparatives in Middle English . Introduction As mentioned before (see Ch. 6, Section 4 above), I found 106 instances of double periphrastic forms in ME, 102 of which occur in the The Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse (see Table 7.2). These works are mostly translations from texts written originally in French or Latin,131 for, at the time, the vernacular prose style was not fully developed. The wide range of registers from which these texts come (formal – e.g. historical or philosophical documents such as Gesta Romanorum or Secreta Secretorum – to popular – e.g. the York Plays) makes it difficult to associate the use of double periphrastic comparatives with a particular style. Likewise, it is not easy to ascertain the kind of audience to which these texts were addressed. An illustrative example of the problem is provided by the Three Kings of Cologne, an abridged English translation of John Hildesheim’s Historia Trium Regum, which, based on the gospel of St. Matthew (Hamilton 1985: 187; Horstmann 1988: xi; Boffey 2000: 36) narrates the story of the Three Wise Men. The main purpose of the story was the spiritual edification of a wide popular audience (in this respect, note that author of the book . Note, however, that the number of double periphrastic comparatives attested in OE is very limited, and therefore, that these remarks should be taken as merely suggestive. . To give some examples: The Conquest of Ireland and Gesta Romanorum are translations from Latin (Furnivall 1969; Herrtage 1879), while Caxton’s Blanchardyn and Englantine and Charles de Grete (based on the romance of Fierabras) or The Book of the Knight of la Tour-Landry are translations from French (Herrtage 1880–1881; Kellner 1890; Wright 1906: 14).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.5 (163)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

Table 7.2. Double periphrastic comparatives in ME Work

No. double comparatives

Morte Darthur Secreta secretorum Ayenbite of Inwit Three Kings of Cologne Lyf of the noble and Crysten prynce, Charles the Grete Gesta Romanorum York Plays Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry In Die Innocencium The Vision of Piers Plowman Paston Letters Blanchardyn and Eglantine The Ordinances of Worcester Lincoln diocese documents 1450–1544 English Conquest of Ireland The Three Kings’ Sons A Revelation of Love The works of John Metham Layamon’s Brut Thomas Usk’s Appeals Chaucer’s The Tale of Melibee Ludus Coventriae

31/32132 19 18 7 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

not only provides details of the splendour of the kings’ personal lifestyles but also supplies rather unsophisticated domestic information in order to bring the story close to the average man; Boffey 2000: 38). However, Horstmann observes that the style of the work is “heavy and embarrassed” (1988: viii), very much detached from the clearness and directedness required for texts intended to be read out loud (i.e. those targeting popular audiences). Furthermore, Boffey (2000: 45) notes that the first letters of each of the chapters of the manuscript, if read in sequence, produce the names of two women, Margareta Moningtown and Maud Stranslea. According to her, Margareta Moningtown was the abbess of the prestigious Franciscan nunnery of Aldgate c.1440. The fact that the acrostic would pass unnoticed if the text were to be read to an audience leads her to suppose that the Three Kings aims at “private readers whose contact was to be with written letters in a manuscript rather than with something read out loud” (Boffey 2000: 46). In its turn, this suggests that the book . 31 double comparatives are attested in the Winchester Ms version of Le Morte Darthur; 32 in Caxton’s edition of the same work.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.6 (164)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

was directed to a very select public, as both the reading skills and the money to obtain a manuscript were at the time restricted to an elite.133 So far I have tried to show the difficulties of drawing any sound conclusion about the social distribution of double periphrastic comparatives on the basis of either the register or the kind of audience for which the text is intended. Better results may be obtained from a qualitative analysis of the double comparatives appearing in the speech of fictional characters, for, as Blake (1981: 21) observes, register/dialect differences started to be used in character portrayals in the late ME period (e.g. cf. Chaucer’s use of northernisms in the speech of the Oxford graduates in The Miller’s Tale). He adds, however, that these speech portrayals should not be taken as faithful representations of contemporary, individual ‘real-life’ linguistic practices but, instead, as general markers of whole social or geographical classes.134 Two double forms are attested in the dialogues of the York Plays (a northern cycle of religious dramas dealing with the biblical topics of the fall and redemption of men). Toulmin-Smith (1963 [1885]: l) notes that the metre and the versification in the plays varied according to the speakers, characters such as God or Jesus being the ones who spoke in dignified verse in order to create an imposing impression. Both double periphrastic forms appear in the speech of important religious figures (Moses and Lucifer); however, the data is too limited to draw any conclusion on their significance (see examples (6) and (7) below): (6) Moyses Oute of this woo he will you wynne To plese hym in more plener place. I sall carpe to the kyng (CMEPV.ANON.YP.) (7) Lucifer The bemes of my brighthode ar byrnande so bryghte, And I so semely in syghte myselfe now I se, For lyke a lorde am I lefte to lende in this lighte. More fayrear be far than my feres (CMEPV.ANON.YP.)

The scarcity of the data renders these remarks merely suggestive, and therefore, in what follows, I will concentrate on the analysis of the only work that displays a statistically representative number of double periphrastic comparatives, namely, Malory’s Le Morte Darthur. . This idea ties in with Caxton’s prologues to his translations, where he claims that it is the interest of distinguished friends that compels him to translate and publish his works (Dillon 1978: 17). . Sometimes the use of linguistic features as social/dialectal markers was not completely accurate as regards the specific social/geographical class that they were supposed to represent (Blake 1981; Field 1971). Note, in this connection, Blake’s (1981: 35) remark on the fact that non-standard language in early literature “was not faithful to any region, they were just words that were considered in general non-standard, without any kind of real-life attachment.”

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.7 (165)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

. Double comparatives in Le Morte Darthur .. Extant manuscripts: General background There are two extant copies of Malory’s Le Morte Darthur. The first one is Caxton’s edition (printed on the 31st July 1484; Vinaver 1971: vi). In the absence of another version of the work, Caxton’s work was accepted as a genuine reproduction of the original text (Vinaver 1990: xxxv). The discovery of the Winchester manuscript in 1934 led most scholars to conclude that the Winchester version was closer to Malory’s original than that of Caxton;135 however, there is still great controversy about the relationship between both manuscripts. The traditional position is represented by Vinaver (1971, 1990: ciii), who argues that the two extant versions of the text are two parallel copies of a common original (see Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1995: 13). By contrast, Hellinga & Kelliher (1977: 101) claim that the Winchester manuscript was in Caxton’s workshop between 1480–1483, and that he used it for his edition of Malory. According to this hypothesis, Caxton’s copy would thus be a direct descendent of Malory’s work (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1995: 134–35). Taking into consideration that this issue only affects my study to a limited extent, I will not proceed further in the analysis of this (controversial) aspect. Cogent arguments providing sanction for Hellinga & Kelliher’s hypothesis have been put forward by Tieken-Boon van-Ostade136 and, consequently, in what follows, I will adhere to her (and Hellinga & Kelliher’s) claim, i.e. that the Winchester Ms is the earlier version of Malory’s work (for further discussion see Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1995: 13, 87–90). .. The Winchester Ms Le Morte Darthur is originally a translation of a series of cycles of French prose romances (more particularly, those of the vulgate cycle and of the Roman du Grial, Spisak 1983: 610). However, as many scholars have suggested, Malory’s prose style is also very much influenced by traditional English medieval romances (see Vinaver 1970, 1981, 1990). Vinaver (1970: 102, 1981: 9, 1990: lvi; cf. also Smith 2000: 102) observes that, in contrast to the tendency of the French original to use subordinate clauses, Malory . As Vinaver remarks (1990: xxxv), “Caxton was no mere printer”; his habit of re-arranging manuscripts seems to be widely known among scholars (Blake 1969: 185, 1991: 133). Thus, among the proponents of the traditional theory it is accepted that “the Winchester text represent the closer approximation to what Malory actually wrote” (Shaw 1963: 114). . She argues that C derives from W, although with an intermediate copy between them, which was probably edited by somebody in Caxton’s workshop. In this respect, she suggests that Robert Copland “may be well considered as a possible candidate” (Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1995: 135).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.8 (166)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

seems to prefer paratactic structures and simpler syntax. Lambert (1975; in Smith 2000: 102) argues that Malory’s habit of shifting between direct and indirect speech and his use of collective or chorus-like speech are characteristic devices of traditional Germanic prose.137 In the same vein, Field (1971: 24) suggests that Malory’s writing, unlike the French tradition, does not conform to the traditional concept of poetic decorum, which equates elevated style with a copious Latinate vocabulary and non-elevated styles with the use of a plainer, less florid lexicon (see also Smith 2000: 108–109). This has led scholars (cf. Brewer 1968: 13) to claim that Malory’s is, essentially, a colloquial style. However, to describe Malory’s style as “colloquial” does not mean that it is opposed to the elevated style. In fact, Malory seems to have been aware of the existence of two sorts of language, the “courteous” and the “villainous” (Field 1971: 104; Smith 2000: 108). These stylistic differences are closely associated with social differences: the “courteous” style reflects the practices of the upper classes (i.e. nobility), whereas Malory uses the “villainous” style in order to portray the speech of non-noble classes. One should observe, however, that Malory is only interested in the portrayal of knightly adventures; the non-noble classes (and consequently, the “villainous” or low style) appearing only occasionally, mainly as a means of providing information to the knights (Field 1971: 104).138 Unlike the works of other contemporary authors, class-distinctions in Malory are mainly conveyed through personality features that are common to those individuals belonging to the same social group. Thus, Field (1971: 113) notes that all upper class speakers in Le Morte Darthur share certain (linguistically coded) psychological traits; namely, the deployment of irony and understatement, the recurrent use of stock phrases (e.g. I take no force, wete you well, keepe thyself ), and the brevity of expression under stressful circumstances (which is thought to be an extension of the old Germanic heroic manner). . The influence of English models is not only reflected in the prose style but also in the moral of episodes such as the death of Elayne, the fair maid of the Astrolat. On the arrival of Elayne’s dead body to Winchester, Launcelot is summoned to explain his implication in her death, as is clear from the letter she has in her hand that she died of love for Sir Launcelot. He defends himself by arguing that love “muste only aryse of the harte self and nat by none constraynte”. His plea is immediately accepted by King Arthur, for in the English literary tradition, the love requirements of a lady must only be fulfilled when the love is reciprocal. By contrast, this apology would not have been accepted in the French version, as indicated by King Arthur’s enraged accusations that Sir Launcelot was “le plus vilains” (“the most villainous”, Noguchi 1981: 21). . This may be related to Benson’s (1977: 19) idea that the fifteenth-century romance had a distinctive aristocratic flavour, the nobility being the social class most interested in the production and subsequent consumption of romances.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.9 (167)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

Focusing now on the actual text, I found 31 double periphrastic comparatives; 18 of them in the speech of the knights, 11 in the voice of the narrator and 1 in the speech of King Arthur and lady Lyones, respectively. Most double forms attested in the speech of the characters co-occur with those features mentioned by Field as characteristic of upper class speech, e.g. the use of stock phrases (see examples (8) and (9) below) or a terse expressiveness in moments of stress (see (10) and (11) below): (8) ‘My moste noble kynge’ seyde dame Lyonesse, ‘wete you well that my lorde, sir Gareth, ys to me more lever to have and welde as my husbonde’ (WMS.MD., Book VII, Vinaver 1990: 359) (9) ‘I say nat so,’ seyde sire Gawayne, ‘but wete you well he ys grevously wounded, by all maner of sygnys and by mennys syght more lycklyer to be dede than to be on lyve. And wyte you well he ys the noble knyght sir Launcelot’ (WMS.MD., Book XVIII, Vinaver 1990: 1079) (10) And so they leffte hym with few wordys, and than sir Launcelot made grete sorowe: ‘For never or now was I never at turnemente nor at justes but I had the beste. And now I am shamed, and am sure that I am more synfuller than ever I was’ (WMS.MD., Book XV, Vinaver 1990: 932) (11) So whan the shylde was com sir Gawayne toke of the case (. . .) [he] knew hyt anone that hit was sir Launcelottis shylde and hys owne armys. ‘A, Jesu mercy!’ seyde sir Gawayne, ‘now ys my herte more hevyar than ever hit was tofore’ ‘Why?’ seyde thys mayde Elayne (WMS.MD., Book XX, Vinaver 1990: 1078)

In example (10) above, Sir Launcelot sees that a group of black knights from a castle nearby are fighting a group of white knights. The black knights are overmatched and he decides to take the field against the white knights. They (sir Launcelot and the black knights) are defeated, and Sir Launcelot is overcome by shame and despair, as this defeat enlarges the list of sins that deprives him of finding the Holy Grail. However, the Spartan way of expressing his desperation makes it difficult for the reader to match the depth of Sir Launcelot’s feelings with the rather unimportant (and usual in a knight’s life) event of losing a battle, and it is only through the knowledge of the background against which this statement is made (i.e. Sir Launcelot’s visit to the hermit who makes him aware of the role that his sins play in his search of the Grail) that the sentence acquires its full significance. In (11), Sir Gawain, looking for Sir Launcelot, goes to Astrolat and stays with Barnard, the old Baron of Astrolat. When Elayne (Barnad’s daughter) shows him Launcelot’s armour, Sir Gawain is very much distressed, for he thinks that Launcelot is dead. However, he reduces the expression of his grief to the single phrase reproduced above, and it is only at Elayne’s request that he elaborates on the cause of his sorrow.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.10 (168)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Brewer (1968: 15; cf. also Field 1971: 106) observes that the characters in Le Morte Darthur address each other in ceremonious terms (i.e. with the polite second person you/ye, see examples (12) and (13) below),139 which is another indication of their upper-class status. In this respect, Field (1971: 128) also suggests that the use of vocatives, and in particular of those in which the name and the title are clustered together (see (8) above) serve both to emphasise the dignity of the addressee and to make the listener/reader aware of this dignity (one should not forget that it is often the conversational exchanges with distinguished members of society that triggers the use of a more formal style). Again, these upper-class traits combine with the use of double comparative forms: (12) And, hit ys to suppose, and ye myght be handeled, ye shulde have the same dethe, othir ellis a more shamefuller dethe (WMS.MD., Book XX, Vinaver 1990: 1172) (13) ‘And a thousandfolde,’ seyde sir Launcelot, ‘I am more hevyar for you than for myselff!’ (WMS.MD., Book XX, Vinaver 1990: 1166)

As for the double comparatives occurring in the narrative flow (11 examples), Field (1971: 144) observes that Malory tends to be an “unobtrusive, scenic and impersonal” narrator, whose main objective appears to be to make the reader believe in the verisimilitude of the facts that he is narrating. The point of view is thus not that of an omniscient narrator; on the contrary, Malory puts himself almost on a similar level as his characters, his comments being “more the reportage of a person caught up in events independent of him” (Field 1971: 148). An illustrative example of this similarity in status between narrator and characters is given in (14), where the narrator’s comment could easily be that of a passer-by (i.e. he describes what is happening in front of his eyes, without giving any information about the thoughts or the feelings of Sir Percival): (14) And whan sir Percivale saw thys he hyghed hym thydir and founde the shippe coverde with sylke more blacker than ony beré and therin was a jantillwoman of grete beauté and she was clothe richly, there might be none bettir. And whan she saw sir Percivale she asked hym who brought hym into thys wyldernes ‘where ye be neuer lyke to passe hense, for ye shal dye here for hunger and myscheff ’ (WMS.MD., Book XIV, Vinaver 1990: 915–916)

. The exception being what he calls “moments of fullness of feeling” (Brewer 1968: 15– 16), that is, when the characters become intimate or angry. In these situations the pronominal form used is thou. An illustrative example of this “moment of fullness of feeling” is when Sir Gawain bitterly accuses Sir Launcelot of having slain his brother by mistake: “‘Thou lyest, recrayed knyght’ seyde Sir Gawayne, ‘thou slewyste hem in despite of me”’ (WM.MD., Book XX, Vinaver 1990: 1189).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.11 (169)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

Furthermore, one can find passages in which Malory’s role as a narrator leads him to explicitly interpret the behaviour of his characters: (15) Now leve we of thys tale and speke we of sir Dynas that had within the castell a paramour, and she loved anothir knyght bettir than hym. And so whan sir Dynas was oute an-huntynge, she slypped downe by a towel, and toke with hir two brachettis, and so she yode to the knyght that she loved. And whan sir Dynas cam home and myste hys paramour and hys brochette, than was he the more wrother for hys brachettis, more than for hys lady (WMS.MD., Book IX, Vinaver 1990: 550)

However, on most occasions his opinions coincide with, or are camouflaged in, the words of his characters (see Field 1971: 154, 156 for an account of the occasions in which Malory explicitly draws attention to himself). From this one may conclude that the narrator’s use of double comparatives is not substantially different from that of the characters. In the light of the results obtained from the investigation of double periphrastic forms in the Winchester Ms, I suggest that double comparative forms in the ME period appear to be a current feature of upper-class speech (at least in their textual representation). This tentative suggestion needs, however, further substantiation, which is provided by an analysis of the double forms attested in Caxton’s edition of Malory’s work. .. Caxton’s Le Morte Darthur Caxton’s translations generally open with a preface where he claims to have engaged in the work at the request of “many and dyvers gentillemen” (Spisak 1983: 604). Interestingly, the preface to Le Morte Darthur not only emphasises the nobility of his patrons but also the greatness of the subject. He complains that the memory of King Arthur is more greatly honoured in foreign countries than in his (Arthur’s) own kingdom, and he claims that his edition of Malory’s work will contribute to the spread of King Arthur’s glory (Dillon 1978: 17). These comments are very revealing as they indicate the kind of public that he aims to please (the nobility) and the style to which he is more likely to adapt his writings: the “courteous” or elevated one. Another of Caxton’s concerns was to endow the English language with a model of correctness, so that it could be compared to other European prestige languages (especially French; Brewer 1968: 12). However, Caxton felt that the traditional (English) alliterative style which Malory was representative of, could not provide him with such a refined model, and therefore, he drew his ideal of correctness and linguistic dignity from London’s courtly style (Blake 1969: 167). In this connection, Blake notes (1991: 135) that the changes that Caxton made to Malory’s work were mainly concerned with the reduction of alliterative patterns and the substitution

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.12 (170)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

of traditional native words by French loanwords, so that it conformed to the current fashion of the court140 (at the time, greatly influenced by French culture, see examples under (16)):141 (16) a.

Than the kynge yode up to the creste of the cragge, and than he comforted hymself with the colde wynde; and than he yode forth by two wellestremys, and there he fyndys two fyres flamand full hyghe. And at that one fyre he founde a carefull wydow (. . .) Than Arthure salued hir and she hym agayne, and asked hir why she sate sorowyng. ‘Alas,’ she seyde, ‘careful knyght! Thou carpys over lowde! Yon is a werlow woll destroy us bothe’ (WM.MD., Book V, Vinaver 1990: 200) b. And soo he ascended up in to that hylle tyl he came to a grete fyre / and there he fonde a careful wydowe wryngynge her handes and makyng grete sorowe syttynge by a graue newe made / And thenne kynge Arthur salewed her / and demaunded of her wherfore she made suche lamentacion / to whome she ansuerd and sayd Syre knyghte speke softe / for yonder is a deuyll yf he here the speke / he wylle come and destroye the (CMEPV.CAXT.MD., Book V)

A comparison of the texts above shows that Caxton considerably reduced the alliterative patterns of the passage (i.e. creste of crage, fyres flamed, careful knight), replaced the native vocabulary with French words (ascenced instead of yode up, lamentacion for sorrowing), and dignified the tone of the scene by means of both the introduction of semantically indefinite adjectives (e.g. grete) and the shift in the lady’s term of address to King Arthur (in the Winchester version the lady addresses King Arthur as thou, while in Caxton’s version the same vocative has been changed into a respectful Syre; Blake 1991: 131). One may suppose that if Caxton had considered double forms unsuitable for the elevated language that he wanted to endow his edition with, he would have discarded them from the text. This seems not to be the case, though, for my analysis reveals that Caxton’s Le Morte Darthur contains one double form more than the Winchester Ms. The first dissimilarity between the two texts occurs when sir . According to Shaw (1963: 43), the reason for Caxton’s thorough revision of Book 5 was its many stylistic similarities with the alliterative poem Le Morte Darthur, which by the end of the fifteenth century was no longer fashionable in courtly circles (see also Blake 1991: 131). . Minor personal stylistic features that Caxton introduced in his edition of Le Morte Darthur are the use of periphrastic do followed by causative do in the infinitive, the deployment of a tophrase instead of a simple dative after verbs such as obey (Noguchi 1977: 76–79, in Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1995: 8) and the introduction of doublets and triplets (Shaw 1963: 118). According to Blake (1969: 108), the use of doublets and triplets was a current embellishment in the period, presumably due to Chaucer’s influence (who, in Caxton’s opinion, possessed a more refined style than Malory).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.13 (171)


Galahad, sir Percival, sir Bors and the lady who has taken sir Galahad to the Castle of Collybye enter the Ship of Faith: (17) a.

And the lettirs seyde: ‘He which shall welde me ought to be more hardy than any other’ (WM.MD., Book XVII, Vinaver 1990: 987) b. And the letters sayd he whiche shal welde me oughte to be more hardyer than ony other (CMEPV.CAXT.MD., Book XVII)

Galahad finds Excalibur’s sword partially unsheathed. It has an inscription one of the sides. In both manuscripts this (first) inscription reads that the man who draws it should be more hardyer than any other. Later on, the knights study the scabbard and they find another inscription (the one reproduced in (17)). In this case, the Winchester Ms reads more hardy while Caxton’s edition presents the double form more hardyer, perhaps in order to maintain the structural similarity between the two inscriptions. Furthermore, the fact that the double comparative forms are carved on Excalibur (which was considered a national monument), gives us another indirect indication of the suitability of double comparatives for appearing in elevated styles. The examples in (18) feature another passage where the use of double comparatives presents some interesting differences between the two texts: (18) a.

And thys were fayrar and more holyar and more perfyte to their soulis than ye, my moste noble kynge, and you, sir Gaayne, to warre uppon me (WMS.MD., Book XX, Vinaver 1990: 1200) b. And this sir Gawayne me thynketh were more fayrer holyer & more better to their soules than ye my most noble kyng yow sire Gawayne to warre vpon me (CMEPV.CAXT.MD., Book XX)

There are some discrepancies in the arrangement of double comparatives in the two passages. In the Winchester Ms, the first comparative form is an inflectional one, the double periphrastic comparison occurring after the first coordinate particle and. By contrast, Caxton begins the series of comparatives with a double form, and changes the last term of the Winchester Ms (i.e. more perfyte) into more better. Given the lack of knowledge about either the role played by grammar or the influence (if any) of grammatical treatises on the works of the period, one cannot do more than very tentatively hypothesise that the reason behind this change might have been Caxton’s sensitiveness to the semantics of the adjective parfyte (perfect, an absolute – and therefore non-gradable – adjective). . Concluding remarks General considerations about the genre or the intended audience of the medieval texts where double periphrastic forms were attested did not shed any light on their



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.14 (172)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

social distribution. More fruitful results were obtained through the study of double forms in the Winchester Ms and Caxton’s version of Malory’s Le Morte Darthur. The analysis of the Winchester Ms links double comparatives with noble speech, while Caxton’s edition of the work demonstrates that they were acceptable in elevated styles. Of course these results do not mean that double periphrastic forms were an exclusive device of upper class speech and formal registers in ME. They may well have been part too of the linguistic practices of the less privileged social classes and the non-elevated styles – which are not often recorded in the literature of the period. This hypothesis can only be examined in detail once other medieval texts portraying lower-class speech and “tenue” (or colloquial) styles are found and made available. For the time being, however, the data that has come down to us only allows us to conclude the acceptance of double periphrastic forms in (written) environments from which they are nowadays eradicated. . Double comparatives in Early Modern English . General background The start of the Renaissance era and the rise of humanist thought coincide with the beginnings of the EModE period. As the name indicates, the Renaissance was characterised by a renewed interest in classical cultures. Latin manuscripts were exhaustively examined and published in their original language, while the teaching of classical Latin started to be a common practice in schools and universities. (Classical) Latin was thus rediscovered as a model of linguistic perfection: it possessed an ordered system and was well equipped for all registers and domains. Furthermore, given its status as a ‘dead’ language, it could neither be weakened by the production of new literature nor corrupted by linguistic innovations (Blake 1983: 16; Görlach 1985: 31). The high regard for Latin negatively influenced the attitude of early Renaissance scholars towards English,142 the major shortcomings attributed to the vernacular being its absence of syntactic variation, its lack of stylistic flexibility and the deficiency of its vocabulary for expressing the (newly discovered) traditional learning and the innovations of the age143 (Görlach 1999: 481; cf. also . In this respect, Görlach (1985: 31–32) notes that at the beginning of the EModE period the qualities of the English language were expressed in negative terms such as “not eloquent”, “inelegant”, “rude” or “barbarous.” . An illustrative example of the “deficient expressiveness” of the English language at the time is provided by Skelton’s poetry (1545): And cannot in effect/ My stile as yet direct/ With englyshe wordes elect/ Our natural tongue is rude/ And hard to be ennuede/ With pollysshed tearmes luyste/Oure language is so rustye/ So cankered and so ful/ of frowardes and so dull (The boke of Phyllyp Sparowe; in Jones 1953: 11).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.15 (173)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

1985: 31). (This problem was solved by the massive introduction of Latin and French words into the language; Jones 1953: 69). As a result, grammar was considered “an attribute of Latin” (Görlach 1999: 482) and, given the impossibility of reducing the “chaotic” structure of English to a properly organised system, the teaching of English grammar was based on Latin grammatical distinctions. Parallel to (and probably influenced by) the controversial status of the vernacular was the EModE concern with the establishment of a standard language (see the comments by Elyot 1531,144 Palsgrave 1532, Hart 1561145 or Puttenham 1589; in Dobson 1969: 419–420). Standardisation can be defined as a process of linguistic regularisation through which a linguistic variant is imposed as the norm or correct language. Following Haugen (1997), Nevalainen (2000: 333) sees standardisation as a two-sided process comprising a formal and a functional aspect. On the formal side belong the selection and codification of a particular language variant (in the case of English, the variant selected as Standard was less regional than social-specific, i.e. the speech of the London upper classes, cf. Shaklee 1980: 46; Crowley 1989: 131; Bailey 1991: 3; Cameron 1995: 45; Blake 1996: 239–240). The functional side of the process consists in the acceptance and further elaboration of the chosen variety. As for the former (the acceptance of the standard), Nevalainen (2000: 335–338) mentions several factors that led to the spread of London upper-class English. Firstly, the expansion of the printing press made available multiple copies of a single text that codified and transmitted certain conventions and messages to the detriment of some others (though one should bear in mind that the standardising power of the printing press would not have succeeded had it not been accompanied by a noticeable rise of literacy between 1500 and 1640; cf. Shaklee 1980: 48; Blake 1983: 15). Secondly, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were characterised by a significant increase in the population146 and a subsequent geographical and social mobility, especially to the capital. The migratory movements to London consisted not only of impoverished people in search of a better standard of living (an important motivating factor being that as a result of the series of plagues at the end of the fourteenth century that killed 30–40% of the population, manual labour had become a valuable commodity; see . Elyot advises that the nurses taking care of a nobleman’s offspring should, if unable to speak Latin, “at lest way (. . .) speke none Englisshe but that which is cleane, polite, perfectly and articulately pronounced” (Governour 1531, in Dobson 1969: 419–420). . In his Orthographie (1569 in Dobson 1969: 420) he claims that the speech of “the learned and literate” is “the best and most parfite English (. . .) which every reasonable English man will the best he can, frame his tongue thereunto”. . The population of England increased at a very high rate from the second half of the sixteenth century (from 120.000 to 375.000 inhabitants between 1550 and 1650; Hattaway 1990: 104).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.16 (174)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Jones 1953: 53), but also of nobility and gentry attracted by the entertainments of London’s social season (Nevalainen 2000: 337). These two immigrant types were not segregated in closed, class-determined communities; on the contrary, as Nevalainen (2000: 337) suggests, they intermingled and promoted linguistic homogenisation. This (growing) linguistic homogeneity, together with the fact that London had the highest concentration of literate population (60% of the total) and the majority of the printed books, fostered the hegemony of the Standard variety (Nevalainen 2000: 335–339). As for the second component of the functional side of standardisation (the elaboration of the Standard), it should be noted that the first half of the EModE period was characterised by an increasing concern about the state of the vernacular. Although the idea that English could not be as elegant as the classical languages was in some way present all through the sixteenth century, by 1550 there were some scholars such as Thomas Phaer147 and Richard Eden,148 who believed in the communicative possibilities of the English language and expressed the necessity of refining it for wider purposes. These efforts bore fruit by the end of the century (1575–1580) when one starts to find the first indications that English had been refined enough (see Görlach 1985: 39). The aim of rendering the vernacular independent of Latin brought about the appearance of dictionaries of English from the early seventeenth century onwards (e.g. Cawdrey 1604,149 Cockeram 1653;150 cf. Jones 1953: 273); moreover, given the lack of a tradition of formal instruction in English, the best-known literary figures of the Renaissance period were accepted as the arbiters of linguistic correctness and models of stylistic perfection (Blake 1983: 10). By the time of the Restoration, the status of English and the general attitude towards it started to change. English gradually replaced Latin both as the medium for instruction in schools and as the vehicle of communication in other domains formerly exclusively occupied by Latin (Görlach 1985: 30). The process of linguistic refinement was on its way to completion by the end of the seventeenth century, as shown by the widespread belief among educated circles that English possessed a perfection worth preserving. This led to attempts to introducing grammatical regulations in the vernacular in order to avoid its corruption (Görlach 1985: 39; . In his translation of the Aeneid (1558), Phaer expresses his confidence in the poetic possibilities of his native tongue (Jones 1953: 91). . In a letter to Sir William Cecyl (1562), Eden tries to convince his addressee of the suitability of English for a translation of a geographical treatise (Jones 1953: 91–92). . A Table Alphabeticall. . The English Dictionarie or An Interpreter of Hard English Words.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.17 (175)


cf. also Finegan 1998: 543). The idea of making the English language ‘correct’ would have its natural continuation in the prescriptions of the eighteenth-century grammarians (see Section 5 below). . Socio-stylistic distribution of double comparatives in EModE151 As noted above, the social nature of the study calls for an analysis of spoken material, as it is in speech that differences in social background are most easily detected. However, the lack of spoken records for the span of time under consideration makes this option impossible. Among the written sources available, both private correspondence and drama appear to be the most suitable genres for this investigation (cf. Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 2003: 2). Nevertheless, only the drama of the period provides us with enough data and creates a pan-social microcosm adequate for the purposes of the present investigation. One should also note that the second half of the sixteenth century brought about an important change in the conception of the dramatic character. Whereas in the first part of the century the discrimination of the different characters was in terms of their actions only, the second generation of Renaissance dramatists (e.g. Shakespeare, Chapman) started to consider linguistic behaviour an essential feature for the individualisation of their personages (Braunmuller 1990: 67). Taking this into consideration, one may argue that the analysis of the dramatic compositions of the period constitutes a suitable means for obtaining an approximate idea of how linguistic practices might have varied across the social spectrum. An additional advantage of using EModE drama is that the stage-play conventions of the period required that characters speak in different styles (i.e. high or low) according to their social condition (McIntosh 1994: 63). This further enables us to correctly interpret the data, since, as Romaine (1994: 75) has suggested, differences in style tend to correlate with differences in social class (i.e. elevated styles tend to correlate with upper classes, whereas lower classes are usually associated with non-elevated styles). The following section will thus draw on an examination of the double periphrastic comparatives attested in the dramatic subsection of the EModE corpora mentioned in Chapter 6, Section 4 above.

. Earlier version(s) of this section have appeared in González-Díaz (2004) and Auer & González-Díaz (2005).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.18 (176)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

.. Analysis of the data 41 double periphrastic comparatives were found, most of them (34 instances, 83% of the total number of examples analysed) in Shakespeare’s plays (see Table 7.3).152 In addition, 3 double periphrastic forms were found in the plays of Middleton, 2 in the plays of Fletcher and 1 in the dramatic works of Jonson and Heywood. Given that some literary critics (Magnusson 2001: 24–29; Wales 2001: 193–208) claim that Shakespeare is the EModE dramatist who best represents register, social and geographical variation in language in a naturalistic way and also, that he is the author with the highest number of double forms, my study will initially focus on the socio-stylistic distribution of the double periphrastic comparatives in his plays (887,460 words). ... Double comparatives in Shakespeare. The majority of the double comparatives in Shakespeare’s plays occur in the speech of characters who are distinguished members of their respective societies. Thus, in plays set in courts, double forms are uttered by members of the royal family or important officers of the King (i.e. King Henry in Henry IV,153 the Duke of Norfolk in Henry VIII or King Lear and Cordelia in King Lear); in plays set in ancient Greece or Rome, they appear in the speech of noble Greeks and Romans (i.e. Hector and Troilus in Troilus and Cressida or Octavius in Anthony and Cleopatra), whereas when the action takes place in cities, they are attested in the speech of wealthy, powerful citizens (see Table 7.3). There are only four cases where the double forms are uttered by lower class or non noble characters; namely, the clown in All’s Well That Ends Well (1 example), Touchstone in As You Like It (2 instances) and Bottom the Weaver in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1 token). These examples, nevertheless, reinforce rather than weaken the claim that double comparison in EModE is associated with upper class speech (see examples (19)–(20) below): (19) Bottom Not a whit: I haue a deuise to make all well. Write me a Prologue, and let the Prologue seeme to say; we wil do no harme, with our swords, and that Pyramus is not kild indeede: and for the more better assurance, tel them, that I Pyramus am not Pyramus, but Bottom the weauer (EMODD.SHAK.MN., III, i)

. Aiming at getting the earliest texts, I have used the quarto editions of Shakespeare’s works for those plays edited in both quarto and folio formats. . It is interesting to note that no instances of double comparative forms are attested in the low-life scenes of the play (act II, scenes i and iv). Similarly, I could not find any double forms in The Merry Wives of Windsor, the other Shakespearean play in which differences between social groups are most clearly portrayed.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.19 (177)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

Table 7.3. Double periphrastic forms in Shakespeare Comparative

Character

Play154

More fairer More larger More sounder More worthier More hotter More worthier More better More sharper More happier More stronger More nearer More rawer More richer More rawer More richer More worthier More corrupter More worse More headier More harder More fairer More fitter More mightier More elder More better More wider More safer More nearer More better More braver More better More kinder More softer More bigger

King Henry Octavius Touchstone Touchstone Clown Coriolanus Fluellen King of France King Henry Duke of Norfolk Polonius Hamlet Hamlet Hamlet Cordelia King Lear Duke of Cornwall Regan King Lear Kent Boyet Angelo Angelo Shylock Bottom Duke of Venice Duke of Venice Othello Prospero Prospero Senator Timon of Athens Hector Theseus

SHAK.2H4. (IV, v) SHAK.AC. (III, vi) SHAK.AYL. (III, ii) SHAK.AYL. (III, iii) SHAK.AW. (IV, v) SHAK.CO. (III, i) SHAK.H5. (III, ii) SHAK.H5. (III, v) SHAK.H5. (IV, viii) SHAK.H8. (I, i) SHAK.HA. (II, i) SHAK.HA. (V, ii) SHAK.HA. (III, ii) SHAK.HA. (V, ii) SHAK.KL. (I, i) SHAK.KL. (I, i) SHAK.KL. (II, ii) SHAK.KL. (II, ii) SHAK.KL. (II, iv) SHAK.KL. (III, ii) SHAK.LLL. (IV, i) SHAK.MM. (II, ii) SHAK.MM. (V, i) SHAK.MV. (IV, i) SHAK.MN. (III, i) SHAK.OH. (I, iii) SHAK.OH. (I, iii) SHAK.OH. (V, ii) SHAK.TE. (IV, ii) SHAK.TE. (IV, ii) SHAK.TA. (II, i) SHAK.TA. (IV, i) SHAK.TC. (II, ii) SHAK./FELT.TNK. (I, i)155

. Where possible, the abbreviations used for Shakespeare’s plays follow those proposed by Blake (1983). . There is still controversy about whether the main body of The Two Noble Kinsmen may be ascribed to either Fletcher or Shakespeare. A minute stylistic analysis carried out on each act of the play by several expert scholars reveals that the Shakespearean influence seems to be particularly strong in the first act and in the two first scenes of the second act (Hazlitt 1998: 237– 38; cf. also Hoy 1962: 89, Waith 1989: 18). Therefore, since the double form under consideration

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.20 (178)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Bottom the Weaver is in a rehearsal of a play in which he has the role of Pyramus, a nobleman. As noted in Section 4.2 above, the stage play conventions of the period were such that characters spoke according to their social condition (McIntosh 1994: 63), and therefore, in this context, Bottom feels the need to conform his speech to the courtly, refined style that would correspond to his character. The use of the two double periphrastic forms uttered by Touchstone (the clown in As You Like It) leads to the same conclusion. Berry (1988: 64) describes Touchstone as the “prototype of the dandy”. Indeed, throughout the play Touchstone sees himself as having courtly manners, and he tries to put the inhabitants of the woods at a distance by means of using refined speech. Thus, in example (19) he discusses with Corin the advantages and benefits of courtly life. The power relations between them are manifested in the terms of address: Corin always addresses Touchstone either as Sir or as master Touchstone, while Touchstone himself addresses Corin with a disdainful shepherd. (20) Touchstone Why, if thou neuer was’t at Court, thou neuer saw’st good manners (. . .) Thou art in a parlous state shep-heard Touchstone Your lips wil feele them the sooner. Shallow a-gen: a more sounder instance, come. Corin Sir, I am a true Labourer, I earne that I eate (EMODD.SHAK.AYL., III, ii)

Likewise, in the scene from which (21) is taken, Touchstone discusses with Jacques the issues of marriage and faithfulness. At some point, he tells Jacques about his intention of marrying Audrey in the woods. Jacques’ strong reaction, given below, makes clear the social pretensions of the clown: (21) Touchstone No, no, the noblest Deere hath them as huge as the Ras-call: Is the single man therefore blessed? No, as a wall’d Towne is more worthier then a village, so is the fore-head of a married man, more honourable then the bare brow of a batcheller (. . .) Jacques And wil you (being a man of your breeding) be married vnder a bush like a begger? Get you to church, and haue a good Priest that can tel you what marriage is (EMODD.SHAK.AYL., III, iii)

In sum, one may argue that the use of double comparatives made by these three characters (Touchstone, Bottom and – although no examples have been given here – the Clown in All’s Well That Ends Well) can be easily explained as the (linguistic) manifestation of their social ambition. Their interest in climbing the social ladder leads them to accommodate to those linguistic features associated with the occurs in the first scene of the play, I have opted for counting it as one of my Shakespeare’s examples.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.21 (179)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

speech of the social rank that they wish to belong to. More generally, one may argue that the Shakespeare data seem to indicate a correlation between double forms and social class. However, as in the preceding period (ME), these conclusions should be taken with a pinch of salt. A double periphrastic comparative always contains one syllable more than a simple comparative. Given that most of the eModE drama is written in verse (in this case, 24 out of the 31 double comparative tokens in Shakespeare appear in verse), it could well be the case that metrical constraints would favour the use of double forms over simple comparatives in these passages.156 However, meter is unlikely to be the only factor determining the use of double comparatives. Firstly, in Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, verse was normally used to convey the speech of noble or dignified characters and the high style (Hussey 1982: 147; Berry 1988: xvi; Vickers 1968: 6). Indirectly, this backs up the suggestion that double comparatives are features associated with upper classes and the elevated style. One may nevertheless wonder whether, without further support, the latter would be a legitimate claim to make, for, by the same token, one could argue that any construction appearing in verse could by default be considered a feature of the elevated style. In this connection, one should note that double comparatives also appear in contemporary prose works that previous literature has considered instances of high literary styles,157 e.g. John Lyly’s Euphues and Euphues and his England (9 double comparative tokens, 0.06 instances per thousand words)158 and Thomas Lodge’s early prose works (8 double comparative tokens, 0.15 tokens per thousand words).159 Following the line of reasoning suggested above as regards Caxton’s Le Morte Darthur, one may suggest that, had these authors deemed double periphrastic comparatives inappropriate for the topic/register in which they were writing, they would probably have avoided their use in their works.160 From this one may conclude that, if not exclusive markers of high style, double forms in Shakespeare were perfectly acceptable in educated environments.

. I am grateful to Teresa Fanego (p.c.) for bringing this to my attention. . I would like to thank Philip Davis for his advice on Elizabethan prose writers featuring high style. . John Lyly’s Euphues and Euphues and his England contain 61,014 and 94,176 words, respectively. . The works of Thomas Lodge that I am referring to here are A reply to Gosson’s schoole of abuse (1579; 10,411 words) and Rosalynde (1590; 43,760 words), both included in the Chadwyck-Healey collection. . In this connection, one should observe again that no instance of double periphrastic comparatives is attested in the low-life scenes of any of Shakespeare’s plays.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.22 (180)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Secondly, double periphrastic forms co-occur with two linguistic features that previous literature associated with high style and formal registers. Blake notices a social difference in the use of the -th/-s variants for the third person singular of the verbs do and have. He suggests that “has and does may have sociolinguistic overtones indicating a low or comic register” (1983: 38). This suggestion seems to be consistent with my findings, as double comparative forms always co-occur with the -th variant of these verbs (see (22)–(23)), never with the -s variant: (22) Lear

Infirmity doth still neglect all office, Where to our health is bound, we are not our selues, When nature being opprest, commands the minde To suffer with the body; ile forbeare, And am fallen out with my more headier will mind (EMODD.SHAK.KL., II, ii)

(23) Octavius

No my most wronged Sister, Cleopatra Hath nodded him to her. He hath giuen his Empire Vp to a Whore, who now are leuying The Kings o’th’ earth for Warre. He hath assembled, Bochus the King of Lybia, (. . .) With a more larger List of Scepters (EMODD.SHAK.AC., III, ii)

In addition, Blake (1983: 37, 83; see also Hussey 1982: 162 and Barber 1997: 196) observes that the dummy auxiliary do in affirmative sentences was frequently used for emphasis in the sixteenth century and claims that “there is evidence to suggest that in the Elizabethan period it was also used as part of the elevated style”. Seven double periphrastic forms were found in speeches where instances of dummy do were also attested (see examples (24) and (25)). These examples might not be statistically significant when compared to the total number of double forms (17% of the total); however, they seem to fit nicely with the claim that double comparatives were a characteristic feature of high style in EModE. (24) Angelo

I did but smile till now, Now, good my Lord, giue me the scope of Iustice, My patience here is touch’d: I doe perceiue These poore informall women, are no more But instruments of some more mightier member (EMODD.SHAK.MM., II, ii)

(25) D. of Venice To vouch this, is no proofe, Without more wider, and more ouer Test Then these thin habits, and poore likely-hoods Of moderne seeming, do prefer against him (EMODD.SHAK.OH., I, iii)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.23 (181)


Finally, I would like to draw attention to the fact that double forms in Shakespeare occur in high comedies161 (10 examples) and especially in tragedies (18 examples), which, according to Holbrook (1994: 92), appear to be “an upper-class mode, not only because of [their] subject matter but in [their] appeal to a specific kind of spectator”. (Note, for instance, the high number of double forms found in King Lear in Table 7.4). Table 7.4. Distribution of double periphrastic forms in Shakespeare’s plays Play

No. double forms

Year

Sub-genre

Love’s Labour’s Lost A Midsummer Night’s Dream The Merchant of Venice Henry IV (part II) As You Like It Henry V Hamlet Troilus and Cressida All’s Well That Ends Well Othello Measure for Measure King Lear Anthony and Cleopatra Timon of Athens Coriolanus The Tempest Henry VIII The Two Noble Kinsmen

1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 3 2 6 1 2 1 2 1 1

1594–1595 1595–1596 1596–1597 1598 1599 1599 1600–1601 1601–1602 1602–1603 1604 1604 1605 1606–1607 1607–1608 1607–1608 1611 1612–1613 1613–16

Comedy Comedy Comedy History Comedy History Tragedy Tragedy Comedy Tragedy Comedy Tragedy Tragedy Tragedy Tragedy Comedy History Tragi-comedy

On the whole, then, double comparatives appear as characteristic devices of elevated registers and upper class speech, at least in the drama of the period (and, more specifically, in Shakespeare’s plays). An issue worth considering at this point is the extent to which the distribution of double forms is determined by genre, i.e. whether double forms are exclusive to the literary language (and more specifically, the drama) of the period. In order to shed more light on the issue, a study of the distribution of double comparatives in other EModE written genres is offered below. . Here I am following the classification of Shakespeare’s plays given in the First Folio (i.e. comedies, tragedies and history plays). However, subsequent scholarship deemed the label “comedy” unsuitable for dramatic works such as Measure for Measure and All’s Well That Ends Well, and they were branded as “problem plays” (Boas 1910; cf. also Lawrence 1931; Tillyard 1950; Schanzer 1963). This classification brings them closer to the overall structure of prototypical tragedies.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.24 (182)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

... Double comparatives in EModE non-dramatic genres a. Double comparatives in ‘oral-like’ domains: the Corpus of Early English Correspondence and the Corpus of English Dialogues. One might argue that private correspondence is one of the genres that comes closest to reflecting spoken language, since in private letters the writer makes a (relatively) more “natural” use of the language (cf. Ch. 6, Section 4 above), somehow detached from the social pressure of prestige norms. As noted above (Section 4.2), the limited availability of this kind of data and the low frequency of double periphrastic comparatives renders the epistolary mode rather inappropriate for making absolute claims on the distribution of double periphrastic forms; however, it constitutes a valuable means of testing the extent to which the claims put forward above apply to other (less literary) realms. With this aim, I ran a search for double comparatives in the Corpus of Early English Correspondence.162 This corpus is especially suitable for the present analysis, as it provides a rather comprehensive social classification of the letter-writers.163 The results obtained are summarised in Table 7.5. Table 7.5. Double periphrastic comparatives in CEEC Form

Year

Author/class

Addressee/class

More better

1506

More higher

1537

More quicker

1651

Dorothy Plumpton (Upper gentry) Jane Messyndyne (Lower gentry) John Jones (Professional)

R. Plumpton (Lower gentry) The founder of the nunnery (Upper gentry) Edmund Ludlow (Profesional)

Although not statistically significant, these examples are very interesting for the purposes of our investigation, for their distribution points to some kind of association of double forms with educated speakers. Dorothy Plumpton belongs to the upper gentry164 (the rank immediately below nobility), whereas the other double comparatives occur in writers coming from high professional ranks (Jane Messyndyne, a prioress of a nunnery and John Jones, an army colonel). It is also important . I am very grateful to Terttu Nevalainen, Anni Vuorinen and Mikko Laitinen for giving me access to the Corpus. . According to Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (1996: 25) the main social division in Renaissance England was between gentry (nobility and land owners) and non-gentry, with a middle rank constituted by professionals (i.e. lawyers, medical doctors, merchants, clergymen, etc.). . My social classification of the letter-writers follows the one established by the compilers of the Corpus (see fn. 166 above).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.25 (183)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

to consider the social status of the addressee. Both Plumpton’s and Jones’ addressees are individuals coming from a lower social position than they themselves (Robert Plumpton is classed as “lower gentry” by the compilers of the Corpus, whereas Edmund Lundlow belongs to the “professional ranks”), and therefore one would not expect that the register used by these letter-writers would substantially change in order to accommodate165 to their respective interlocutors. By contrast, Jane Messyndyne’s letter is a plea for help to the founder of her nunnery. This gives her missive formal, serious overtones that are reminiscent of the elevated styles in which double comparatives were found in Shakespeare. Note, also, that the use of double comparatives among educated, socially respectable speakers seems to be (roughly) restricted to the first half of the sixteenth century. No instance of double comparatives is attested after 1651, something surprising given that the Corpus contains correspondence up until the end of the seventeenth century (i.e. 1681). All in all, the results of this analysis indicate that the (relative) frequency of double forms in the language of the period must have been lower than what Shakespeare’s works appear to suggest. This, in its turn, may be indicative of Shakespeare’s exploitation of the construction as a literary device (Teresa Fanego, p.c.) – or perhaps of his anachronistic representation of the language of the period. The next corpus to be considered is the Corpus of English Dialogues (henceforth CED; cf. Kytö & Walker 2006). Despite its ‘oral’ nature, this corpus has been classified as written language for two main reasons: (a) the fact that the dialogues have come to us in the form of written transcriptions and (b) because only part of the corpus (458,600 words out of 1.2 million) is a transcription of real speech events, the rest being ‘constructed’ dialogues found in written texts like drama or prose fiction. Table 7.6 features the double forms attested in the corpus (0.004 tokens/thousand words). Table 7.6. Double comparatives in the Corpus of English Dialogues Double form

Date

Type of dialogic text

More likelier More higher More stronger More grauer More harder

1567 1586 1611 1611 1641

Prose fiction Didactic works Comedy (drama) Comedy (drama) Prose fiction

None of the double forms attested are found in the ‘authentic dialogue’ section of the corpus but rather in texts with literary/didactic aims. This seems to provide . For an account of the Theory of Accommodation, see Giles & Smith (1979) and Trudgill (1986; cf. also Croft 2000: 181).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.26 (184)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

support to the idea that double periphrastic forms were, already before the end of the EModE period, on their way out in the ‘real’ spoken language. Note, also, that the time span in which these double forms are attested is consistent with that of the CEEC (i.e. from the end of the sixteenth-century up to the first half of the seventeenth century). b. Double comparatives in other (non-dramatic) written domains. For this analysis I used the EModE part of the Helsinki and the Lampeter Corpus,166 as they cover a wide range of both literary and non-literary genres (scientific, religious philosophical, historical, economical, political, etc.). No double comparative form was attested in the Lampeter Corpus; the results of the analysis of the Helsinki Corpus are summarised in Table 7.7.167 Table 7.7. Double periphrastic comparatives in the Helsinki Corpus (EModE part) Double comparative form

Year

Author/class

Work/genre

More hyer

1517

More dearer

1521

Ye oldest diarie of Engysshe travell (Travelogue) Sermons (Religious)

More indifferenter

1548

More feebler

1548

More happyer More easier

1593 1602

More nearer

1615

R. Torkington (Professional) J. Fisher (Professional-High) T. Vicary (Professional) T. Vicary (Professional) Elizabeth I (High) W. Clowes (Professional) G. Markham (Professional)

The anatomie of the bodie of man (Science/medical) The anatomie of the bodie of man (Science/medical) Translation of Boethius (Philosophy) Treatise for the artificiall cure of struma (Science/medical) Countrey contentments (Handbook)

In keeping with the results obtained from the analysis of the CEEC and the CED, the number of double comparatives attested in the Helsinki Corpus is rather low (7 examples). Likewise, these double forms mainly appear (a) in works coming from domains in which a certain level of education is expected from the author (i.e. . The EModE section of the Helsinki Corpus (1500–1710) amounts to 551,000 words. The Lampeter Corpus covers the period between 1640 and 1740. Given that the texts are classified by decades, I concentrated my analysis of the Lampeter Corpus on the texts written between 1640 and 1700 (72 texts). . The Helsinki Corpus includes a selection of letters that are also included in CEEC. In order to avoid the overlap between the two corpora, those double forms attested in the epistolary section of the Helsinki Corpus (1 example) were classified as instances of the CEEC only.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.27 (185)


travelogues, religious and scientific texts), and (b) within the chronological span mentioned before, i.e. up to the first half of the seventeenth century. The Helsinki Corpus also provides a classification of the writers according to their social rank (cf. Rissanen, Kytö & Palander-Collin 1993: 9). Although the social parameters selected are very general and preclude the possibility of a comprehensive social classification of the informants,168 it is interesting to note that the writers in whose works double forms were found are ranked as “professional” or above. c. Conclusion. The main purpose of this section was to find out whether the use of double comparatives found in the works of Shakespeare could be taken as representative of the language of the EModE period as a whole. The analysis of varied (non-dramatic) written corpora seems to run against this hypothesis. Double periphrastic comparatives in these corpora occur, like in Shakespeare, in educated speech (see, for instance, the double forms in Queen Elizabeth’s translation of Boethius or in Fisher’s Sermons). However, their frequency is notably lower than in Shakespeare’s works (34 double comparative examples in 887,460 words). In addition, the analysis of written genres coming closest to the spoken domain (CEES and CED) evidences the infrequent presence of double forms in the daily spoken language of the time. On the basis of these results, one could then hypothesise that double comparatives may be a characteristic device of the drama of the period. This idea, nevertheless, requires further substantiation, which is provided by an analysis of double forms in the works of EModE dramatists other than Shakespeare (cf. Section 4.2.1.3 below). ... Double comparatives in other EModE dramatists. This part of the investigation is based on the analysis of the double comparatives attested in the works of Ben Jonson, Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Middleton, Thomas Dekker, Thomas Heywood and John Fletcher (5.9 million words; see Table 7.8). These authors, although contemporaneous to Shakespeare, were, for the most part, younger than Shakespeare himself (the age difference ranging from 8 years in the case of Jonson to 16 years for Middleton), a fact that might help to identify changes over time. Indeed, a close look at Table 7.8 shows an important difference in the use of double comparatives between these dramatists and Shakespeare. In the younger dramatists, the number of double forms attested is very low; only 7 examples (as compared to 34 examples in Shakespeare). This, of course, precludes the possibility of making any strong claims regarding the distribution of double comparatives in socio-stylistic terms. Nevertheless, these examples do suggest that, in contrast to . The social variables used in the corpus are ‘high’, ‘professional’ and ‘other’; combinations among these variables are also possible (e.g. ‘professional high’).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.28 (186)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Table 7.8. Double periphrastic comparatives in EModE dramatists other than Shakespeare Comparative form

Character

Play

More stricter More gladder More weaker More properer More nearer More fairer More calmer

Mitis Soto King Honour Galosho Time Duke of Florence

JON.EM. (prol.) FLET.WP. (I, iii) FLET.ML. (IV, i) MIDD.IN. (main) MIDD.VA. (III, i) MIDD/ROW.WTT. (main) HEYW.MW. (IV, i)

Shakespeare, in these younger dramatists there is no clear rank division in the use of double comparatives. Thus, both Middleton and Fletcher use the double form across character types; i.e. Middleton gives them to both allegorical figures such Honour and Time and to lower class characters like Galosh; likewise, double comparatives in Fletcher occur in the speech of both the King and Soto (the servant of Clodio): (26) Upper-class/allegorical characters Duke of Florence (EMODD.HEYW.MW. part ii, 1631) King (EMODD.FTL.ML., 1616/1617) Honour (EMODD.MIDD.IN., 1622) Time (EMODD.MIDD/ROW.WTT., 1620) Mitis (EMODD.JON.EM., 1599) (27) Lower-class characters Soto (EMODD.FLET.WP., 1619–1623) Galosho (EMODD.MID.VA., 1615)

Also noticeable is the fact that, while double comparatives in Shakespeare were mainly restricted to tragedies, these examples come from tragicomedies, which represent a less elevated dramatic style than tragedies or high comedies. I observed above that issues of versification might have had an influence on the social distribution of double periphrastic forms in Shakespeare. A similar suggestion could be made with respect to the double forms found in the works of these dramatists. One should nonetheless bear in mind that although the verse/prose divide is also operative in the later Jacobean dramatists, it varies widely across authors in terms of both the frequency of use of each of the modes and the literary distinctions conveyed through them. Put differently, the distinctions that Shakespeare established through the use of verse/prose as a specific dramatic mode may not be consistently applied here. Crane (1951: 42, 49), for instance, observes that “one can discern in Jonson’s plays no single universal principle governing the use of prose and verse” (1951: 33), whereas “the plays written by Fletcher alone have almost no prose” and Dekker “establishes in his plays a rough division of prose for comic and verse for serious parts.”

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.29 (187)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

... Discussion. As noted in Section 4.2.1.1 above, double comparatives in Shakespeare seem to be associated with upper class speech. A somewhat different distribution of double forms begins to appear in the works of the younger EModE dramatists – as well as in the EModE non-dramatic corpora. Although some double periphrastic comparatives occur in environments similar to those double forms attested in Shakespeare, in these corpora one also starts to find double forms in clearly non-elevated styles (e.g. in travelogues and agricultural handbooks) and in the speech of non-noble characters (see (27) above). Furthermore, these corpora point to the first half of the seventeenth century as the period in which double comparatives (virtually) disappeared from the written language (note, for instance, that the last double comparative form attested in the Helsinki Corpus dates from 1615, and those from both the CEEC, CED and the corpus of younger dramatist from 1651, 1641 and 1631, respectively). Thus, one might hypothesise that the results obtained from the analysis of both the works of the younger dramatists and the miscellaneous (non-dramatic) corpora might initially reflect a change over time, i.e. the very beginnings of the social downgrading of double forms. Support for this claim seems to be provided by Blake’s (1983: 3) observation that the double superlatives most best, most deerest in the two quartos of King Lear were replaced in the First Folio (1623) by the simple superlative forms the best, the deerest; and that all the modern editors seem to have followed the Folio mainly because it avoided the double superlative forms. This leads him to conclude that perhaps “the wish to avoid this construction [the double superlative] was already felt shortly after Shakespeare’s death” (Blake 1983: 3). Thus, if double superlatives started to be frowned upon by the time the First Folio was published, it would not be strange to suppose that double periphrastic comparatives might have been likewise rejected. This hypothesis, nevertheless, requires substantiation. With this aim, a contrastive analysis of both the (periphrastic) double comparatives and superlatives attested in the 1608 quarto and the First Folio edition of King Lear was carried out, as this play contains by far the highest number of double periphrastic forms (6 instances). The results revealed an interesting inconsistency in the revisions made in the Folio edition. Among the double superlatives, the forms the most best and the most deerest had been replaced as Blake observed by their simple counterparts in the Folio. However, the other double superlative example of the quarto remained unchanged in the Folio (see (28) below): (28) Edgar

Does not attend my taking. Whiles I may ‘scape, I will preserve myself: and am bethought To take the basest and most poorest shape That ever penury, in contempt of man (EMODD.SHAK.KL., II, iii – Quarto and Folio editions)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.30 (188)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Similarly, five out of the six double comparative forms of the quarto edition were maintained in the Folio, the exception being the double comparative attested in Cordelia’s speech (see examples under (29) below): (29) Cordelia

Cordelia

Then poore Cordelia, and yet not so, since I am sure My loue’s more richer then my tongue (EMODD.SHAK.KL., I, i – Quarto) Then poore Cordelia, And yet not so, since I am sure my loue’s More ponderous then my tongue (EMODD.SHAK.KL., I, i – Folio)

For the sake of completeness, I also collated the Folio and quarto versions of those plays edited in both formats.169 With the exception of one double form in Henry V (see examples in (30) below), the Folio maintains the readings of the quarto editions.170

. The plays under consideration are (apart from King Lear, 1608): Love’s Labor’s Lost (1598), Henry IV (second part, 1600), The Merchant of Venice (1600), A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1600), Hamlet (Q1: 1603; Q2: 1604–5), Troilus and Cressida (1609) and Othello (1622). . I also found a double comparative in one of Hamlet’s quarto editions (Q1: 1603; see examples under (ii) below): (ii) Cor. Springes to catch woodcocks, What, do not I know when the blood doth burne, How prodigall the tongue lends the heart vowes, In briefe, be more scanter of your maiden presence, Or tendring thus you’l tender mee a foole. (EMODD.SHAK. HA., I, iii – 1603 Quarto) Pol. I, Springes to catch Woodcocks. I doe know When the Bloud burnes, how Prodigall the Soule Giues the tongue vowes: these blazes, Daughter, Giuing more light then heate; extinct in both, Euen in their promise, as it is a making; You must not take for fire. For this time Daughter, Be somewhat scanter of your Maiden presence; Set your entreatments at a higher rate, Then a command to parley (EMODD.SHAK.HA., I, iii – Folio) However, this double form does not appear either in Q2 or in the Folio edition of the play, and therefore I decided to discard it from my list of examples.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.31 (189)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

(30) King

King

Let there be sung, Nououes and te Deum. The dead with charitie enterred in clay: Weele then to Calice, and to England then, Where nere from France, arriude more happier men171 (EMODD.SHAK.H5., IV, viii – 1600 Quarto) And then to Callice, and to England then, Where ne’re from France arriu’d more happy men (EMODD.SHAK.H5., IV, viii – Folio)

In the light of these results, one may conclude that Blake’s remark on the (early) avoidance of double (superlative) forms must be carefully reconsidered, a more exhaustive study of double periphrastic superlatives being required in order to draw any sound conclusion on their use in the period. Even within the Shakespearean canon, Blake’s observations can be extrapolated to the situation of double periphrastic comparatives only to a limited extent. The fact that some of the double comparatives of the quartos were replaced by their simple counterparts in the Folio seems to suggest that the tendency to avoid double comparatives might have been at work at the beginning of the seventeenth century. However, this tendency could not have been very strong yet, as otherwise the double comparatives attested in the quartos would perhaps have been more consistently omitted from the Folio. .. Double comparatives in EModE grammars In order to shed more light on the status of the double periphrastic comparatives, I examined the sections on adjective comparison in a number of EModE grammars (see Table 7.9).172 The most immediate aim of these grammars is a practical one; i.e. they try to facilitate the learning of English by both native and foreign speakers (Vorlat 1975: 10). At a more abstract level, they reflect the first attempts to regulate the language. Furthermore, they constitute an invaluable source of information for us, as they are the clearest indicators of which contemporary uses were either approved or frowned upon. As shown in Table 7.9, most of the grammars consulted did not make any mention of double comparatives. There were, however, two (contradictory) exceptions.

. Sylvia Adamson (p.c.) suggests that the replacement of the double form more happier by its simple periphrastic counterpart may have been a metrical revision on the part of the editor, who may have read happier as a trisyllabic comparative and therefore considered it metrically unsuitable for the iambic pentameter of the line. . My selection of EModE grammars closely follows that of Vorlat (1975).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.32 (190)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Table 7.9. Double periphrastic comparatives in EModE grammars Grammar

Year

Comment on double comparatives

Bullokar Greaves

1586 1594

Gil Butler Jonson

1619 1633 ?1640

Poole Wallis Wharton Wilkins Lye Coles Cooper Miege Aickin Lane

1646 1653 1654 1668 1671 1674 1685 1688 1693 1700

× Non mirum si vulgus omnino barbare loquatur cum qui docti & sunt, & habentur, tam inscite, & impure scribunt × × A certaine kind of English Atticism (. . .) imitating the manner of the most ancientest and finest Grecians × × × × × × × × × ×

One is Greaves (1594), who in the preface of his Grammatica criticises the use of double comparatives (see the quotation in (31) below).173 (31) Huismodi locutiones passim in usu sunt. More better, such works was finished. He spake it to shee whose fountaines is dried up. Non mirum si vulgus barbare omnino loquatur, cum qui docti & sunt, & habentur, tam inscite, & impure scribunt (Greaves, Grammatica anglicana, 1594:4) The following expressions are frequently used. More better, such works was finished. He spake it to shee whose fountaines is dried up. It is no wonder if common people (vulgus) speak in a (completely) barbarous manner, given that the learned people (those who are (learned indeed), and also are considered as such) write in such an ignorant and impure manner

The sociolinguistic implications of his comment are interesting because they provide contemporaneous evidence that double comparatives were associated with the writing (and possibly the speech) of the upper classes (i.e. those that had time and the means to invest in education), thus becoming a linguistic feature worth imitating by the less favoured social strata. As we shall see, Greaves’ criticisms are . The main target of Greave’s criticism seems to be the lack of concord between the subject and the verb of a sentence. However, the (dis)placement of the double form more better at the beginning of the first sentence indicates that he also considers the use of double comparison incorrect.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.33 (191)


very different from those of eighteenth-century grammars. He does not condemn double periphrastic comparatives as a social solecism but as evidence of the imperfect state of the English language. The other work where explicit mention to double comparatives is made is Jonson’s Grammar (1640).174 This work supports the suggestion made earlier on, i.e. the (possible) association of double comparison and high style in EModE. The fact that these two grammarians disagree as regards the appropriateness of double forms in the written medium does not weaken the claims put forward above. Generally speaking, any process of change is not perceived and commented upon until it has spread quite widely. In other words, the reason why the social downgrading double comparatives may have not been immediately noticed by grammarians may be that both the remark by Greaves in 1594 and the distribution of double comparatives in the EModE corpora other than Shakespeare only reflects the inception phase of the change. However, the process seems to be well underway by the second half of the seventeenth century already, as shown by the fact that in 1672 (about a generation later than Jonson’s grammar), Dryden comments on the “incorrect” use of double comparatives in Jonson and Shakespeare (in Bolton 1966: 62; see quotation (32) below – note the clearly condemning nature of the term ‘gross’): (32) I think that few of our present Writers would have left behind them such a line as this, Contain your spirits in more stricter bounds But that gross way of two Comparatives was then, ordinary: and therefore more pardonable in Johnson [sic] (Dryden, Defense of the epilogue, 1672, Bolton 1966: 62)

Soon after that, the stigmatisation of double forms was on its way to completion, as from 1711 onwards one can find grammarians preaching against their use (see Greenwood’s 1711 comments in (33) below): (33) Is it good English to say more stronger? (. . .) No, you ought to say, stronger, or else, more strong (Greenwood, An essay towards a practical English grammar, 1711: 101)

. Derek Britton (p.c.) informs me that there is evidence to suggest that Jonson was writing this version of the grammar in c1624. However, the grammar was destroyed in a fire soon after its completion, the second version being compiled c1632 and posthumously published on the date given in Table 7.9 (i.e. 1640; cf. Nevalainen & Raumolin-Brunberg 1996: 181).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.34 (192)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

.. The social downgrading of double forms: Some suggestions The corpus analysis carried out in the sections above has demonstrated that double periphrastic comparatives underwent a change in their socio-stylistic distribution during the EModE period. An important issue is yet to be discussed, i.e. the factor(s) that may have triggered the social downgrading of double forms. Previous literature on comparison (see Kytö & Romaine 1997, 2000: 173)175 associates the disappearance of double forms with the influence of standardisation and prescriptivism. In the light of what has been presented in previous sections of the chapter, however, the importance of these two factors with regard to double periphrastic comparatives should perhaps be reassessed. As some scholars have noted (Willcok 1966: 119; Adamson 1999: 539; Nevalainen 2000: 334), the process of standardisation had started, or at least, the concept of a standard language was around in the sixteenth century already (note Watts’ 2000 comments on the presence of key principles in the ideology of standardisation in early sixteenth-century literary and philosophical works). Nevertheless, double periphrastic comparatives do not seem to have been stigmatised in that century: it is not until 1594 (in Greaves’ Grammatica) that one finds the first comment against the use of double forms.176 Furthermore, some decades after Greaves’ work, Jonson’s Grammar (c1624/c1640) still describes double periphrastic forms as high-style comparative structures. In the light of this documentary evidence, one may conclude that standardisation may have been a factor that reinforced the stigmatisation of double forms in later stages of the process, but it did not trigger the process. Moreover, the idea that the prescriptions of the eighteenth-century grammars were in some way related to the social downgrading of double comparatives is not completely accurate either. Prescriptive grammarians made the public aware of the supposed incorrectness of the double forms – thus contributing to their rejection in educated circles – but in doing so they actually did little more than reflect the result of a process of stigmatisation that had started long before. It is, of course, very difficult (if not impossible) to point to a reason for the downgrading. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that it was triggered by a single factor. However, here I would like to point to a factor that may have contributed to the actual process of stigmatisation of double periphrastic forms, i.e. the influence of Latin grammars on English.

. Note, also, the OED’s position: “Multiple comparison is common in standard use until the 18th cent.” (OED, more, adv., 1e). . It should be noted that Greaves’ comment on double periphrastic forms is an indication of their loss of prestige, not of their actual stigmatisation.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.35 (193)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

... The influence of Latin grammars on English. As noted above, the attainment of a good knowledge of the workings of the English language was considered a means of introducing students to the basics of Latin grammar in the early part of the EModE period. Yet this ‘utilitarian’ function of English indirectly instigated the study of English grammar as an end in itself, as the collation of the Latin paradigms with their English equivalents led students to realise that English also had a grammatical system (Vorlat 1975: 2–4). However, this discovery brought about an important drawback: the belief that English could be described by means of imposing Latin grammatical distinctions on its structures. The dependence of English on Latin is easily detected in the works of the first English grammarians (see Table 7.9), whose account of English heavily falls back on the distinctions made in the (Latin) grammatical treatises of Linacre (1541), Lily and Colet (1549) and Ramus (1565, 1576). Thus, with regard to comparison, the Renaissance English grammars follow the organisation and reproduce the contents of the sections on comparison of their Latin counterparts (i.e. they describe what is understood by comparison, how many degrees of comparison there are, and what are the strategies used for expressing the comparative degree). As noted above, with the exception of Greaves (1594) and Jonson (1624/1640), no English grammarian makes reference to double comparative forms. This lacuna might respond to the influence of the above-mentioned Latin grammars,177 as neither Lily and Colet’s nor Ramus’, Linacre’s or Hoole’s178 treatises deal with double comparative forms despite the fact that double comparative constructions did exist in Latin.179 In this respect, it is important to bear in mind that double comparatives in Latin were considered vulgar forms, whose use was proscribed by ancient grammarians (David Langslow, p.c.). Taking this into consideration, it is not difficult to imagine that double periphrastic comparatives fell out of the scope of study of Renaissance Latin grammarians as they were interested in describing the structure of Latin at its highest level of purity and perfection (i.e. classical Latin) only. Furthermore, the rejection or tacit avoidance of double comparatives in Latin grammars may well have had an influence on the attitude of English grammarians towards double comparison in the vernacular. Thus, given that Latin was the model used by English grammarians for describing their own

. No mention of double forms is made in other Latin grammars of the period either (cf. Haverius 1517). . Hoole’s (1561) grammar is a version of Lily’s work adapted for the use of schools. . Quanto magis melior est homo (. . .) (“How much more better is the man (. . .); FARM.RW.). Hofmann & Szantyr (1965: 167) link the appearance of double forms in Latin to the use of comparative and superlative forms for the positive adjective.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.36 (194)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

language, it would not be strange to suppose that the social stigma of Latin double comparatives was transferred to English double forms. Another reason why Latin grammars are interesting for the present study is due to their role in the (early) introduction of logic into language. It is traditionally accepted that the eighteenth century brought about the idea that grammaticality could be assessed by means of the logical analysis of the linguistic structures (Leonard 1929: 139). Conversely, scholars such as Knorrek (1938: 6; in Vorlat 1975: 21) date the beginnings of rationalism back to the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century (when mathematical studies began to grow in importance) and argue that traces of rationalist thought can be found in the works of Bacon and Milton. In keeping with this idea, Vorlat (1975: 9) describes Ramus’ Grammatica as the “first attempt towards a strictly scientific approach of language [sic.]”. Furthermore, Ramus’ interest in portraying language in a scientific (i.e. rational) manner seems to have been followed by other contemporary scholars, as it was from the last decades of the sixteenth century that attempts to combine logic and language began to appear (e.g. Fenner’s (1584) The artes of logike and rethorike; cf. also Richardson’s (1629) The logicians school-master: or, a comment upon Ramus logicke). Further support to the claim that logic may have started to be the arbiter of grammaticality before the rise of prescriptive grammar is provided by the following example: (34) But Grammar’s force with sweet successe confirme For Grammar says (ô this deare Stella weighe) For Grammar sayes (to Grammar who sayes nay) That in one Speech two Negatives affirme (Sidney’s Aristophel and Stella, 1580–1584; Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1995: 123)

This example demonstrates that the rule that two negatives cancel each other out was already known in the sixteenth century. As Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1995: 123) observes, in this passage the word Grammar refers back to the grammar of Latin (note the comments above on the utilitarian function of English in EModE). This rule, however, soon became (or had already become) part of the English “grammar”, as the following quote from Shakespeare suggests: (35) Clown So that, conclusions to be as kisses, if Your foure negatives make you two affirmatiues, why Then the worse for my friends, and the better for my foes (EMODD.SHAK.TN., V, i; Tieken-Boon van Ostade 1995: 124)

In the light of these examples, I would like to suggest that it was through Latin that logic started to regulate the acceptability of English grammatical constructions. Contrary to what earlier scholarship maintains (Curme 1931: 139–140; cf. also

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.37 (195)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

Austin 1984: 140), Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1995: 124–125) indicates that logicrelated claims such as the one expressed in (34) and (35) above could not have led to the disappearance of double negation in English, because multiple negation was on its way out from the ME period.180 Further precision should perhaps be added at this point: the fact that the above-mentioned logical rule did not trigger the disappearance of double negation does not preclude the possibility that it had an effect on the said process. In fact, one could suggest that it did have an important indirect impact on the loss of double negation, in terms of eliciting the social rejection of the double negative construction. Furthermore, given that both multiple negation and multiple comparison were both strictly speaking ‘illogical’, it is possible that objections similar to those applying to double negation may have started to be imposed on double comparatives before the start of the eighteenth century (although presumably not earlier than the first decade of the seventeenth century; see above), thus leading to the gradual disappearance of this strategy from the (‘logical’) standard language. . Concluding remarks The grammar and data-corpus analyses carried out in different EModE written domains has shown that (a) double periphrastic forms were accepted in elevated registers and upper class speech in the first half of the EModE period (i.e. before 1640) and (b) that they seem to become rather infrequent in ‘speech-like’ genres as one approaches the first half of the seventeenth century. Furthermore, a chronological analysis of the texts in which double forms appear reveals that double forms started to disappear from the written domains and educated speech around 1620. The present study also suggests that standardisation and prescriptivism did not trigger but, instead, merely reinforced the social downgrading of double periphrastic forms and it therefore points to the need for taking into consideration other factors (among them, the influence of Latin grammars) in order to have a more complete explanation of the stigmatisation process. . Double comparatives in Late Modern English . General background Although the idea of a standard language had already appeared in Elizabethan times (Willcock 1966: 119), it was not until the beginning of the LModE period that its influence on English was fully felt. The linguistic variant imposed as the . For a detailed discussion of the causes that led to the disappearance of double negation in English, see Tieken-Boon van Ostade (1995: 121–131).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.38 (196)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

standard was, as noted before, not a regional dialect but rather the linguistic variety of a particular social group, i.e. that of the educated classes (initially of London; see Section 4.1 above, also Crowley 1989: 149; Blake 1996: 239). The use of this standard or ‘correct’ linguistic form had a social evaluative dimension: the non-standard linguistic variants were discarded as ‘incorrect’ or ‘dialectal’ and the individuals who used them were branded as socially inferior (Crowley 1989: 152; Stein 1994: 10). In addition, these linguistic and social considerations were further clustered around moral issues; as Crowley (1989: 148) and Blake (1996: 238) note, only those who spoke in a polite way181 (i.e. using the standard), could be trusted to lead their life according to a strict moral code.182 The prescriptivism of the eighteenth century followed naturally from the standardisation process. Once a linguistic variant was imposed as norm, the rules governing its correct usage had to be made explicit in order to avoid its corruption. With this aim, Swift (1712, in Crowley 1991: 30) proposed the creation of an English Academy “for correcting, improving and ascertaining the English tongue”. However, the academy never materialised, mainly because of the opposition of other well-known literary figures of the period who deemed the English language able to reach perfection by its own means and consequently, saw the academy as a potential constraint for its the natural development (Finegan 1998: 539). The fact that the written medium was the traditional channel through which literacy spread and through which the relevant documents were preserved over time led, among other factors, to the consideration that written language was superior to spoken language (Milroy 2000: 13). For that reason, eighteenth-century grammarians regarded only the written language as legitimate English and focused their prescriptions on it.183 This brought about an important change with respect to earlier periods. Whereas in EModE the highest authority of grammatical correctness was ‘reputable custom’ (that is, the usage of the best authors), in the eighteenth century, this ‘reputable usage’ became improper (Leonard 1929: 139).184 As . See Klein (1994) for an account of the development of the concept of politeness in England. . “The best expression grows low and degenerate, when profan’d by the populace (. . .) The use they make of them, infecting them with a mean and abject Idea” (Art of Speaking, 1708, in Leonard 1929: 170 [emphasis added]). . In fact, some grammarians did not make any distinction between the written and the spoken language, e.g. Fisher (1750: 5) saw writing as a kind of underlying speech: “a Vowel is a letter, which (. . .) denote [sic] a perfect sound”. In the same way, Lowth (1762: 2) considered that letters were the “first principles” of words (Finegan 1998: 550). . “Our best Authors (. . .) have sometimes fallen into mistakes, and been guilty of palpable errors in point of Grammar” (Lowth 1762, in Finegan 1998: 546).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.39 (197)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

Blake (1983: 12) observes, the eighteenth century saw the dissociation between the role of the grammarian and that of literary critic. In its turn, this brought about the idea that the correctness of an expression was more important than its literary value. Furthermore, in an age where it was believed that the power of logic could reshape language, the logical analysis of the linguistic structures became the most common way of assessing grammaticality (Leonard 1929: 13). This had an important effect on the linguistic consciousness of speakers for they started to associate the forms that did not fit into the ‘logic’ of the (written) language with deviations from the norm. As a consequence, these ‘illogical’ forms were stigmatised and restricted to socially marginal groups where they became symbols of incompetence and cultural deficiency (Milroy & Milroy 1985: 81). . Double comparatives in LModE As shown in the preceding section, double comparatives began to be restricted to non-standard speech in the last quarter of the seventeenth century. The stigmatisation of double forms would be carried further forward in the eighteenth century. Taking into consideration that logic was seen as the only means of measuring the correctness of linguistic constructions, double forms were considered anomalous or ‘illogic’, since they conveyed a superfluous comparative semantic load that violated the principle of linguistic economy (Leonard 1929: 61). .. 1700–1800 A clear sign of the stigmatised status of double periphrastic forms is the manifold labels with which prescriptive grammarians rejected their use from 1711 onwards. As shown in Table 7.10, eighteenth-century grammarians put forward two main arguments in order to reject double forms. Some criticised their lack of logic and their redundant nature (e.g. Buchanan 1762; Smetham 1774). By contrast, other scholars adopted a more grammatical and/or sociological stance: Greenwood (1711: 101, cf. also 1729) and Fisher (1750: 83, 1762: 113) considered them examples of “bad English”; Coote (1788) and Postlethwaite (1795) defined them as “ungrammatical”, while in Priestley’s (1768, 1772: 78) and Rhodes’ (1795: 10) opinion they were “improper”. Similarly, Lowth (1762: 42), Bayly (1772: 20) branded them as vulgarisms.185

. Note, however, Bayly’s (1772: 20) comment on their being “not improper” in “sublime occasions.” For an analysis of the prescriptive labels associated with the use of double forms, see González-Díaz (2008).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.40 (198)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Table 7.10. Double periphrastic comparatives in 18th century grammars Grammarian

Year of publication

Comment on double periphrastic comparatives

Greenwood Fisher Buchanan Compleat letter writer186 Bayly

1711/1729 1750 1753 1756

Is it good English to say more stronger. . .? No. is it good English to say more fairer..? No, you ought to say. . . Would it be good English to say more wiser..? No And it wou’d not be good English to say more wiser (. . .)

1772

Buchanan

1762

Lowth

1762

Elphinston

1765

Burn

1766

Newbery Priestley

1770 1761 1768 [2nd ed.] 1772 [3rd ed.] 1773 1770 1774 1778

(. . .) are certainly vulgarisms, yet evidently not improper in nature, nor upon earnest and sublime occasions Is it not bad English to say more softer, most softest? Yes, it is absurd (. . .) The double superlative most highest is a Phrase peculiar to the Old Vulgar Translation of the Psalms Accuracy must never explode the pleonastic worser (..) as justly as more greater (...) The adverbs more and most ought never to stand before an adjective compared by er or est Mistakes in forming the Degrees of Comparison There is still a greater impropriety in a double comparative

Carter Hodgson Smetham Bettesworth Egelsham

Story Fell Murray (A.) Coote

Brittain Bicknell

Is it good English to say, more stronger (. . .)? No Two comparatives as more braver (...) are improper Two comparatives together is nonsense A Comparative Adverb must not be set before a Quality compared by er or est 1780 There is not an error more common, among persons unacquainted with grammar, than the using of Double Comparatives 1783 Two comparatives and superlatives are very improper 1784 [S]uch double comparatives (. . .) can add nothing to the sense 1787 [2nd ed.] Two comparatives, as more braver, (. . .) are improper 1788 These comparatives and superlatives are ungrammatical, as they doubly express the degree of comparison (. . . ) a repetition which is absurd 1788 Double comparisons are vitious 1790 Are double comparisons ever made use of? Not with propriety

. The Compleat Letter Writer is a manual on how to write good letters. It includes a grammatical treatise, which is the work I have used here.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.41 (199)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

Table 7.10. (continued) Grammarian

Year of publication

Comment on double periphrastic comparatives

Pape

1790

Haywood

1793

Fogg

1792–96

Murray (L.) Postlethwaite Rhodes

1795 1795 1795

Ussher

1785

Coar Fogg

1796 1796

Gardiner Wright

1799 1800?

is it good English, or proper grammar to say, more happier or most happiest? No; this would be only a repetition of the words more, or most; as more happier signifies, as much as to say, more more happy (. . .) which is no addition to the sense, but confuses and destroys it The word more is never used before the Comparative, when the Comparative is formed by er It is a most disgusting fault to have two signs of the same degree; as some say more wiser instead of wiser Double comparatives and superlatives should be avoided Double Comparatives, or Superlatives, are ungrammatical Double comparatives, and superlatives, are very improper, and should not be used There is a great impropriety in a double comparative or double superlative A double comparative, or superlative, is improper The rule that forbids two signs of the same degree is a plain consequence from the simple principal of avoiding tautology Double comparatives and superlatives are very improper Two comparatives, as more braver (. . .) are improper

Table 7.11. Double periphrastic comparatives in the 18th century Double form

Character/class

Work

More genteeler More handsomer More properer More politer More handsomer More greater More genteeler

The prison’s guard Molly’s sister (the gamekeeper’s daughter) Honour (servant) Honour (servant) Honour (servant) Cloudy (watchman) The bailiff

FIEL.AA FIEL.TJ. FIEL.TJ. FIEL.TJ. FIEL.TJ. GAY.MH. (II) GOLD.GM. (III, i)

An investigation of the linguistic data reflects a similar tendency towards rejection. Only 7 instances of double comparatives examples were found in my corpus (5 examples in Henry Fielding’s novels, and 1 example in Gay’s and Goldsmith’s plays, respectively; see Table 7.11). All of them occur in non-standard speech. 3 out of the 5 double comparatives in Fielding’s works are uttered by Honour, the servant of Sophia in Tom Jones. Her non-standard speech is clearly marked all through the novel by e.g. the dropping of light-stressed medial syllables (i.e.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.42 (200)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

La’ship for Ladyship in (36) below) and the use of malapropisms (presumptious for presumptuous). (36) I am sure your La’ship hath done him too much Honour ever to think on him (. . .) And to be sure, if I may be so presumptious as to offer my poor Opinion, there is young Mr. Blifil, who besides that he is come of honest Parents, and will be one of the greatest Squires all hereabouts, he is to be sure, in my poor Opinion, a more handsomer, and a more politer Man by half (LMODF.FIEL.TJ.)

The other double comparatives of the period are also uttered by non-standard, lower (or lower-middle class) speakers; i.e., Molly’s sister (the daughter of Black George, the impoverished gamekeeper of Squire Allworthy and, later, of Squire Western) in Tom Jones, or lower rank officials such as the guardian of the prison in Amelia, Cloudy, the watchman in The Mohocks or the bailiff in The Good Natur’d Man: (37) Bailiff

Looky, Sir, I have arrested as good men as you in my time: no disparagement of you neither (. . .) I challenge the town to shew a man in more genteeler practice than myself (LMODF.GOLD.GNM., III, I)

(38) Her Sisters [Molly’s] began to fall violently upon her; particularly her elder Sister (. . .) ‘How had she the Assurance to wear a Gown which young Madam Western had given to Mother! If one of us was to wear it, I think,’ says she, ‘I myself have the best Right (. . .) I suppose you think yourself more handsomer than any of us’ (LMODF.FIEL.TJ)

.. 1800–1900 As in the preceding century, the number of double comparatives in the works of nineteenth century authors is rather low (7 examples, 5 of them in Dickens’ works, see Table 7.12.). Table 7.12. Double periphrastic comparatives in the 19th century Double form

Character/class

Work

More nobler More sharper More crumfbler More crumfbler More easier More flatterer More tenderer

Nathan (old jockey) Eccles (ex-tradesman) Jo (crossing-sweeper) Jo (crossing-sweeper) Mr. Squeers (schoolmaster) George (servant) Tony Weller (ex-coachman)

BOUC.FS. (III, ii) ROBE.CA. (III) DICK.BH. DICK.BH. DICK.NN. DICK.OC. DICK.PP.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.43 (201)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

Again, they occur in the speech of lower class characters with strong nonstandard habits: (39) “I am in luck, Mr. Sangsby, I am,” returns Jo, “and don’t want for nothink. I’m more cumfbler nor you can’t think. Mr. Sangsby! I’m wery sorry that I done it, but I didn’t go fur to do it, sir” (LMODF.DICK.PP.)

Jo is the Dickensian character that represents “sub-standard speech in its most extreme form” (Brook 1970: 94). Accordingly, his utterances present the most stereotyped phonetic trait of London dialect (Brook 1970: 223ff.), namely, the confusion of [w] and [v] (as in wery for very) or the change of /g/ to /k/ when it occurs finally after nasal /n/ (i.e. nothink for nothing). As for non-standard morphosyntax, Jo consistently uses past participles as past tense forms (i.e. done for did / had done), the negative particle nor for comparative than (I’m more cumbfler nor you can think) and – although not present in this particular example – manifold malapropisms (e.g. consequential for consecrated, Brook 1970: 94–248). (40) “No it ain’t that,” said Sam, “circumscribed, that’s it.” “That ain’t as good a word as circumwented, Sammy,” said Mr. Weller gravely.(. . .) “Think not?” said Sam (...) “Vell p’raps it is a more tenderer word,” said Mr. Weller, after a few moments’ reflection. “Go on, Sammy.” (LMODF.DICK.PP.)

The example illustrates a conversation between Sam Weller and his father. Like Jo in (40), Tony Weller’s speech perfectly embodies the London dialect of the period. He confuses [v] and [w], (e.g. circunwented for circumvented, vel for well), elides medial vowels in lightly stressed syllables e.g. p’raps), and uses non-standard verbal forms such ain’t for am not. Although not attested in this particular example, other features characterising Tony Weller’s speech as sub-standard are the frequent use of catch phrases (e.g. walker meaning rubbish), hypercorrect forms (e.g. the insertion of /h/ in words with an initially-stressed syllables; e.g. hexpedite), the addition of inflectional comparative/superlative endings to long adjectives (e.g. seasonablest),187 the pre-position of the indefinite article a to the quantifier many (a many places) and the constant deployment of malapropisms (prodigy son for prodigal son, infernally for eternally) which combine with other (incorrect) word formation processes such as back formation, blending and folk etymology (i.e. leg-at-ease for legatee, appleplexy; Brook 1970: 94–248). . This is also a common feature of Mrs Gamp’s speech. The use of polysyllabic adjectives in inflectional comparison was common in EModE (Pound 1901: 14). Interestingly, Brook (1970: 55) claims that many of the non-standard features occurring in Dickens’ lower-class speakers such as Mrs. Gamp were originally features of upper class speech, which due to their social prestige, spread to the middle and lower classes. One should note that claim is very much in line with the social evolution of double comparatives described in this chapter.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.44 (202)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

The same kind of non-standard features appears in the speech of those characters who make use of double comparatives in the drama of the period: (41) Nat

Two thousand pounds! Ah, it’s a heap of money. Well, it’s curious how horses do spile men – they’re worse than women. There ain’t in Nature a hanimal that’s more nobler, more honest and hinnercent as an ‘oss (LMODF.BOU.FS., III, ii)

(42) Eccles Bless you! Take a grey-haired father’s blessing. Samuel Gerridge, she is thine. Samuel Gerridge, you shall be ‘er’ ‘usband! (. . .) And may you never “know how much more sharper than a serpint’s tooth it is to have” a marriageable daughter! (LMODF.ROB.CA., III)

One may wonder why double comparatives did not eventually disappear from the speech of the lower classes, as their use was an obstacle for their social mobility. A plausible explanation is suggested by Labov (1972b: 42–69), Crowley (1989) and Chambers & Trudgill (1994). They relate the survival of stigmatised forms in lower class speech to a process of construction of class identity. According to this idea, stigmatised linguistic forms are markers of solidarity that group speakers into two (opposed) categories: insiders (positively defined as belonging to the group, i.e. those who speak non-standard and, in this particular case, those who use double comparatives) as against outsiders (negatively defined, to this group belong the speakers of the standard variety; Chambers & Trudgill 1994: 98–99). This practice also subverts the value-assigning power of educated speech, as in these environments the Standard is the socially unacceptable linguistic variety (Crowley 1989: 161). ... Double periphrastic comparatives in nineteenth-century grammars. It should be borne in mind that, although prescriptivist tendencies prevailed in the linguistic realm during the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century, the changes that English society underwent in the eighteenth century had important (though gradual) repercussions on the linguistic developments of the following centuries. The eighteenth century saw the rise of middle class literacy with the subsequent expansion of the reading public. As a consequence, many authors adapted their writings to more oral styles with the purpose of making them more appropriate for the new broader audience. The shift towards popular literacy gradually took over and finally consolidated in the nineteenth century (Biber & Finegan 1989: 513–514; see also Nevalainen 2000: 38). The idea of making literary language more accessible to the average man also underlay the basis of the Romantic revolution. Romantic poets tried to create the impression that literary language was a reflection of the language of daily life (Adamson 1998: 599). Along the same line, the influence in the nineteenth century of Rousseau’s philosophy brought about the emergence of the myth of

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.45 (203)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

‘peasant eloquence’, which proclaimed the greater expressive powers of the rural dialects compared to the urban varieties and those of the educated people (Bailey 1991: 281). These ideas led to a new interest in non-standard linguistic varieties, which were considered the expression of human individuality. Two important consequences followed from this. Firstly, the development of the study of regional variation (Finegan 1998: 551) as dialects started to be considered purer linguistic forms than the Standard because they were not affected by extra-linguistic factors such as education188 (Crowley 1989: 140).189 Secondly, the validity of prescriptive norms on language started to be questioned (Finegan 1998: 581). An influential factor in this respect may have been that at the end of the nineteenth century English had become a major world language.190 The British pre-eminence in the world led many authors to reject borrowings from foreign languages (e.g. Latin or French) that had formerly constituted an important source of linguistic enrichment as they considered them both a symbol of acknowledgement of their cultural hegemony and a factor that, historically, had promoted the corruption of the vernacular. The external (foreign) borrowing was thus replaced by internal (vernacular) adoption, with the subsequent upgrading of many dialectal forms that in the past had been regarded as too low for literary expression (Adamson 1998: 609–610). Indirectly, this led to the recognition that linguistic items are not intrinsically (un)grammatical, but that this latter value is established according to the social tendencies of the time. Obviously, these considerations affected the way in which non-standard forms (and in our case double comparatives) were regarded, as the contemporary grammatical treatises show (see Table 7.13). The contemporary opinion about the use of double forms in the first part of the century (e.g. Moon 1871: 103) does not substantially differ from that of the 1700–1800 period. However, a change starts to be reflected in the grammars of the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In contrast to his predecessors, Morris (1872: 163) does not censure the use of double forms, but simply describes them as

. Another (though minor) reason for the eighteenth-century interest in dialects was the revival of Scots as a literary medium (Görlach 1999: 485). . “In (. . .) dialects, then, remnants of the Anglo-Saxon tongue may be found, in its least altered (. . .) and therefore its purest state” (Bosworth 1838, in Crowley 1989: 140). . Görlach (1999: 477) argues that the emergence of England as a world power had already started at the end of the sixteenth century; however, it was not until the period between 1750 and 1830 (when it became the language of colonial affairs) that English consolidated itself as a world language (Finegan 1998: 540).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.46 (204)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Table 7.13. Double periphrastic comparatives in 19th century grammars Grammar Dalton Fowler Morell Angus Quackenbos Lennie Moon

Year 1803 [1801] 1852 [1850] 1857 1861 1864 1870 [1810, 6th ed.] 1871

Morris

1872 [2nd ed.]

Morris

1874

Scotson Mason

1876 1886 [1879]

West

1897 [1893]

Daniel

1898 [1881]

Nesfield

1898

Comment on double comparatives We ought not to say more fairer or most fairer × × × × Double comparatives (. . .) are improper MOST HIGH has been spoken of as MOST HIGHEST but the solecism has been pardoned in consideration of the intensity of the religious feeling Double comparisons are not uncommon both in early and modern English Double comparisons are not uncommon in Middle and Modern English × Double comparatives and superlatives are very common in older writers Such expressions as more better (. . .) are frequently met with Shakespeare and other Elizabethan writers In archaic English [double comparatives] are used for emphasis The doubling of the comparatives is not now permitted, though it was once common

characteristic features of earlier stages of the language.191 Similar non-condemning comments are found in Mason (1886: 46) and West (1897: 112; see Table 7.13). . Conclusion Many factors contributed to the spread of the stigmatisation of double comparatives in the nineteenth century, among them, the definitive establishment of a standard language, the spread of the criterion of politeness and the imposition of logic as the paradigm of grammatical correctness. This change is clearly reflected in my data, as the (scarce number of) LModE double comparatives are systematically attested in the non-standard speech of lower-class speakers. However, a series of social and cultural changes occurred in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which, although only indirectly related to linguistic issues, had a great influence on the social status of double comparatives. Authors’ adaptation to more oral styles as a result of the expansion of the reading public, the . Note, however, that he does not consider double periphrastic forms as part of the daily language either.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.47 (205)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

impact of Rousseau’s philosophical ideas, the Romantic exaltation of the language of simple and rustic life and the establishment of English as the language of a colonial power led to the gradual undermining of the current prescriptive models and, more importantly, to an interest in ‘peripheral’ linguistic practices (such as double periphrastic forms).

. Double comparatives in Present-day English . General background Early twentieth century grammars followed the incipient non-prescriptive tendencies of the late nineteenth century. An extensive discussion of double forms appears in Jespersen’s Modern English grammar, where he describes (rather than censures) how double comparatives are formed and gives several examples of their use from LME to LModE (Jespersen 1909–1949: 367–368). Furthermore, although admitting the importance that the concept of class had in the making of Standard English, Jespersen criticises the disdain that the upper classes manifest for lower-class speech (Jespersen 1925: 106, cf. also Bailey 1991: 9) and the crucial role that in the past logic had been given in the selection of grammatically correct expressions (Jespersen 1925: 113). The same non-prescriptive attitude is found in Curme’s (1931: 503) and Kruisinga’s (1932: 68, 83) accounts of double forms.192 Also significant is the fact that, by 1920, Wyld (1920: 325–326) had included them in his history of modern colloquial English. As in the preceding century, dialects were considered varieties that exemplified the laws of language more clearly than the Standard193 (Crowley 1989: 139–145, 175ff.). The interest in dialectal study was thus maintained and somewhat enhanced in the first half of the twentieth century due to both the (late nineteenth century) belief that dialects were disappearing under the influence of the Standard (Crowley 1989: 141) and the growth in literary circles of an intra-national nationalism which used linguistic varieties as the embodiment of cultural identity (Adamson 1998: 604). The social acceptability of non-standard varieties increased in the second part of the century. In this respect, two major factors must be mentioned. At a general level, the flourishing of postcolonial literatures and their call for acknowledgement . It should be noted that Kruisinga (1932) mainly focuses on the historical development of lesser and worser. . See, for instance, Wright (1913: xix): “Among common errors still prevailing in the minds of educated people, one error which dies very hard is the theory that a dialect is an arbitrary distortion of the mother tongue.”

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.48 (206)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

of valuable literary traditions in English beyond the English canon made explicit the relativity and arbitrariness of social linguistic conventions. In keeping with this idea (although from a linguistic perspective), Labov’s study of Black English Vernacular (1972a) demonstrated that the non-standard vernacular of Harlem adolescents was as communicative and rule-governed as the Standard (Cameron 1995: 100; Adamson 1998: 612). At a more particular level, research on education started to develop in Great Britain around the 1960’s (Husén 1985: 5357; Léon 1985: 11). This research brought about the revision of educational concepts and methods that, with regard to English, meant the virtual disappearance of prescriptive grammar teaching in schools. A reaction against the abandonment of traditional grammar teaching (and in favour of the imposition of the Standard as the only language variety worth teaching in schools) started in the early 1980s (e.g. in the article by John Rae published in The Observer in 1982, or Honey’s The language trap in 1983) and culminated in the passing of the Education Reform Act in 1988.194 The early 1990s were thus characterised by great political and social tension between conservative forces, who advocated a prescriptive model for grammar teaching, and the proponents of the ‘New Orthodoxy’, who, although not denying the importance of the use of the Standard, maintained that both formal teaching and the promotion of the Standard should not lead to an intolerant attitude towards other linguistic varieties (Cameron 1995: 78–88). These two positions were somehow reconciled by the educational authorities’ gradual recognition of the importance of language variation in the study of the English (see for instance the National Curriculum).195 The tendency towards the acceptance of non-standard varieties also manifested itself in the media, as indicated by the success of long-lasting soap-operas portraying non-standard linguistic practices – . The Act aimed as the establishment of a National Curriculum, e.g. “a set of skills, competencies, ideas and canonical texts, exposure to and mastery of which would form the common inheritance of all educated people” (Cameron 1995: 79). . Language variation 6) Students should be taught about how language varies, including: a. the importance of standard English as the language of public communication nationally and often internationally b. current influences on spoken and written language c. attitudes to language use d. the differences between speech and writing e. the vocabulary and grammar of standard English and dialectal variation f. the development of English, including changes over time, borrowings from other languages, origins of words, and the impact of electronic communication on written language. (The National Curriculum online, key stage 4; [emphasis added]; accessed 04-11-07). For further information, see http://www.nc.uk.net/webdav/harmonise?Page/@id=6004&Subject/@id=5985

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.49 (207)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

i.e. Coronation Street (1960–) and Brookside (1982–) – reflecting the dialects of Manchester and Liverpool, respectively (Adamson 1998: 602). . Double comparatives in Present-day English As observed in Ch. 6 above, double forms in Present-day British English occur in both written (10 examples) and spoken domains (37 examples, 79% of the total). For the sake of coherence with the previous sections, my analysis will initially focus on the distribution of double forms in written texts. .. Written BNC I found 10 double periphrastic forms in the written subcorpus of the BNC (see Table 7.14). These double forms appear in a variety of genres (books, periodicals, e-mails, TV scripts), and domains (leisure being the most common domain – 4 double forms; see (43) and (44) below).196 Table 7.14. Double periphrastic comparatives in the BNC written subcorpus Example

Title

Domain

More brighter More easier More easier More healthier More livelier More livelier More older More posher More seamier More subtler

Practical fish keeping (book) Leeds United mailing list (e-mail) Central television news script Best (periodical article) Methods of social investigation (book) The Belfast Telegraph British Medical Journal Leeds United mailing list (e-mail) True confessions and new clichés (book) Hansard extracts 1991–1992 (book)

Applied science Leisure Leisure Leisure Social science World affairs Natural and pure sciences Leisure Imaginative World affairs

(43) People with low blood pressure in middle age, far from suffering a disease, are expected to lead the longest and healthiest lives. Patients who have hypotension can expect longer, more healthier lives (BNC.A70680) (44) Captive-bred Pretty Tetras, have a much more brighter colouration than wildcaught specimens, the latter of which tend to lose this brightness over a period of time when kept in an aquarium (BNC.CLT717)

The results of the analysis seem to suggest that, unlike in LModE, PDE double comparatives are not confined to the non-standard varieties only. On the contrary, the nature of the publications in which they appear seems to indicate that they are . My classification of texts into domains and types follows that of the compilers of the BNC.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.50 (208)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

spreading across a range of written informal registers.197 (One should note, however, that the low number of examples found in the corpus renders this conclusion merely tentative.) .. Spoken BNC 23 out of the 37 double forms attested in the spoken BNC subcorpus belong to leisure domains198 (TV or radio programmes, daily conversation between parents and children or among friends), 6 to educational spheres (lectures or private lessons), 4 to public / institutional (council meetings) and 4 to business realms (company manager or Trade Union meetings). In general terms, the occurrence of double forms in such a variety of spoken environments appears to confirm the idea suggested above, i.e. that, although double comparatives are not considered standard forms in Present-day English, they seem to have partially lost the strong social stigma that they had in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (see examples (45) and (46) below, which are excepts from a lecture at university and a business meeting, respectively). (45) Andrew well erm. . .eight hundred but when I did it. . . wrote it into normal terms like six point six with one two three four noughts John Mm Andrew And then I square rooted it John Mm Andrew Erm. . .yeah, I square rooted it John Yeah, that’s a good way to do it. Mm slightly more easier for you is . . . just multiply it by one of those tens (BNC.FM41437) (46) Mick

That report, I trust will be adopted by the, er the public services national committee and go back to the CEC for the endorsement and er, watch this space. I just, Birmingham Region, I think the delegate who came up second about long service ambulance staff and the going down. If I could see him at the back I’ll er, I’ll just get the question a bit more clearer and I’m sure I can help (BNC.HUE54)

The BNC does not provide information about either the social class or the occupation of the speaker in 17 out of the 37 double forms analysed. Nevertheless some interesting trends can be observed in the remaining 20 examples. Thus, 7 are used by speakers with a middle-class background (C1), 3 belong to the speech of . Note, for instance, that the two TV scripts in which double forms occur come from programmes dealing with popular social subjects. . My classification of the domains to which the spoken texts belong (i.e. educational, public / institutional, business and leisure) follows the one provided by the compilers of the BNC.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.51 (209)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

upper and upper-middle classes (AB), while 10 instances come from the speech of lower or lower-middle class individuals (i.e. DE and C2, respectively).199 All in all, the high number of double periphrastic forms in the speech of middleclass individuals provides further support to the idea hinted at in Section 6.2.1 above, namely, that they are no longer restricted to non-standard environments but gradually spreading up the social ladder. Furthermore, as in the case of the social distribution, the corpus does not provide the age of the speakers for all of the examples and, consequently, any conclusion drawn from the analysis of the data must be taken as suggestive. Of the 21 speakers for whom age information is provided, 11 are below 30 years of age, 4 between 30–60 and 6 are over 60 years. As observed in Section 6.1 above, the educational changes that occurred in the last decade of the twentieth century led to an emphasis on promoting a greater awareness of language variation and of the intrinsic communicative value of nonstandard practices. These changes seem to provide an explanation for the distribution of double periphrastic forms in PDE. Thus, the fact that most examples come from the speech of individuals under 30 years of age appears to indicate that the younger generations are leading the change. They do not seem to have the linguistic prejudices that the older generations had, and therefore, although they may be aware of the non-standard status of double periphrastic forms, they do not consider them as constructions that should be avoided by all means. The results also show that the group with the second highest number of double forms is that of speakers of more than 60 years. Again, this is consistent with the explanations given in Section 6.1 above, for 4 out of the 6 examples from this age group belong to the speech of lower-class individuals (in other words, they come from environments where the norms of educated speech did not exert a great pressure). In terms of gender distribution, the BNC provides information for 30 out of the 37 double forms.200 The results suggest that women are the trendsetters of the social upgrading of double forms, with 17 (56%) of the PDE double examples attested in female speech.

. The social labels used by the compilers of the spoken BNC subcorpus are: AB (top or middle management, administrative or professional), C1 (junior management, supervisory or clerical), C2 (skilled manual), DE (semi-skilled or unskilled). . In some cases, that information is not explicitly given by the compilers of the BNC but can be inferred from the context.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.52 (210)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

. Concluding remarks The analysis of varied historical corpora suggests that double periphrastic comparatives were accepted in upper class domains and educated usage from the ME201 period until the first decades of the seventeenth century. Previous literature on comparison associated the disappearance of double forms from the written language in the mid-seventeenth century with the influence of standardisation and prescriptivism. The data examined in the previous sections offer more detailed information about this process. They indicate that the inception phase of the social downgrading of double forms started earlier than previously suggested (i.e. around the last decade of the sixteenth century, c1594) and was nearly completed by 1672 (as showed by Dryden’s comment; see Section 4.2.2 above). The establishment of a standard language, together with the prescriptive tendencies of the eighteenth century (which based their linguistic judgements of grammaticality and acceptability on the logic of the written language) fostered the social stigmatisation of double forms and their subsequent restriction to lower-class speech. By contrast, the nineteenth century Romantic conception of man as a natural entity and the interest of philosophers and Romantic writers in the language of daily life gave rise to a new interest in language variation and non-standard forms, manifested in the rejection of the rigid prescriptivism of the eighteenth century, the flourishing of descriptive grammars and the study of dialectal variation. These changes were continued in the twentieth century, with the result that, although still considered non-standard, nowadays double periphrastic forms are no longer strongly stigmatised as in previous centuries.202 Furthermore, the social investigation carried out in this chapter complements and sheds more light on the linguistic analysis of double forms carried out in Ch. 6 above. First, it suggests that the linguistic history of double forms seem to be steered by, or at least, be sensitive to, social forces. It was mentioned in Ch. 6, . Note the caveat observed in Section 3.3 above with respect to double periphrastic forms in ME. . Note the difference in social status between double periphrastic comparatives and the inflectional double form worser in the BNC: whereas double periphrastic forms appear in both written and spoken domains, I only came across two examples of worser in the spoken BNC, in both cases worser being subject to criticism and change into the standard form worse (see (i) below): (i)

Grace PS6U2 Grace PS6U2

They haven’t really come, they haven’t really become better off have they? They’ve come worse off Worser? That’s not a word Worse off (KPE 1785)

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.53 (211)


Section 6 above that, although some signs could already be observed in EModE, it was roughly from LModE onwards that most of the linguistic factors that were associated with the deployment of double forms (i.e. presence of the adjectival quality in the context, presence of a high-degree second term of comparison) were no longer operative. In its turn, this cast some doubts on the validity of these linguistic factors as determinants of the usage of double forms over time. One should not forget, however, that LModE was the period in which the social downgrading of double forms seemed to reach its completion. In other words, the disappearance of those linguistic factors from the corpus data may not be seen as an artefact of the data, but rather, as a reflection of the diachronic social trends of double periphrastic comparative structures. Note, also, that the PDE data featured a new collocational pattern for double forms, i.e. their combination with downtowners like a bit, slightly etc. Again, this development is coincidental with a new social change, i.e. the incipient spread of double forms across informal, (more) educated environments. Secondly, the social analysis of double forms brings us back to cross-linguistic considerations. It is a relatively recent trend in linguistics to consider processes of variation and change as the instantiation of general abstract patterns of evolutionary change (cf. McMahon 1994; Lass 1997; Croft 2000). With regard to innovations, Lass (1997: 305) points to two different mechanisms of change: i.e. innovation from zero (emergence of new material) and innovation through the transformation of inherited material. He suggests that languages may “innovate preferentially by utilizing (including transforming) existing material.”203 Two main ways of transforming linguistic material have been mentioned in the literature (Croft 2000: 126–127), i.e. hypernanalysis (loss of semantic/functional properties of an element) and hypoanalysis (gain of semantic/functional properties of an element); hypoanalysis being the source of a more specific transformational process called exaptation, which Lass defines as: a kind of conceptual renovation, as it were, of material that is already there, but either serving some other purpose, or serving no purpose at all. Thus perfectly ‘good’ structures can be exapted, as can junk of various kinds (Lass 1997: 316)

The question is now to ascertain what mechanism of innovation brought about the appearance of double periphrastic forms and what transformational process may be able to account for their development in the language. In Ch. 6 above I observed that alongside instances of the (newly developed) periphrastic comparatives some examples of double periphrastic forms could be . Note that these changes should not be seen as teleologically driven, but rather, as nonintentional (cf. Croft 2000: 118).



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.54 (212)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

found already in the tenth century. Furthermore, Mustanoja (1960) and Kytö & Romaine’s data (1997) suggest that the expansion of double periphrastic forms in the ME period occurred “along with the increasing use of the periphrastic system of comparison” (Mustanoja 1960: 281). The latter works and the investigation carried out in the sections above point in the same direction, namely, that the rise of double periphrastic comparison may well have been a side effect of the reorganisation of the comparative system, or, in other words, the result of an accidental combination of the existing (inflectional) and the new (periphrastic) comparative form. This suggestion is supported by several pieces of evidence. In Ch. 6, Section 3 above I also commented on Lehmann’s (2005) classification of English double comparatives as a case of grammatical pleonasm (hypercharacterisation) – which, according to Dressler, Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Spina (2001: 126) has its sources in language acquisition. In this connection, GrazianoKing & Cairns’ (2005) research on the learning of comparative constructions shows how doubly marked comparative forms accidentally appear in the speech of very young children (3–7 years old) when trying to produce simple comparatives forms. In addition, Haspelmath (1993: 298) states that grammatical pleonasm often occurs when “the original form is irregular or unproductive, and the pleonastic affix is always a regular and productive one.” No claim on the regularity of either comparative marker in English can be made; however, given that “phonologically motivated opacity is one of the main factors allowing reapplication of morphology” (Haspelmath 1993: 301) and that, historically, the rise of the periphrastic forms coincides with the first manifestations of the collapse of the system of inflections in late OE (cf. Fischer (1992b: 207) and Ch. 2 Section 6 above), one may suggest that the distinctiveness of the -er ending could have at some point been compromised, hence allowing for the possibility of pre-posing more in order to make the comparative meaning clearer (see, in this connection, Mondorf 2003 or the remarks made in Ch. 4, Section 4.4 and Ch. 5, Section 4.4.1 above). Insofar as they were ‘accidental’ constructions, the very first instances of double periphrastic forms may have qualified as examples of ‘linguistic junk’;204 i.e. structures to which no distinctive functional load can be assigned. Their marked nature (see Ch. 6 Section 3 above), however, seemed to make them particularly suitable for emphatic environments (cf. the ME and EModE data). Yet it should be . The concept of linguistic junk is problematic. As Vincent (1994: 435) puts it, “languages are signs systems and no part of a system is without function, even if we as analysts have not yet worked out what the function in question is.” Of course double periphrastic forms carried from the beginning a comparative meaning; however, in the early stages, they were in all probability a simple variant of the main comparative strategy of the period, i.e. simple inflectional comparatives. In other words, at that stage, they do not seem to perform a distinctive function.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 8:15

F: CI29907.tex / p.55 (213)

Chapter 7. Double periphrastic comparatives 

noted again that, in all periods, issues of register and style also lurk beneath their emphatic use. It was perhaps the use of double periphrastic forms in educated environments in ME and EModE that made them linguistic features worth imitating by the lower classes, leading to their spread down the social spectrum. In their social expansion, double forms were probably devoid of any emphatic meaning, as speakers did not attach any especial linguistic value to double forms but rather a social one. In this way, double forms started to be mainly used as an ‘educated’ alternative to simple comparative structures rather than as an emphatic variant of the latter – in other words, they could well have been pragmatically exapted.205

. A similar process of pragmatic exaptation appears to account for the development of an ‘affective’ use in thou in EModE (cf. Lass 1997: 317).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.1 (215)

chapter 

Comparatives and beyond

.

Introduction

One common thread underlying the different case studies in the preceding chapters is the belief that the investigation of grammatical variation (both synchronic and diachronic) cannot be properly pursued without the aid of corpora; in particular, large-scale corpora (cf. Sinclair 1991: 18 on the advisability of using as large a corpus as possible). Compare, for instance, the greater robustness of the results obtained in Ch. 2 for the study of the development of periphrastic forms in the OE period (where my analysis was based on the Toronto Corpus) in relation to those obtained in the study of the influence of French on the development of English periphrastic forms in Ch. 3 (drawing on the PPCME2 – which, in its turn, features a selection of the ME texts available through the Helsinki Corpus collection). Furthermore, the specific meaning and distribution of double periphrastic forms would still remain uncertain (or at least not conclusively established), had these issues not been tackled from a corpus-based approach. (In this connection, it is also worth observing that in Ch. 6 and Ch. 7, the BNC proves to be more insightful than BROWN, FLOB, FROWN and LOB in investigating the double comparatives in PDE due to its greater size.) In addition to constituting a powerful tool for describing patterns of use, corpora can also be a useful tool for re(de)fining existing introspection-based explanations of linguistic phenomena, thus contributing to theory-building. The corpus-based study of the semantic-pragmatic differences between inflectional and periphrastic forms which was carried out in Ch. 5 revealed some shortcomings of previous semantic models of comparison (cf. Cruse 1986; Croft & Cruse 2004) suggesting, at the same time, plausible ways of improving them. In this respect, then, this work aligns itself with recent functional studies such as Wasow & Arnold (2003) and Noël (2003). Noël investigates the variation between that-clauses and accusative and infinitive constructions as complements of verbs of cognition (e.g. sentences like “I believe that Mary is dishonest” vs. “I believe Mary to be dishonest”), his corpus analysis rendering inaccurate the predictions made by earlier studies (i.e. Wierzbicka 1988; Vespoor 1990). These findings, together with a detailed analysis of the contexts in which each of the variants appears, leads him to conclude that the selection of finite / non-finite complements is not

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.2 (216)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

only determined by semantic factors only (in this connection, cf. Fischer et al. 2000: 211ff.) but that information-structure factors also play an important role. This emphasis on corpora as a tool for analysis has a clear theoretical implication, i.e. the usefulness of usage-based approaches for exploring grammatical variation (cf. Wasow & Arnold 2003:150; also Barlow & Kemmer 1999; Biber 2000). A maximal, bottom-up approach reveals that the English comparative system is more complex than one could have initially envisaged, featuring constructions (i.e. double comparatives) that are often not discussed in previous studies probably due to frequency reasons. The analysis of the context (both linguistic and social) provides us with an understanding of the different nuances of meaning associated with each of the constructions and of the importance of style and domain factors in the selection of strategy as well as with reliable hints as regards future pathways of change and distribution. At a more particular level, each individual chapter bears on different theoretical issues and therefore, in what follows, I will deal with their contributions in separate sections.

. Chapter 2: Internal v. external factors of change, gradience issues Taking into account the impact of both French and Latin on English, linguists have often argued that certain English constructions are borrowings from Romance languages. The formal similarity between Romance and English periphrastic structures and the fact that an important number of OE and ME periphrastic comparative examples are found in Latin and French translations have led scholars to argue for a foreign origin of the periphrastic comparative. Invoking foreign influence as an explanation for linguistic change without appropriate substantiation is, unfortunately, not an uncommon practice among scholars working on the history of English – see, for instance, Fischer’s (1989: 154) comment on the widespread belief that the postposition of adjectives in OE is due to French influence, or her remarks about the (erroneous) idea that “learned a.c.i.” constructions are a calque on Latin (cf. also Fischer 1992a). Without denying that Romance languages may have played a role in the diffusion of periphrastic constructions, this chapter lends support to the claim that periphrastic comparatives are ultimately native structures and, like Fischer (1989, 1992a), constitutes a general warning against invoking foreign influence too readily as an explanatory factor in any diachronic study of English. In addition, the investigation carried out in this chapter calls for the development of a more fine-grained methodology as regards the typology of contact-induced grammatical change. Consider the following quote from Heine & Kuteva (2005: 5):

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.3 (217)

Chapter 8. Comparatives and beyond 

Contact-induced language change is a complex process . . . It may happen, for example, that language contact provided the trigger for other changes to occur. . . But it may also happen that some linguistic change not involving language contact at some stage is affected by language contact. . . As long as there is concrete evidence to the effect that language-induced transfer of linguistic material was involved in some way or another, we will treat such processes as “contact-induced language change.” What this means is that this notion includes a wide range of different phenomena and in some of them, language contact may have played at best a marginal role.

Recent research on contact-induced change comments on the tendency in general approaches to the study of language for scholars to exhaust all possible internallymotivated explanations for language change before granting language contact a role in the process (see the volume by Jones & Esch 2002). Furthermore, they note the ‘either/or’ mentality in standard linguistic research, where language change phenomena are often classed as the result of either internally or externally motivated processes of change. Conversely, they advocate the importance of the notion of ‘multiple causation’ in language change, where (a) both intra and extra linguistic considerations are brought into the equation and (b) external motivations are considered as important as internal ones. Heine & Kuteva’s (2005) remarks quoted above not only echo this view but also advance it further as their notion of change brings into play a series of phenomena in which the role of language contact can be rated from ‘core’ to ‘peripheral’. Now, if one were to apply Heine & Kuteva’s (2005) notion to the development of periphrastic comparison in English strictly, one would in all probability have to class it as a language-contact phenomenon. Yet, as suggested before, the [degree adverb + adj.] pattern did not arise as a result of grammatical transfer but was already among the original grammatical repertoire of the English language. In other words, language-contact motivations should be properly invoked in this case as a factor in relation to the propagation of the forms only (as opposed to their innovation). Thus, although fully acknowledging the complexity of the topic and the important milestone that Heine & Kuteva (2005) represent, further theoretical refinement is needed for, as it stands, the rather broad definition of contact-induced grammatical change that they present may detract from the accuracy of future investigations. Finally, while arguing for a broad notion of grammaticalisation206 as the source of periphrastic comparatives, it was suggested that the first periphrastic comparative structures (those consisting of an adverbial intensifier and a participle) . Recent work on the topic (e.g. Janda 2001; Campbell 2001; Newmeyer 2001) deals with the ‘epiphenomenal’ nature of the notion of grammaticalisation. In this context, however, grammaticalisation is used in the sense of ‘established as the grammatical means of making comparisons’ rather than in a more theory-laden conception.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.4 (218)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

were syntactic blends of copula and passive constructions due to the difficulty of providing a clear categorisation of past participles in OE. In this connection, Aarts et al. (2004: 1, 11) point out that “categorisation is a notion that lies at the heart of virtually all approaches to grammar.” The discrete/gradient nature of grammatical categories (and the constructions which they form) has been an issue of much scholarly debate from the second half of the 20th century (cf. Neustnupny 2004 [1966]; Crystal 2004 [1977]; Langacker 2004 [1987]), and work on the ‘continuous’ nature of specific word classes and constructions have recently appeared (cf. Aarts 2004; Denison 2001, 2006; Keizer & Denison 2002; Hudson 2003). In his early work on the topic, Denison (2001: 140) evaluated the significance of gradience phenomena for linguistic theory, which he suggested could range from being either “a marginal phenomenon which must be grafted on to some standard model of language at appropriate points” or a factor so “pervasive as to damage standard models beyond repair.” Britain and Sudbury (2002: 213ff.), for instance, note the difficulty of accommodating the variation existing in thereexistential constructions (i.e. there’s + plural NP) across varieties of English in recent syntactic models (cf. also Haspelmath’s 1999: 1045; Malouf ’s 1998 or Hudson’s 2003 comments on gradience in syntactic representation). More work is needed in order to determine whether gradience can damage current models “beyond repair”. Yet, in line with Denison (2006), the present investigation advocates a systematic inclusion of the phenomenon in linguistic theory as a way of increasing the accuracy of our synchronic descriptions as well as that of processes of variation and change.

. Chapter 3: Language contact, complexity issues In this chapter I observed the prevalence, in ME studies, of works dealing with the impact of French on the lexicon. This is not surprising, as the analysis of lexical borrowing constitutes an area which is relatively easy to delimit and in which comparisons across languages or language varieties can be done in a rather systematic and objective way (cf. Fischer’s 2007: 26–27 comments). By contrast, the study of the influence of French on morphosyntactic constructions is perhaps more challenging, especially if one takes into consideration the difficulty of finding an adequate methodology to carry out comparisons between source and target language. As noted above, previous studies on language contact (e.g. Silva-Corvalán 1993; Heine & Kuteva 2005) have taken the increase in frequency of the construction in the target language as an important criterion for measuring linguistic influence. Yet, as was also noted in Ch. 3 above, this can only be considered a partially valid criterion. Firstly, it focuses on the propagation of the construction only (as opposed to the possible influence of language contact on its appearance).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.5 (219)

Chapter 8. Comparatives and beyond 

Secondly, in the case of processes of language contact in ME, the data that has survived to the present-day is not easily comparable in terms of geographical provenance, genre, level of formality etc – and therefore, one could argue that frequency counts may vary depending on these parameters. In other words, macro-, multi-level analyses may not seem the most adequate approach to the study of language contact in ME. Another avenue of investigation was pursued – the origin of the compared adjective. A call of warning must still be made, of course, as the number of adjectives of Romance origin may vary according to the provenance of the texts selected for analysis (i.e. Southern texts may have a higher number of Romance loans due to the relative geographical closeness to the continent). Yet the investigation provided interesting results in that it consistently showed the preference of Romance adjectives for combining with periphrastic forms. It was suggested that this preference was due to the speakers’ lack of familiarity with the (Romance) adjectival base, hence the need to keep the morphology of the foreign element as intact as possible. At a more general level, this preference may also be indicative of differences between inflectional and periphrastic forms in terms of cognitive processing and complexity. The application of Givón’s (1990) parameters of markedness suggests that periphrastic comparatives signal comparison better (i.e. they are more marked structures) than the inflectional ones. Furthermore, following Rohdenburg’s (1996, 2003) complexity principle, one should assume the preference of more explicit constructions in environments where the cognitive processing may be compromised or considered to be more complex. In the case of comparatives, then, the morphological modification that the addition of -er to a foreign lexical item creates could, in all probability, complicate cognitive processing (as well as the production). By contrast, as Mondorf (2003) suggests, the pre-position of more alerts the addressee to the presence of a comparative phrase – hence helping to ease the processing of the structure (and, at the same time, its production – note the morphological constraints referred to above). As observed in Ch. 4 above, to date, no cognitive study of English comparison tackling this issue has been carried out;207 yet there exist some discrepancies between linguists as to where the complexity lies; i.e. the context or the comparative form itself (i.e. Givón’s parameters vs. Mondorf ’s 2003 claims). Chapter 2 above evidences the need for such an analysis – as well as hinting at the possibility that the complexity may lie in contextual factors rather than in the comparative forms themselves. . There are a number of psycholinguistics studies on the English comparative constructions (cf. Graziano-King & Cairn 2005 and the references mentioned there). However, these studies have, for the most part, focused on the acquisition of the comparative structures, especially as regards the rule-based vs. lexically-stored nature of the constructions.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.6 (220)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

. Chapter 4 and Chapter 5: Iconicity issues These two chapters explored the gradual reorganization of the comparative system after the development of the periphrastic comparative forms. In addition, the data-oriented exploration of Cruse’s (1996; cf. also Croft & Cruse 2004) antonymic system constitutes a good example of the combination of ‘armchair’ and ‘corpusbased’ approaches to linguistics that Fillmore (1992: 35) argued for. At a more general level, these chapters align themselves with studies such as Haiman (1980, 1983) or Givón (1985, 1990) in confirming the influence of iconicity on language (in this particular case, on the semantic and syntactic behaviour of comparatives) while at the same time pointing at the need for a careful evaluation of how that influence comes about. The idea that human language is a continuum of symbolic-to-iconic signs has been often repeated in the literature (Haiman 1985; Givón 1995; Fischer 1999; Herlofsky 2001). Two types of iconicity are standardly recognised; i.e. imagic and diagrammatic (Nänny & Fischer 1999: xxi ff.),208 diagrammatic iconicity being the type that best applies to the analysis of comparative structures. In terms of linguistic coding, the application of the proximity principle (cf. Bybee 1985: 11; Givón 1985: 202) reveals a difference between inflectional and periphrastic comparison. The inflectional strategy seems to be more attached or relevant to the meaning of the adjective (in this connection, cf. Bybee’s 1985 or Slobin’s 1985 analysis of verbal morphology and negation, respectively), as opposed to the periphrastic one, where the comparative morpheme is detached from the adjective, hence iconically signaling a greater ‘distance’ with regard to the adjectival meaning – put differently, a greater emphasis on the idea of degree (cf. also Curme 1931). Furthermore, the quantity principle (Givón 1995: 49ff.) also establishes a link between periphrastic forms and the idea of cognitive/informational complexity (see also Mondorf ’s 2003 claims in Ch. 4 above). But can we find traces of iconic motivations in the early history of comparison? In Ch. 2 above, I suggested that the rise of English periphrastic comparatives could have been the result of the ‘weakening’ or grammaticalisation of the inflectional forms in connection with the decline of the system of inflections at the end of the OE period. In keeping with Fischer (1999), this development could well be interpreted as an attempt at restoring the iconicity of comparative constructions (i.e. the distinctiveness of the quality + degree meaning; see Figure 8.1, adapted from Fischer 1999: 351–352; cf. also Delancey 1985: 381). . Another iconic distinction is that between endophoric and exophoric iconicity (Nöth 2001); however, since it is not directly relevant to the present argument, it will not be further mentioned here.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.7 (221)

Chapter 8. Comparatives and beyond  x+x [Adj + er] y+y [quality + degree]

x + (?= weakened inflection) [Adjer] > y+y [quality + degree]

x

x

[more + Adj.] > y+y [degree + quality]

Figure 8.1. Comparatives and iconicity

It has been noted in Ch. 2 above that grammaticalisation processes do not always reach completion (i.e. through the disappearance of the grammaticalising construction) and may indeed be reversed. This may have been the case with the English comparative system – where the rise of the periphrastic comparative strategy did not lead to the loss of the inflectional one. More research needs to be done as regards the factors that led to the (re)strengthening of inflectional forms in English and the extent to which they may be linked to iconic considerations; however, without any doubt, iconicity is a very important factor in the overall development of comparative constructions – and other linguistic constructions more generally. The actual impact of iconic principles on specific processes of change needs nevertheless to be carefully examined. For instance, Fischer (1999: 364–365) indicates that the reversal of the grammaticalisation of the English particle to was due to a strengthening in the verbal nature of the infinitive. The ‘shift-of-tense’ meaning that to acquired due to that change is, as Fischer (1999) suggests, conceptually iconic to the physical direction meaning characteristic of to. However, the change itself seems to have been caused by changes taking place elsewhere in the synchronic system of grammar. Now, going back to the analysis of comparative constructions, it is worth noting that Ch. 6 and Ch. 7 pointed to the iconic nature of the extracomparative load that some double periphrastic forms seemed to convey in ME and EModE. The formal iconicity of the double periphrastic construction seemed to have accidentally been triggered by the re-structuring of the comparative system (see Ch. 7, Section 7 above); furthermore, their emphatic semantic import was lost under the pressure of sociolinguistic factors. In other words, it is only after a very careful exploration of a process of change that iconicity can be fully invoked as the main motivation (as opposed to a side-effect) of a process of language change.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.8 (222)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

. Chapter 6 and Chapter 7: Double marking of degree, linguistic purism In Section 1 above I argued against too hasty explanations in terms of foreign influence. My research on double comparatives also constitutes a warning, in this case, against exaggerating the impact of standardisation and prescriptivism on language (i.e. they did not lead to the stigmatisation of double comparatives but instead, merely reinforced the process). In its turn, this points to the advisability of reassessing the (supposed) influence that these factors may have had on processes of linguistic change. Along the same lines, recent literature (Rodríguez-Gil 2002; Beal 2004) suggests the need of readdressing the role of LModE grammarians within the history of the language, for, as they correctly indicate, the opposition prescriptive vs. descriptive is neither an exclusive nor a hard-and fast one, and prescriptive grammarians “base their rules as much as on the perceived practice of the educated upper classes as on ‘reason’, ‘logic’ and the rules of Latin” (Beal 2004: 123). Research on the work of particular grammarians and corpus-based studies on the influence of prescriptivism on specific linguistic features has recently appeared (see Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2005 on Robert Lowth, Hodson 2006 on Joseph Priestley, Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2008 on double negation). Yet more studies are needed in order to gain an accurate understanding of the interconnection between linguistic purism and language change in English. Furthermore, as Nevalainen and Raumolin-Brunberg (2005: 44) point out, corpus-based sociolinguistic research for the LModE period has mainly concentrated on microlevel analyses (i.e. social network theory; cf. Fitzmaurice 2000; Tieken-Boon van Ostade 2000). By contrast, the study of double comparatives presented here features a combination of a data corpus (large-scale, multi-genre corpora) analysis and precept-corpus (i.e. grammars) analysis which, from a methodological point of view, substantially differs from the previous approach and reveals itself as a suitable means of tracking social change on a wider level (cf. also Auer & GonzálezDíaz 2005; Bax 2008). Here I would therefore like to emphasise the complementary nature of these two methods and the enormous potential that their combination may have for future socio-historical research. The study of double forms offered above also has some wider theoretical implications. Denison (2003: 58) describes what have traditionally been considered the steps in a process of linguistic change. All linguistic change presupposes the existence of variation (cf. also Kroch 1989, 1994) of old and new forms expressing (roughly) the same meaning. Once a new linguistic form acquires a social/functional value, its frequency gradually increases and exerts more and more pressure on the older variant, which either undergoes a gradual reduction in frequency until it virtually disappears (e.g. the variation between -th and -s as markers of the third person singular verbal forms, cf. Krug 2003) or becomes restricted to non-standard environments (frequently as a consequence of a previous

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.9 (223)

Chapter 8. Comparatives and beyond 

stigmatisation process). Focusing now on the system of comparison, I observed the rise of two new variants (periphrastic and double forms) at roughly the same time. Periphrastic comparatives established themselves as an alternative strategy to inflectional comparative forms (cf. e.g. Kytö 1996) – yet their expansion did not result in the gradual reduction of inflectional forms (see Kytö & Romaine 1997).209 The frequency of double forms increased during the time in which they seem to be associated with emphatic meanings; however, once they became a social shibboleth, they were restricted to non-standard environments. Under these conditions, one would have expected a consistent association of double forms with non-standard practices until their virtual disappearance; instead, the data from the BNC seemed to point to a relative expansion of double forms in certain educated environments. On a general level, then, one may conclude that the evolution of double forms (and perhaps the structure of the whole comparative system of comparison) lends support to Denison’s (2003) suggestion that the S-curve model of language change should not be interpreted too simplistically as a mechanical process that once set in motion, goes all the way to completion. In this connection, one may also invoke Lass’ (1997: 288ff.) differentiation between macro- and micro-story approaches to the study of language change. Macro-story approaches focus on the overall process of change whereas the micro-story approaches pay attention to the way in which language change is implemented. Lass (1997: 288) observes that “[w]e seem usually to be thinking of macro-stories when we talk about ‘change’; but the micro-stories are of enormous theoretical importance as well”. The history of the English double comparative forms seems to constitute a good example of Lass’ observation.

. Further research The chapters above aimed at contributing to a better understanding of the evolution of the system of comparison in English. Nevertheless, the picture remains far from complete: more issues directly or indirectly related to the research on comparatives carried out in this book offer new avenues for further investigation. I detail four of them below. . It should be noted that inflectional and periphrastic comparatives are not perfectly synonymous structures (at least in PDE). Previous literature on comparison (Kytö & Romaine 1997; Leech & Culpeper 1997; Mondorf 2000, 2003; Dixon 2005 [1991]) has identified a number of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic factors that differentiate inflectional from periphrastic forms; this probably being the reason why the development of the two constructions has remained separate.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.10 (224)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

–

–

–

–

Chapter 1 focused on the origin of periphrastic comparatives. However, not only the comparative but also the superlative degree in English is a system consisting of both inflectional and periphrastic constructions. Initial investigations showed that no periphrastic superlatives with prototypical adjectives are attested in OE2-OE3 – the period(s) in which periphrastic comparative constructions first appeared.210 Further research in this area is therefore needed in order to clarify both the origin of the periphrastic superlative construction and how it relates to that of its comparative counterparts. A preliminary attempt at dealing with the semantics of inflectional and periphrastic comparative structures in the history of English was carried out in Ch. 4 and Ch. 5 above; yet more (and more fine-grained) semantic distinctions between comparative forms are in all probability yet to be discovered and explained. For instance, I observed the possibility of distinguishing pure predicative comparatives (e.g. he was happier last year) from attributive comparatives occurring in embedded predicative positions (he is a happier man now, cf. Ch. 5, Section 5 above), although no attempt at analysing the impact that the different syntactic positioning may have on the semantics on the construction was carried out. Elicitation tests may constitute a plausible way of refining (or further confirming the validity of) the semantic-pragmatic typology of comparison presented in Ch. 5, as this method allows the researcher to request actively very specific information that the corpus may either not have made available or provide little evidence of. Elicitation tests would also constitute a suitable means for adding further specification to some of the suggestions put forward in Ch. 7. It was observed that PDE double periphrastic comparatives are gradually gaining ground in middle-class speech, women being the trendsetters of the change. The data supporting this claim is nonetheless very limited (17 examples) and therefore, further quantitative investigation is needed in order to confirm/reject this claim. In addition, more data is also needed as regards the suggestion that double forms are expanding across informal written domains. The research carried out in Ch. 6 and Ch. 7 has helped to assess the place occupied by double periphrastic forms within the system of comparison in English. Nevertheless, English is not the only language in which double comparatives occur, nor are double comparatives the only grammatically doubly marked structure in the language (e.g. double negation). A cross-linguistic study of double marking in grammatical patterns (cf. in this connection, Lehmann’s 2005 work) would thus contribute to our understanding of the role of these

. I am very grateful to Susan Pintzuk and Ann Taylor for both giving me access to the YorkToronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English, and helping me carry out a preliminary search for periphrastic superlatives.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 15:21

F: CI29908.tex / p.11 (225)

Chapter 8. Comparatives and beyond 

constructions within the language as a whole. The latter is however not the only comparative research that should perhaps be carried out. In connection to the development of periphrastic forms, in Ch. 2, Section 5 above I briefly commented on the structure of comparative systems in other Germanic languages. Detailed research on the similarities, differences and possible influences as regards the development of comparison across Germanic languages would also advance our knowledge on the area – as well as shedding more light on language-contact issues as illustrated in Thomason & Kaufman (1988).

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.1 (227)

References

Aarts, Bas. 2004. “Modelling Linguistic Gradience”. Studies in Language 28. 1–50. Aarts, Bas, David Denison, Evelien Keizer & Gergana Popova. 2004. “Introduction”. Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader, ed. by Bas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer & Gergana Popova, 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Adamson, Sylvia. 1998. “Literary Language”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Suzanne Romaine, vol. IV (1776–1997), 589–692. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Adamson, Sylvia. 1999. “Literary Language”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Roger Lass, vol. III (1476–1776), 539–653. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aickin, Joseph. 1693[1967]. The English Grammar: or, the English Tongue Reduced to Grammatical Rules ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 21. Menston: Scholar Press. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. “Mechanisms of Change in Areal Diffusion: New Morphology and Language Contact”. Journal of Linguistics 39. 1–29. Akimoto, Minoji. 2001. “How Far has Far From Become Grammaticalised?”. Historical Linguistics 1999 ed. by Lauren Brinton & Desiree Lundström, 1–11. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Anderson, John. 1993. “Parameters of Syntactic Change: A Notional View”. Historical Linguistics: Problems and Perspectives ed. by Charles Jones, 1–42. London: Longman. Anderson, Stephen R. 1999 “A Formalist’s Reading of Some Functionalist Work in Syntax”. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics ed. by Michael Darnell, 111–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Angus, Joseph. 1861. Handbook of the English Tongue for the Use of Students and Others. London: The Religious Tract Society. Anon. 1705. Corpus Christianorum Latimotum. Belgium: Brepols & Tornoulthi. Anon. 1756 [3rd ed.]. The Compleat Letter Writer: or, New and Polite English Secretary. Containing Letters on the Most Common Occasions in Life. London. Aston, Guy & Lou Bournard. 1998. The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Asulanus, Franciscus H. 1518. Dioskorides. Venetiis: In Ædibus Aldi et Andreae Soceri. Auer, Anita & Victorina González-Díaz. 2005. “Eighteenth-century Prescriptivism in English – a Re-evaluation of its Effects on Actual Language Usage”. Multilingua 24. 317–341. Austin, Frances. 1984. “Double Negatives and the Eighteenth Century”. English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development ed. by Norman F. Blake, & Charles Jones, 138–148. Sheffield: Centre for English Cultural Tradition & Language. Bailey, Charles-James & Karl Maroldt. 1977. “The French Lineage of English”. Langues en Contact: Pidgin-Creoles ed. by Jürgen Meisel, 21–53. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.2 (228)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Bailey, Richard W. 1991. Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Balland, Elaine Y. 1995. “Philological Evidence for Language Contact Theory”. Leuvense Bijdragen 84. 145–157. Barber, Charles. 1964. Linguistic Change in Present-day English. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd. Barber, Charles. 1993. The English Language: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barber, Charles. 1997. Early Modern English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer. 1999. Usage-based Models of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bartsch, Renate & Theo Vennemann. 1972. Semantic Structures: A Study in the Relation between Semantics and Syntax. Frankfurt: Athenäum. Bassols de Climent, Mariano. 1967. Sintaxis Latina, vol. I. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Watching English Change: An Introduction to the Study of Linguistic Change. London: Longman. Baugh, Albert C. 1935. “The Chronology of Loan-words in English”. Modern Language Notes 50. 90–93. Bax, Randy C. 2008. “Foolish, Foolisher, Foolishest: Eighteenth-century English Grammars and the Comparison of Adjectives”. Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing ed. by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 309–318. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bayly, Anselm. 1772[1969]. A Plain and Complete Grammar of the English Language ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 186. Menston: Scholar Press. Beal, Joan. 2004. English in Modern Times. London: Arnold. Benson, Larry D. 1977. Malory’s Morte Darthur. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Berndt, Rolf. 1969. “The Linguistic Situation in England from the Norman Conquest to the Loss of Normandy (1066–1204)”. Approaches to English Historical Linguistics: An Anthology ed. by Roger Lass, 369–391. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Berry, Ralph. 1988. Shakespeare and Social Class. New Jersey: Humanities Press International. Bethurum, Dorothy. 1957. The Homilies of Wulfstan. Oxford: Clarendon. Bettesworth, John. 1778. The English Grammar Epitomis’d; Wherein the Parts of Speech are Made Clear and Easy; to Which are Added the Several Rules of Syntax. London. Biber, Douglas. 2000. “Investigating Language Use Through Corpus-based Analyses of Association Patterns”. Usage-based Models of Language ed. by Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer, 287–313. Stanford: Centre for the Study of Language and Information. Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1989. “Drift and Evolution of English Style: A History of Three Genres”. Language 65. 487–516. Biber, Douglas, Edward Finegan & Dwight Atkinson. 1994. “ARCHER and its Challenges: Compiling and Exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers”. Creating and Using English Language Corpora ed. by Fries, Udo, Gunnel Tottie & Peter Schneider, 1–13. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Bicknell, Alexander. 1790. The Grammatical Wreath; or, a Complete System of English Grammar. London. Blake, Norman F. 1969. Caxton and his World. London: André Deutsch. Blake, Norman F. 1981. Non-standard Language in English Literature. London: André Deutsch.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.3 (229)

References 

Blake, Norman F. 1983. Shakespeare’s Language. An Introduction. London: Macmillan. Blake, Norman F. 1991. William Caxton and English Literary Culture. London: The Hamblendon Press. Blake, Norman F., ed. 1992. The Cambridge History of the English Language, vol. II (1066–1476). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blake, Norman F. 1996. A History of the English Language. New York: New York University Press. Blake, Norman F. 2002. A Grammar of Shakespeare’s Language. Houndmills: Palgrave. Boas, Frederick S. 1910. Shakespeare and His Predecessors. London: John Murray. Boffey, Julia. 2000. “‘Many grete myraclys. . .in divers contreys of the eest’: the Readings and Circulation of the Middle English Prose Three kings of Cologne”. Medieval Women: Texts and Contexts in Late Medieval Britain ed. by Jocelyn Wogan-Browne, Rosalynn Voaden, Arlyn Diamond, Ann Hutchinson, Carol Meale & Lesley Johnson, 35–48. Turnhout: Brepols. Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. “Adjectives in English: Attribution and Predication”. Lingua 18. 1–34. Bolinger, Dwight. 1968. Aspects of Language. New York: Harcourt. Bolinger, Dwight. 2004[1961]. “Gradience”. Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader ed. by Bas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer & Gergana Popova, 311–320. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bolton, Whitney F. 1966. The English Language. Essays by English and American Men of Letters 1490–1839. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bosworth, Joseph. 1882. An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Braunmuller, A. R. 1990. “The Arts of the Dramatist”. The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama ed. by A. R. Braunmuller & Michael Hattaway, 53–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brewer, Derek S. 1968. The Morte Darthur. London: Edward Arnold. Britain, David & Andrea Sudbury. 2002. “Convergence, Drift and Slant in New Zealand and Falkland Island English”. Language Change. The Interplay of Internal, External and Extralinguistic Factors ed. by Mari C. Jones & Edith Esch, 209–242. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Brittain, Lewis. 1788. Rudiments of English Grammar. Louvain. Brook, George L. 1970. The Language of Dickens. London: André Deutsch. Brook, George L. 1973. Varieties of English. London: Macmillan. Brown, Alan K. 1970. The Epinal Glossary. Dissertation, Stanford University. Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1987. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brunner, Karl. 1951. Die Englische Sprache. Hale: M. Niemeyer. Buchanan, James. 1753. The Complete English Scholar. In three Parts. London. Buchanan, James. 1762[1968]. The British Grammar, or, An essay, in Four Parts, Towards Speaking and Writing the English Language Grammatically and Inditing Elegantly ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 97. Menston: Scholar Press. Bullokar, William. 1586. Bref Grammar for English. London: Edmund Bollifant. Burn, John. 1766. A Practical Grammar of the English Language. Glasgow. Burnley, David. 1992. “Lexis and Semantics”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Norman F. Blake, vol. II (1066–1476), 409–499. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butler, Charles. 1633. The English Grammar, or the Institution of Letters, Syllables and Words, in the English Tongue. Oxford: William Turner. Bybee, Joan. 1985. “Diagrammatic Iconicity in Stem-inflection Relations”. Iconicity in Syntax ed. by John Haiman, 11–48. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bybee, Joan & Joanne Schreibmann. 1999. “The Effect of Usage on Degree Constituency: the Reduction of don’t in American English”. Linguistics 37. 575–596.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.4 (230)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Cameron, Deborah. 1995. Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge. Campbell, Lyle. 2001. “What’s Wrong with Grammaticalization?”. Language Sciences 23. 113– 161. Campbell, R. N. and R. J. Wales. 1969. “Comparative Structures in English”. Journal of Linguistics 5. 215–251. Carter, John. 1773. A Practical English Grammar, with Exercises of Bad Spelling and Bad English: or, a Plain and Easy Guide to Speaking and Writing the English. Leeds. Chambers, J. K. & Peter Trudgill. 1994. Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Cecily. 1958. The Peterborough Chronicle. London: Oxford University Press. Clausner, Timothy & William Croft. 1999. “Domains and Image Schemas”. Cognitive Linguistics 10. 1–31. Clover, Bertrand. 1888. The Mastery of the French Language in England from the XIth Century to the XIVth Century. New York: Corning. Coar, Thomas. 1796. A Grammar of the English Tongue. To Which are Added Exercises in Bad English, to be Corrected by the Rules of Syntax. London. Cockayne, Thomas O. 1864. Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of Early England, vol. I. London: Longman. Coles, Elisha. 1674[1967]. The Complete Schoolmaster, or the Most Natural and Easie Method of Spelling English ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 26. Menston: Scholar Press. Cooper, Christopher. 1685[1968]. Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 86. Menston: Scholar Press. Coote, Charles. 1788. Elements of the Grammar of the English Language. Written in a Familiar Style: Accompanied with Notes Critical and Etymological. London. Cornips, Leonie & Willy Jongenburger. 2001. “Elicitation Techniques in a Dutch Syntactic Dialect Atlas Project”. Linguistics in The Netherlands 18 ed. by Hans Broekhuis & Ton van der Wouden, 53–63. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crane, Milton. 1951. Shakespeare’s Prose. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cremona, Joseph. 2002. “Latin and Arabic Evolutionary Processes: Some Reflections”. Language Change. The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors ed. by Mari C. Jones & Edith Esch, 201–207. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ˇ 2000. “Historical Background of Multilingualism and its Impact Crespo-Gracía, Begona. on English”. Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain ed. by David A. Trotter, 25–36. Cambridge: Brewer. Cresswell, Max J. 1976. “The Semantics of Degree”. Montague Grammar ed. by Barbara H. Partee, 261–292. London & New York: Academic Press. Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: the Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Croft, William. 1995. “Autonomy and Functionalist Linguistics”. Language 71. 490–532. Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. Essex: Longman. Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Croft, William & D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.5 (231)

References

Crowley, Tony. 1989. The Politics of Discourse: the Standard Language Question in British Cultural Debates. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Crowley, Tony. 1991. Proper English? Readings in Language, History and Cultural Identity. London: Routledge. Cruse, D. Alan. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, D. Alan & Pagona Togia. 1995. “Towards a Cognitive Model of Antonymy”. Lexicology: an International Journal on the Structure of Vocabulary 1:1. 113–141. Crystal, David. 2004[1977]. “English Word Classes”. Fuzzy Grammar: a Reader ed. by Bas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer & Gergana Popova, 191–212. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Curme, George O. 1931. A Grammar of the English Language, vol. III (Syntax). London & New York: Heath. Cygan, Jan. 1975. “Synthetical Comparatives in English”. Bulletin de la Société Polonaise de Linguistique 23. 55–57. Dalton, John. 1803[1801]. Elements of English Grammar. London: J. Richardson. Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French Influence on Middle English Morphology. A Corpusbased Study of Derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Danchev, Andrei. 1989. “Language Change Typology and Adjectival Comparison in Contact Situations”. Folia Linguistics Historica 9. 161–174. Danchev, Andrei. 1997. “The Middle English Creolization Hypothesis Revisited”. Studies in Middle English Linguistics, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 79–108. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Daniel, Evan. 1898[1881]. The Grammar, History and Derivation of the English Language. London: Spottiswoode. Dekeyser, Xavier. 1986. “Romance Loans in Middle English: A Reassessment”. Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries: in Honour of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday ed. by Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek, 253–365. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dekeyser, Xavier. 1994. “The Multal Quantifiers Much/Many and their Analogues: a Historical Lexico-semantic Analysis” Leuvense Bijdragen 83. 289–299. Delancey, Scott. 1985. “The Analysis-Synthesis-Lexis Circle in Tibeto-Burma: a Case-Study”. Iconicity in Syntax ed. by John Haiman, 367–389. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Denison, David. 1998. “Syntax”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Suzanne Romaine, vol. IV (1776–1997), 92–329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denison, David. 2001. “Gradience and Linguistic Change”. Historical Linguistics 1999: Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics ed. by Laurel Brinton, 119–144. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Denison, David. 2003. “Log(ist)ic and Simplistic S-Curves”. Motives for Language Change ed. by Raymond Hickey, 54–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denison, David. 2006. “Category Change and Gradience in the Determiner System”. Handbook on the History of English ed. by Ans van Kemenade & Bettelou Los, 279–304. Oxford: Blackwell. Deuchar, Margaret & Marilyn M. Vihman. 2002. “Language Contact in Early Bilinguals: the Special Status of Function Words”. Language Change. The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors ed. by Mari C. Jones & Edith Esch, 267–284. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Dik, Simon C. 1989. The Theory of Functional Grammar, part I (The Structure of the Clause). Dodrecht: Foris.



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.6 (232)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Dillon, Bert. 1978. A Malory Handbook. Boston: G. K. Hall. DiPaolo-Healey, Antonette & Richard L. Venezky. 1980. A Microfiche Concordance to Old English. Toronto: University of Toronto. Dixon, R. M. W. 2005[1991]. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dobson, E. J. 1969. “Early Modern Standard English”. Approaches to English Historical Linguistics: An Anthology ed. by Roger Lass, 419–439. New York: Holt. Domingue, Nicole Z. 1977. “Middle English: Another Creole?”. Journal of Creole Studies 1. 89– 100. Dressler, Wolfgang U., Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk & Rossella Spina. 2001. “Sources of Markedness in Language Structures”. Folia Linguistica Historica 22. 103–135. Egelsham, Wells. 1780. A Short Sketch of English Grammar. Intended for the Use of Such as Study that Language Only. London. Elphinston, James. 1765. The Principles of the English Language Digested: or, English Grammar Reduced to Analogy. London. Elzinga, Dirk. 2006. “English Adjective Comparison and Analogy”. Lingua 116. 757–770. Emerson, Oliver F. 1894. The History of the English Language. London: Macmillan. Endter, W. 1922. König Alfreds des Grossen Bearbeitung der Soliloquien des Augustinus. Hamburg: Henri Grand. Estival, Dominique. 1989. “A Diachronic Study of the English Passive”. Diachronica 6. 23–54. Farrar, K. & Mari C. Jones. 2002. “Introduction”. Language Change. The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors ed. by Mari C. Jones & Edith Esch, 1–18. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fell, John. 1784. An Essay Towards an English Grammar. With a Dissertation on the Nature and Peculiar Use of Certain Hypothetical Verbs, in the English Language. London. Fenner, Dudley. 1584. The Artes of Logike and Rethorike: Plainly Set Forth in the English Tounge. Middelburg: R. Schilders. Field, Peter J. C. 1971. Romance and Chronicle: a Study of Malory’s Prose Style. London: Barrie and Jenkins. Fillmore, Charles J. 1992. “‘Corpus Linguistics” vs. “Computer-aided Armchair Linguistics””. Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings from a 1991 Nobel Symposium on Corpus Linguistics, 35–66. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Finegan, Edward. 1998. “English Grammar and Usage”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Suzanne Romaine, vol. III (1476–1776), 536–587. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fischer, Olga C. M. 1989. “The Origin and Spread of the Accusative and Infinitive Construction in English”. Folia Linguistica Historica 8. 143–217. Fischer, Olga C. M. 1992a. “Syntactic Change and Borrowing: the Case of the Accusative-andInfinitive Construction in English”. Internal and External Factors in Syntactic Change ed. by Marinel Gerritsen & Dieter Stein, 17–88. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fischer, Olga C. M. 1992b. “Syntax”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Norman F. Blake, vol. II (1066–1477), 207–408. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fischer, Olga C. M. 1999. “On the Role Played by Iconicity in Grammaticalisation Processes”. Form Miming Meaning. Iconicity in Language and Literature ed. by Max Nänny & Olga C. M. Fischer, 354–374. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fischer, Olga C. M. 2000. “The Position of the Adjective in Old English” Generative Theory and Corpus Studies: A Dialogue from 10 ICEHL ed. by Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & Chris B. McCully, 153–181. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.7 (233)

References 

Fischer, Olga C. M. 2001. “The Position of the Adjective in (Old) English from an Iconic Perspective”. The Motivated Sign: Iconicity in Language and Literature II ed. by Olga C. M. Fischer & Max Nänny, 249–276. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Fischer, Olga C. M. 2003. “Principles of Grammaticalization and Linguistic Reality”, Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 445–478. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fischer, Olga C. M. 2006. “On the Position of Adjectives in Middle English”. English Language and Linguistics 10. 253–288. Fischer, Olga C. M. 2007. Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fischer, Olga C. M., Ans van Kemenade, Willem Koopman & Wim van der Wuff. 2000. The Syntax of Early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fisher, Ann. 1750[1968]. A New Grammar: Being the More Easy Guide to Speaking and Writing the English Language Properly and Correctly ed. by Robin C. Alston English Linguistics 1500– 1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 130. Menston: Scholar Press. Fisher, Ann. 1762. The New English Tutor: or, Modern Preceptor. London: Richardson. Fitzmaurice, Susan. 2000. “The Spectator, the Politics of Social Networks, and Language Standardization in Eighteenth-century England”. The Development of Standard English, 1300 –1800: Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts ed. by Laura Wright, 195–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fogg, Peter W. 1792–96. Elementa Anglicana; or, the Principles of English Grammar Displayed and Exemplified. Stockport. Fogg, Peter W. 1796. Dissertations Grammatical and Philological. Stockport. Fowler, William C. 1852[1850]. The English Grammar in its Elements and Forms: with a History of its Origin and Development; Designed for Use in Colleges and Schools. New York: Harper & Brothers. Fries, Udo & Peter Schneider. 2000. “ZEN: Preparing the Zurich English Newspaper Corpus”. English Media Texts – Past and Present ed. by Friedrich Ungerer, 3–24. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Furnivall, Frederick J., ed. 1969. English Conquest of Ireland. (= Early English Text Society O.S., vol. 107). New York: Greenwood Press. Galbraith, V. H. 1941. “Nationality and Language in Medieval England”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 23. 124–128. Gardiner, Jane. 1799. The Young Ladies’ English Grammar; Adapted to the Differential Classes of Learners. York. Gardner, Edmond G. 1911. Dialogues of Saint Gregory, Surnamed the Great. London: Lee Warner. Gathercole, Virginia C. 1985. “More and More about More”. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 40. 3–104. Gil, Alexander. 1619[1972]. Logonomia Anglica ed. by Danielsson, Bror & Arvid Gabrielson. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell. Gilbert, A. J. 1979. Literary Language from Chaucer to Johnson. London: Macmillan. Giles, Howard & Philip M. Smith. 1979. “Accommodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence”. Language and Social Psychology ed. by Howard Giles & Robert N. St. Clair, 45–65. Oxford: Blackwell. Gill, David. 2005. “From Repetition to Reduplication in Riau Indonesian”. Studies on Reduplication ed. by Bernhard Hurch, 31–64. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Givón, Talmy. 1971. “Historical Syntax and Synchronic Morphology: an Archaeologist’s Field Trip”. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 7. 394–415.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.8 (234)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Givón, Talmy. 1985. “Iconicity, Isomorphism and Non-arbitrary Coding in Syntax”. Iconicity in Syntax ed. by John Haiman, 187–220. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-typological Introduction, vol. II. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Givón, Talmy. 1995. “Isomorphism and the Grammatical Code: Cognitive and Biological Considerations”. Iconicity in Language ed. by Raffaele Simone, 47–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gnutzmann, C., R. Ilson & J. Webster. 1973. “Comparative Constructions in Contemporary English”. English Studies 54. 417–438. Godden, Malcolm. 1992. “Literary language”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Richard M. Hogg, vol. I (The Beginnings to 1066), 490–535. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. González-Díaz, Victorina. 2004. “Adjectival Double Periphrastic Comparison in EModE: A Socio-stylistic Analysis”. Folia Linguistica Historica 25. 177–210. González-Díaz, Victorina. 2006. “The Origin of English Periphrastic Comparison”. English Studies 84. 707–734. González-Díaz, Victorina. 2007. “Worser and Lesser in Modern English”. Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed: New Insights into Late Modern English ed. by Jorge-Luis Bueno-Alonso, Dolores Gómez-González, Javier Pérez-Guerra & Esperanza Rama-Martínez, 237–278. Bern: Peter Lang. González-Díaz, Victorina. 2008. “On Normative Grammarians and Double Marking of Degree”. Grammars, Grammarians and Grammar Writing ed. by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 267–288. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Görlach, Manfred. 1985. “Renaissance English”. The English Language Today ed. by Sidney Greenbaum, 30–40. Oxford: Pergamon. Görlach, Manfred. 1986. “Middle English – a Creole?”. Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries. In Honour of Jacek Fisiak ed. by Dieter Kastovski & Aleksander Szwedek, 329–344. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Görlach, Manfred. 1999. “Regional and Social Variation”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Roger Lass, vol. III (1476–1776), 459–538. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Graziano-King, Janine. 1999. Acquisition of Comparative Forms in English. PhD dissertation, City University of New York. Graziano-King, Janine. 2003. English Comparatives: A Preliminary Investigation. Ms. Graziano-King, Janine & Helen Smith Cairns. 2005. “Acquisition of English Comparative Adjectives”. Journal of Child Language 32. 345–373. Greaves, Paul. 1594/1969. Grammatica Anglicana ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 169. Menston: Scholar Press. Greenwood, James. 1711[1968]. An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 128. Menston: Scholar Press. Greenwood, James. 1729[1968]. An Essay towards a Practical English Grammar ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 128. Menston: Scholar Press. Gries, Stefan T. 2003. “Grammatical Variation in English: A Question of ‘Structure vs. Function’?”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 155–173. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Gunther, Robert T. 1934. The Greek Herbal of Dioscorides. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.9 (235)

References 

Haeberli, Eric. 2000. “Adjuncts and the Syntax of Subjects in Old and Middle English”. Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms ed. by Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas & Anthony Warner, 109–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haiman, John. 1980. “The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation”. Language 56. 515–540. Haiman, John. 1983. “Iconic and Economic Motivation”. Language 59. 781–819. Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, Michael A. K. 2004[1985]. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London & New York: Edward Arnold. Hamamoto, Hideki. 1993. “A Fuzzy-theoretical Approach to Adjectival Comparatives”. Osaka University Papers in English Linguistics 1. 1–18. Hamilton, Bernard. 1985. “Prester John and the Three Kings of Cologne”. Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. H. C. Davis ed. by Henry Mayr-Harting & Robert I. Moore, 177–191. London: The Hambledon Press. Hankamer, Jorge. 1973. “Why There are Two Than’s in English”. Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society ed. by Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser, 179–191. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Hare, Mary L., Michael Ford & William D. Marslen-Wilson. 2001. “Ambiguity and Frequency Effects in Regular Verb Inflection”. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure ed. by Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper, 181–200. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Harris, Alice. 2005[2003]. “Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Syntactic Change”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda, 529–551. London: Blackwell. Harsley, Fred. 1889. Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter (=Early English Text Society, vol. 92). London: Trübner. Haslerund, Vibecke & Anna-Britta Stenström. 1995. “The Bergen Corpus of London Teenager Language (COLT)”. Spoken English on Computer ed. by Geoffrey Leech, Greg Myers & Jenny Thomas, 235–242. London: Longman. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. “The Diachronic Externalization of Inflection”. Linguistics 31. 279– 309. Haspelmath, Martin. 1994. “Passive Participles across Languages” Voice: Form and Function. (= Typological Studies in Language 27) ed. by Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper, 151–177. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. “Why is Grammaticalization Irreversible?”. Linguistics 37. 1043– 1068. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. “Against Markedness (and What to Replace It With)”. Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70. Hattaway, Michael. 1990. “Drama and Society”. The Cambridge Companion to English Renaissance Drama ed. by Albert R. Braunmuller & Michael Hattaway, 91–126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Haugen, E. 1997. “Language Standardisation”. Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook ed. by Nikolas Coupland & Adam Jaworski, 341–352. London: Macmillan. Haverius, Georgius. 1517. De Partibus Orationis. Augsburg: J. Miller. Hawkins, John A. 2003. “Why Are Zero-marked Phrases Close to Their Heads?”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 175–204. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Haywood, James. 1793. A Short Grammatical Introduction to the English Tongue. Sheffield.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.10 (236)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Hazlitt, William. 1998. “On Beaumont and Fletcher, Ben Jonson, Ford and Massinger”. The Selected Writings of William Hazlitt ed. by Duncan Wu, vol. V, 229–253. London: Pickering and Chatto. Hecht, Hans. 1900. Bischofs Waerferth von Worcester Übersetzung der Dialoge Gregors des Grossen. Leipzig: Georg H. Wigand. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2003. “On Contact-induced Grammaticalization”. Studies in Language 27. 529–572. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hellan, Lars. 1981. Towards an Integrated Analysis of Comparatives. Tübinger: Gunter Naar Verlag. Hellinga, Lotte & Hilton Kelliher. 1977. “The Malory Manuscript”. The British Library Journal 3. 91–113. Herlofsky, William J. 2001. “Good Probes: Icons, Anaphors and the Evolution of Language”. The Motivated Sign ed. by Olga C. M. Fischer & Max Nänny, 55–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Herrtage, Sidney J. H., ed. 1879. Early English Versions of the Gesta Romanorum. London: Trübner. Herrtage, Sidney J. H., ed. 1880–1881. The Lyf of the Noble and Crysten Prynce, Charles the Grete (= Early English Text Society E. S., vols. 36, 37). London: Oxford University Press. Hill, Kenneth C. & Jane H. Hill. 1986. Speaking Mexicano: Dynamics of Syncretic Language in Central Mexico. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press. Hodgson, Isaac. 1770. A Practical English Grammar, for the Use of Schools and Private Gentlemen and Ladies, with Exercises of False Orthography and Syntax at Large. London. Hodson, Jane. 2006. “The Problem of Joseph Priestley’s (1733–1804) Descriptivism”. Historiographia Linguistica 33. 57–84. Hoeksema, Jack. 1983. “Negative Polarity and the Comparative”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 403–434. Hoey, Michael. 2001. Textual Interaction. London: Routledge. Hofmann, Johann B. & Anton Szantyr. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. München: C. Beck. Hogg, Richard M. 1992. “Phonology and Morphology”. The Cambridge History of the English Language, ed. by Richard M. Hogg, vol. I (The Beginnings to 1066), 67–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holbrook, Peter. 1994. Literature and Degree in Renaissance England. Newmark: University of Delaware. Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003[1993]. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hornero-Corisco, Ana M. 1997. “French Influence on English Prepositions: A Study of Ancrene Wisse”. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 23. 33–45. Horstmann, C., ed. 1988. Three Kings of Cologne: An early English translation of Historia Trium Regum (= Early English Text Society O. S., vol. 85). Millwood: Kraus Reprint. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, Rodney. 1967. “More on the English Comparative”. Journal of Linguistics 3. 91–102.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.11 (237)

References 

Hudson, Richard. 2003. “Gerunds Without Phrase Structure”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 579–615. Husén, Torsten & T. Neville-Postlethwaite, eds. 1985. The International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies, vol. IX. Oxford & New York: Pergamon Press. Hussey, Stanley S. 1982. The Literary Language of Shakespeare. London: Longman. Iglesias-Rábade, Luis. 1992. El Uso del Inglés y Francés en la Inglaterra Normanda y Plantagenet (1066–1399). Santiago: Servicio de Publicaciones e Intercambio Científico de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Iglesias-Rábade, Luis. 2000. “French Phrasal Power in Late Middle English: Some Evidence Concerning the Verb Nime(n)/Take(n)”. Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain ed. by David A. Trotter, 93–130. Cambridge: Brewer. Iglesias-Rábade, Luis. 2003. “French Influence in Middle English Phrasing: Some Evidence from At-prepositional Phrases”. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 104. 281–301. Ingersoll, Sheila M. 1978. Intensive and Restrictive Modification in Old English. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Inkelas, Sharon. 2005. “Morphological Doubling Theory”. Studies on Reduplication ed. by Bernhard Hurch, 65–88. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Inkelas, Sharon & Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication. Doubling in Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Janda, Richard D. 2001. “Beyond “Pathways” and “Unidirectionality”: on the Discontinuity of Language Transmission and the Counterability of Grammaticalization”. Language Sciences 23. 265–340. Janecka, Joanna. 2006. “Comparing the Compared: the Rivalry between Adjectival Suffixation and Periphrasis in the Middle English Manuscripts of Ancrene Riwle”. Paper presented at the XIV International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, Bergamo, Italy, August 2006. Jespersen, Otto. 1905. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Jespersen, Otto. 1909–1949. A Modern English Grammar, on Historical Principles, vol. VII. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munskgaard. Jespersen, Otto. 1925. Mankind, Nation and Individual from a Linguistic Point of View. Oslo: Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. Joly, André. 1967. Negation and the Comparative Particle in English. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Jones, Mari C. & Edith Esch, eds. 2002. Language Change: the Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Jones, Richard F. 1953. The Triumph of the English Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Jonson, Ben. 1640. The English Grammar. London: The Lanston Monotype Corporation. Jost, Karl. 1959. Die ‘Institutes of Polity, Civil and Ecclesiatical’. Bern: Francke Verlag. Keizer, Evelien & David Denison. 2002. Sort of Constructions: Grammar and Change. MS, University College London & University of Manchester. Kellner, Leon, ed. 1890. Caxton’s Blanchardyn and Eglantine, c. 1489: from Lord Spencer’s Unique Imperfect Copy, Completed by the Original French and the Second English Version of 1595. (= Early English Text Society E. S., vol. 58). London: Oxford University Press. Kerswill, Paul & Ann Williams. 2002. “‘Salience’ As An Explanatory Factor in Language Change: Evidence from Dialect Levelling in Urban England”. Language Change: the Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors ed. by Mari C. Jones & Edith Esch, 81–110. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. King, J. E., ed. 1930. Bedæ Opera Historica, vol. I. London: Heinemann.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.12 (238)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Klein, Ewan. 1980. “A Semantics for Positive and Comparative Adjectives”. Linguistics and Philosophy 4. 1–45. Klein, Ewan. 1982. “The Interpretation of Adjectival Comparatives”. Journal of Linguistics 18. 113–136. Klein, Lawrence. 1994. “‘Politeness’ as Linguistic Ideology in Late Seventeenth- and Early Eighteenth-Century England”. Towards a Standard English 1600–1800 ed. by Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 31–50. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Knüpfer, Hans. 1921. “Die Änfange der Periphrastischen Komparation im Englischen”. Englische Studien 55. 321–381. König, Ekkehard. 1971. “Adjectival Constructions in English and German: A Contrastive Analysis”. Heidelberg: Julius Groos. Kroch, Anthony. 1989. “Reflexes of Grammar in Patterns of Language”. Language Variation and Change 1. 199–244. Kroch, Anthony. 1994. “Morphosyntactic Variation”. Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (= The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic Theory) ed. by K. Beals, 180–201. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Kroch, Anthony & Ann Taylor. 2000. “Verb-object in Early Middle English”. Diachronic Syntax: Models and Mechanisms ed. by Susan Pintzuk, George Tsoulas & Anthony Warner, 132–163. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Krug, Manfred. 2003. “Frequency as a Determinant in Grammatical Variation and Change”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 7–67. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Kruisinga, Etsko. 1932. A Handbook of Present-day English, vol. III. Noordhoff: Groningen. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Kytö, Merja. 1996. “’The Best and Most Excellentest Way’: the Rivalling Forms of Adjective Comparison in Late Middle and Early Modern English”. Words. Proceedings of an International Symposium, Lund, 25–26 August 1995 ed. by Jan Svartvik, 124–144. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Kytö, Merja & Suzanne Romaine. 1997. “Competing Forms of Adjective Comparison in Modern English: What Could be More Quicker and Easier and More Effective?”. To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen ed. by Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, 329–352. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Kytö, Merja & Suzanne Romaine. 2000. “Adjective Comparison and Standardisation Processes in American and British English from 1620 to the Present”. The Development of Standard English 1300–1800. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts ed. by Laura Wright, 171–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kytö, Merja & Terry Walker. 2006. Guide to A Corpus of Dialogues 1560–1760. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press. Labov, William. 1972a. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William. 1972b. Socio-linguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lakoff, Geoff & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lambley, Kathleen. 1920. The Teaching and Cultivation of the French Language in England during Tudor and Stuart Times. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lane, A. 1700[1969]. A Key to the Art of Letters, ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 171. Menston: Scholar Press.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.13 (239)

References 

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. “Nouns and Verbs”. Language 63. 53–94. Langacker, Ronald. 2004[1987]. “Bounded Regions”. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol I. ed. by Ronald Langacker Standford: Standford University Press. Lass, Roger. 1992. “Phonology and Morphology”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Norman F. Blake, vol. II (1066–1476). 23–155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lass, Roger. 1997. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lass, Roger. 1999. “Phonology and Morphology”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Roger Lass, vol. III (1476–1776), 56–186. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lawrence, William W. 1931. Shakespeare’s Problem Comedies. New York: Macmillan. Leech, Geoffrey & Jonathan Culpeper. 1997. “The Comparison of Adjectives in Recent British English”. To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen ed. by Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka, 353–373. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique. Legge, Mary D. 1950. Anglo-Norman in the Cloisters. The Influence of the Orders upon AngloNorman Literature. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom Europa. Lehmann, Chistian. 2005. “Pleonasm and Characterisation”. Yearbook of Morphology 2005 ed. by Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle, 119–154. Heidelberg: Springer. Lennie, William. 1870[1810]. The Principles of English Grammar: Comprising the Substance of all the Most Approved English Grammars Extant, Briefly Defined, and Neatly Arranged; with Copious Exercises in Parsing and Syntax. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd. Léon, Antoine. 1985. The History of Education Today. Paris: Unesco. Leonard, Sterling A. 1929. The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700–1800. Madison: University of Wisconsin. Leumann, Manu & Joseph B. Hofmann. 1977. Lateinisch Laut- und Formenlehre. München: C. H. Beck. Liebermann, Felix. 1903. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, vol. I. Halle: Max Niemeyer. Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lightfoot, David. 2005[2003]. “Grammatical Approaches to Syntactic Change”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda, 495–508. London: Blackwell. Lignamine, Johannes P. 1420. Herbarium Apulei. Rome. Lily, William & John Colet. 1549[1970]. A Short Introduction of Grammar ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 262. Menston: Scholar Press. Linacre, Thomas. 1541. Rvdimenta Grammatices. Seb. Gryphivs Excudebat Lvgdvni. Lindquist, Hans. 2000. “Livelier or More Lively? Syntactic and Contextual Factors Influencing the Comparison of Disyllabic Adjectives”. Corpora Galore: Analysis and Techniques in Describing English ed. by John M. Kirk, 125–132. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Ljung, Magnus. 1974. “Some Remarks on Antonymy”. Language 50. 74–88. Lowth, Robert. 1762[1967]. A Short Introduction to English Grammar ed. by Robin C. Alston for English linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 18. Menston: Scholar Press. Lye, Thomas. 1671[1968]. The Child’s Delight ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 91. Menston: Scholar Press.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.14 (240)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Lyons, John. 2004[1968]. “A Notional Approach to the Parts of Speech”. Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader ed. by Bas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer & Gergana Popova, 213–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Magnusson, Lynne. 2001. “Style, Rhetoric and Decorum”. Reading Shakespeare’s Dramatic Language. A Guide ed. by Sylvia Adamson, Lynette Hunter, Lynne Magnusson & Katie Wales, 17–30. London: The Arden Shakespeare. Mair, Christian. 2003. “Gerundial Complements after Begin and Start: Grammatical and Sociolinguistic Factors and how they Work against Each Other”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 329–377. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Malouf, Robert. 1998. Mixed Categories in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Ph.D dissertation, Stanford University. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-Formation: a Synchronic-Diachronic approach. München: Beck. Mason, Charles. 1886[1879]. Shorter English Grammar. London: Bell. McIntosh, Carey. 1994. “Prestige Norms in Stage Plays, 1600–1800”. Towards a Standard English 1600–1800 ed. by Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 63–80. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. McMahon, April. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McWorther, John H. 2002. “What Happened to English?” Diachronica 19. 217–272. Meillet, Antoine. 1921. Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale. Paris: Champion. Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2003. “On Intensifiers and Grammaticalization: the Case of Swiþe”. English Studies 84. 372–391. Miege, Guy. 1688[1969]. The English Grammar; or, the Grounds, and Genius of the English Tongue ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 152. Menston: Scholar Press. Miller, Thomas, ed. 1890. The Old English Version of Bede’s ‘Ecclesiastical History of the English People’ (= Early English Text Society O.S., vols. 95–96), London: Trübner. Milroy, James. 2000. “Historical Description and the Ideology of the Standard Language”. The Development of Standard English 1300–1800. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts ed. by Laura Wright, 11–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Milroy, James. 2005. “Purist Ideologies on Historical Descriptions of English”. Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages ed. by Nils Langer & Winifred Davies, 324–342. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 1985. Authority in Language. Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation, London: Routledge. Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English Syntax, vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mithun, Marianne. 2005[2003]. “Functional Perspectives on Syntactic Change”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda, 552–572. London: Blackwell. Mittwoch, Anita. 1974. “Is there an Underlying Negative Element in Comparative Clauses?”. Linguistics 122. 39–45. Moberly, George H. 1869. Venerabilis Bedæ ‘Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum’, ‘Historia Abbatum’, et ‘Epistola ad Ecgberctum’, Cum ‘Epistola Bonifacii ad Cudberthum’. Oxonii: E. Typographeo Clarendoniano.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.15 (241)

References 

Mondorf, Britta. 2000. “Wider-ranging vs. More Old-fashioned Views on Comparative Formation in Adjectival Compounds and Derivatives”. Proceedings of the Anglistentag 1999 ed. by Bernhard Reitz, Sigrid Rieuwertz, Dieter Kastovsky, Michael Steppat, D. Riemenschneider & Monika Fludernik, 35–44. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier. Mondorf, Britta. 2002. “The Effect of Prepositional Complements on the Choice of Synthetic or Analytic Comparatives”. Perspectives on Prepositions ed. by Hubert Cuyckens & Günter Radden, 65–78. Tübinger: Niemeyer. Mondorf, Britta. 2003. “Support for More-support”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 251–304. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Mondorf, Britta. 2007. “Recalcitrant Problems of Comparative Alternation and New Insights Emerging from Internet Data”. Corpus Linguistics and the Web ed. by Marianne Hundt, Nadja Nesselhauf & Carolin Biewer, 211–232. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Moon, George W. 1871. Bad English Exposed: a Series of Criticisms on the Errors and Inconsistencies of Lindley Murray and Other Grammarians. London: Hatchards. Morell, John D. 1857. A Grammar of the English Language: Together with an Exposition of the Analysis of Sentences. Edinburgh: Constable and Co. Morris, Richard. 1872[2nd ed]. Historical Outlines of English Accidence. London: Macmillan. Morris, Richard. 1874. Elementary Lessons in Historical English Grammar: Containing Accidence and Word Formation. London: Macmillan. ˇ Crespo-García. 2002. “Adjectival Forms in Moskowich-Spiegel Fandiño, Isabel and Begona Middle English: Syntactic and Semantic Implications”. Studia Nephilologica 74. 161–170. Mossé, Fernand. 1943. “On the Chronology of French Loan-words in English”. English Studies 25. 33–40. Mossé, Fernand. 1952. A Handbook of Middle English. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press. Murray, Alexander. 1787[2nd ed.]. An Easy English Grammar; for the Use of Schools. London. Murray, Lindley. 1795. English Grammar, Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. York. Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Societé Néophilologique. Nänny, Max & Olga C. M. Fischer. 1999. “Introduction. Iconicity as a Creative Force in Language” ed. by Max Nänny & Olga C. M. Fischer. Form Miming Meaning. Iconicity in Language and Literature, xv–xxxv. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nänny, Max & Olga C. M. Fischer, eds. 1999. Form Miming Meaning. Iconicity in Language and Literature. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Napier, Arthur S. 1916. The Old English Version of the ‘Enlarged Rule of Chrodegang’, Together with the Latin Original (= Early English Text Society O.S., vol. 150). London: Oxford University Press. Napoli, Donna & Marina Nespor. 1976. “Negatives in Comparatives”. Language 52. 811–838. Nelson, Nicole. 2005. “Wrong Side Reduplication is Epiphenomenal: Evidence from Yoruba”. Studies on Reduplication ed. by Bernhard Hurch, 135–160. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nesfield, John C. 1898. English Grammar, Past and Present. London: Macmillan. Nettle, Daniel. 1999. “Functionalist and Its Difficulties in Biology and Linguistics”. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics ed. by Michael Darnell, 445–468. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Neustnupny, Jiˇrí V. 2004[1966]. “On the Analysis of Linguistic Vagueness”. Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader ed. by Bas Aarts, David Denison, Evelien Keizer & Gergana Popova, 341–350. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.16 (242)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2000. “Processes of Supralocalisation and the Rise of Standard English in the Early Modern Period”. Generative Theory and Corpus Studies: A Dialogue from 10 ICEHL ed. by Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, David Denison, Richard M. Hogg & Chris B. McCully, 329–371. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 1996. Sociolinguistics and Language History. Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics. London: Longman. Nevalainen, Terttu & Helena Raumolin-Brunberg. 2005. “Sociolinguistics and the History of English: A Survey”. International Journal of English Studies 5. 33–58. Newbery, John. 1770. Grammar Made Familiar and Easy to Young Gentlemen, Ladies, and Foreigners. Dublin. Newmeyer, Frederick. 1999. “Some Remarks on the Functionalist-Formalist Controversy in Linguistics”. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics ed. by Michael Darnell, 469–486. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Newmeyer, Frederick. 2001. “Deconstructing Grammaticalization”. Language Sciences 23. 187– 229. Nöel, Dirk. 2003. “Is there Semantics in all Syntax? The Case of Accusative and Infinitive Constructions vs. That-clauses”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 347–377. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Nöth, Winfried. 2001. “Semiotic Foundations of Iconicity in Language and Literature”. The Motivated Sign ed. by Olga C. M Fischer & Max Nänny, 17–28. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Page, Norman. 1973. Speech in the English Novel. London: Longman. Pape, Daniel. 1790. A Key to English Grammar. Newcastle. Paradis, Carita. 1997. Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund Studies in English 92. Lund: Lund University Press. Paradis, Carita. 2001. “Adjectives and Boundedness”. Cognitive Linguistics 12. 47–65. Paradis, Carita. 2003. “Between Epistemic Modality and Degree: the Case of Really”. Modality in Contemporary English ed. by Roberta Facchinetti, Frank Palmer & Manfred Krug, 197–220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Phillips, Betty S. 2001. “Lexical Diffusion, Lexical Frequency and Lexical Analysis”. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure ed. by Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper, 123–136. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pintzuk, Susan. 2002. “Morphological Case and Word Order in Old English”. Language Sciences 24. 381–395. Pintzuk, Susan. 2005. “Variationist Approaches to Syntactic Change”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda, 509–528. London: Blackwell. Plummer, Charles. 1965. Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel. Oxford: Clarendon. Poole, Joshua. 1646/1967. The English Accidence ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. V. Menston: Scholar Press. Postlethwaite, Richard. 1795. The Grammatical Art Improved: in Which the Errors of Grammarians and Lexicographers are Exposed. London. Potter, Simeon. 1969. Changing English. London: André Deutsch. Potts, Jennifer, Lorna Stevenson & Jocelyn Wogan-Browne. 1993. Concordance to Ancrene Wisse. Cambridge: Brewer. Pound, Louise. 1901. The Comparison of Adjectives in English in the XV and the XVI Century, Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.17 (243)

References 

Poussa, Patricia. 1982. “The Evolution of Early Standard English: The Creolization Hypothesis”. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 14. 69–85. Poutsma, Hendrik. 1914. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff. Priestley, Joseph. 1761, 1768[2nd ed.], 1772[3rd ed.]. The Rudiments of English Grammar; Adapted to the Use of Schools. London. Prins, Anton A. 1952. French Influence in English Phrasing. Leiden: Universitaire Pers Leiden. Quackenbos, George P. 1864. An English Grammar. New York: D. Appleton. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Ramus, Petrus. 1565. Rudimenta Grammaticae Latinae. Lugduni Batavorum: Ex Officina Christophori Plantini. Ramus, Petrus. 1576. Grammatica. Lugduni Batavorum: Ex Officina Christophori Plantini. Rand, David & David Sankoff. 1990. Goldvarb 2.1: A Variable Rule Application for the Macintosh. Montréal: University of Montréal. Rhodes, Benjamin. 1795. A Concise English Grammar: Rendered Easy to Every Capacity, so that (without Any Other Help) a Person May Acquire the Knowledge of the English Language. Birmingham: J. Belcher. Rhodes, Ernest W. 1889. Defensor’s ‘Liber scintillarum’: with An Interlinear Anglo-Saxon Version Made Early in the Eleventh Century (= Early English Text Society O. S., vol. 93). London: Trübner. Richardson, Alexander. 1629. The Logicians School-master: or, A Comment upon Ramus ‘Logicke’. London: J. Bellamie. Rissanen, Matti, Merja Kytö & Minna Palander-Collin. 1993. Early English in the Computer Age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rodríguez-Gil, María. 2002. Teaching English Grammar in the Eighteenth Century: Ann Fisher. PhD dissertation, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. “Cognitive Complexity and Increased Grammatical Explicitness in English”. Cognitive Linguistics 7. 149–182. Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. “Cognitive Complexity and Horror Aequi as Factors Determining the Use of Interrogative Clause Linkers in English”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 205–249. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Rohdenburg, Günter & Britta Mondorf, eds. 2003. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Romaine, Suzanne. 1994. Language in Society. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rothwell, William. 2000. “Aspects of Lexical and Morphosyntactic Mixing in the Languages of Medieval England”. Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain ed. by David A. Trotter, 213– 233. Cambridge: Brewer. Rubino, Carl. 2005. “Reduplication: Form, Function and Distribution”. Studies on Reduplication ed. by Bernhard Hurch, 11–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rusiecki, Jan. 1985. Adjectives and Comparison in English. A Semantic Study. London & New York: Longman. Ryan, Karen L. 1986. A Grammar of the English Comparative. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Samuels, Michael L. 1972. Linguistic Evolution. With Special Reference to English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schachter, Paul. 1977. “Constraints on Coordination”. Language 53. 86–103.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.18 (244)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Schanzer, Ernest. 1963. The Problem Plays of Shakespeare. London: Routledge. Schendl, Herbert. 2000. “Linguistic Aspects of Code-switching in Medieval English Texts”. Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain ed. by David A. Trotter, 77–92. Cambridge: Brewer. Schlüter, Julia. 2001. “Why Worser is Better: the Double Comparative in 16th- to 17th-century English”. Language Variation and Change 13. 193–208. Schlüter, Julia. 2003. “Phonological Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English: Chomsky’s Worst Possible Case”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 69–118. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Schmied, Josef. 1994. “The Lampeter Corpus of Early Modern English Tracts”. Corpora Across the Centuries. Proceedings of the First International Colloquium on English Diachronic Corpora ed. by Merja Kytö, Matti Rissanen & Susan Wright, 81–89. Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi. Schwegler, Armin. 1994. “Analysis and Synthesis”. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics ed. by R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson, vol. I, 111–114. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Scotson, James. 1876. An English Grammar and Analysis: with Copious Exercises, for Elementary Schools, Expressly Arranged to Assist Pupil Teachers in Giving Lessons. Manchester: J. B. Ledsham. Scragg, Donald. 2001. An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon Studies. Manchester: Centre for AngloSaxon studies. Sedgefield, Walter J. 1899. King Alfred’s Old English Version of Boethius’ ‘De consolatione philosophia’. Oxford: Clarendon. Shaklee, Margaret. 1980. “The Rise of Standard English”. Standards and Dialects in English. ed. by Timothy Shopen & Joseph M. Williams, 33–62. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop. Shaw, Patricia. 2005. “Non-adjacency in Reduplication”. Studies on Reduplication ed. by Bernhard Hurch, 161–210. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Shaw, Sally. 1963. “Caxton and Malory”. Essays on Malory ed. by Jack A. W. Bennet, 114–145. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Siemund, Peter. 2003. “Varieties of English from a Cross-linguistic Perspective: Intensifiers and Reflexives”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 479–506. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Siewierska, Anna. 1991. Functional Grammar. London & New York: Routledge. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1993. “On the Permeability of Grammars: Evidence from Spanish and English Contact”. Linguistic perspectives on the Romance languages ed. by William J. Ashby, M. Mithun, G. Perissinotto & Eduardo Raposo, 19–43. Amsterdan & Philadelphia: John Bejamins. Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Singh, Rajendra. 2005. “Reduplication in Modern Hindi and the Theory of Reduplication”. Studies on Reduplication ed. by Bernhard Hurch, 263–282. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Skaffari, Janne. 1998. “Contact and Change: Approaches to Historical Linguistics”. English studies: Methods and Approaches ed. by Matti Peikola & Sanna-Kaisa Tanskanen, 71–86. Turku: University of Turku. Skeat, Walter W., ed. 1887. The Holy Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Skeat, Walter W. 1966. Ælfric’s ‘Lives of Saints’, Being a Set of Sermons on Saint’s Days Formerly Observed by the English Church (= Early English Text Society O.S.), vols. 76, 82, 94, 114. London: Oxford University Press. Smetham, Thomas. 1774. The Practical Grammar; or, An Easy Way to Understand English. London.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.19 (245)

References 

Smith, Jeremy J. 1992. “The Use of English: Language Contact, Dialect Variation, and Written Standardization during the Middle English Period”. English in Its Social Contexts: Essays in Historical Sociolinguistics ed. by Tim W. Machan, Charles T. Scott & Suzanne Romaine, 47–68. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, Jeremy J. 1996. An Historical Study of English: Function, Form and Change. Routledge: London. Smith, Jeremy J. 2000 “Language and Style in Malory”. A Companion to Malory ed. by Elizabeth Archibald & A. S. G. Edwards, 97–114. Cambridge: Brewer. Sommer, H. Oskar, ed. 1889. Le Morte Darthur. London: David Nutt. Spisak, James W. 1983. Caxton’s Malory. Berkeley: University of California Press. Stassen, Leo. 1984. “The Comparative Compared”. Journal of Semantics 3. 143–182. Stein, Dieter. 1994 “Sorting out the Variants: Standardization and Social Factors in the English Language 1600–1800”. Towards a Standard English 1600–1800 ed. by Dieter Stein & Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 1–17. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Stenström, Anna-Britta. & Legil E. Breivik. 1993. “The Bergen Corpus of Teenage Talk”. ICAME Journal 17. 128. Story, Joshua. 1783. An Introduction to English Grammar; to Which is Annexed a Treatise on Rhetorick. Newcastle upon Tyne. Strang, Barbara. 1970. A History of English. London: Methuen. Suematsu, Nobuko. 2004. “The Comparison of Adjectives in 18th-century English”. NOWELE 45. 33–50. Svartvik, Jan. 1990. The London Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund: Lund University Press. Sweet, Henry. 1871. King Alfred’s West-Saxon Version of Gregory’s ‘Pastoral Care’ (= Early English Text Society O. S., vols. 45–50). London: Trübner. Sweet, Henry. 1883. King Alfred’s ‘Orosius’ (= Early English Text Society O.S., vol. 79). London: Trübner. Sweet, Henry. 1891. A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical. Oxford: Clarendon. Sykes, Frederick H. 1899. French Elements in Middle English. Oxford: Horace Hart. Tagliamonte, Sali. 2007. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Terasawa, J. 2003. “A Sociohistorical Study of Periphrastic Comparison in English”. Current Issues in English Linguistics (Special Publications of the English Linguistic Society of Japan) ed. by Masamoto Ukaji, Masayuki Ike-Uchi & Yoshiki Nisimura, 191–207. Tokio: The English Linguistic Society of Japan. Teyssier, Jun. 1968. “Notes on the Syntax of the Adjective in Modern English”. Lingua 20. 225– 249. Thomason, Sarah G. & Terrence Kaufman. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Thomason, Sarah G. 2005[2003]. “Contact as a Source of Language Change”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda, 686–712. Oxford: Blackwell. Thompson, Sandra. 1992. “Functional Grammar”. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics ed. by William Bright, vol. II, 37–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thorpe, Benjamin, ed. 1844. The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church. London: Printed for the Ælfric Society. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 1995. The Two Versions of Malory’s Morte Darthur: Multiple Negation and the Editing of the Text. Cambridge: Brewer.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.20 (246)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2000. “Social Network Analysis and the History of English”. Social Network Analysis and the History of English. (= European Journal of English Studies 4.3) ed. by Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Terttu Nevalainen & Luisella Caon, 211–216. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2005. “Of Social Networks and Linguistic Influence: The Language of Robert Lowth and His Correspondents”. Sociolinguistics and the History of English. (= International Journal of English Studies 5) ed. by Juan C. Conde-Silvestre & José M. Hernández-Campoy, 135–157. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. 2008. “The Codifiers and the History of Multiple Negation in English”, 197–214. New Perspectives on Prescriptivism, ed. by Joan Beal, Carmen Nocera & Massimo Sturiale. Bern: Peter Lang. Tillyard, Eustace M. W. 1950. Shakespeare’s Problem Plays. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Tolkien, John R. R. 1962. Ancrene Wisse (= Early English Text Society), vol. 249. London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University Press. Toulmin-Smith, Lucy. 1963[1885]. York plays. New York: Russell & Russell. Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1992. “Syntax”. The Cambridge History of the English Language ed. by Richard M. Hogg, vol. I (The Beginnings to 1066), 168–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trotter, David A. 2000. Multilingualism in Later Medieval Britain. Rochester: Brewer. Trotter, David A. 2003. “The Anglo-French Lexis of Ancrene Wisse: A Re-evaluation”. A Companion to Ancrene Wisse ed. by Yoko Wada, 83–102. Cambridge: Brewer. Trudgill, Peter. 1983. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. Penguin: Hammonsworth. Trudgill, Peter. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell. Trudgill, Peter. 1989. “Contact and Isolation in Linguistic Change”. Language Change. Contributions to the Study of its Causes ed. Legil. E. Breivik & Ernst H. Jahr, 227–237. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ussher, George N. 1785. The Elements of English Grammar. Gloucester. Van Coetsem, Frans. 1995. “Outlining the Model of the Transmission Phenomenon in Language Contact”. Leuvense Bijdragen 84. 63–85. Van Kemenade, Ans. 1994. “‘Old and Middle English”’. The Germanic Languages ed. by Jan van der Auwera & Ekkehard König, 110–141. London: Routledge. Van Valin, Robert D. 2003. “Functional Linguistics”. The Handbook of Linguistics ed. by Mark Aronoff & Janie Rees-Miller, 319–336. London: Blackwell. Vespoor, Marjolijn 1990. Semantic Criteria in English Complement Selection. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden. Vickers, Brian. 1968. The artistry of Shakespeare’s Prose. London: Methuen. Vinaver, Eugène. 1970. Malory. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Vinaver, Eugène. 1971. Malory: Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Vinaver, Eugène. 1981. “A Note on Malory’s Prose”. Aspects of Malory. (= Arthurian studies I) ed. by Toshiyuki Takamiya & Derek Brewer, 9–15. Cambridge: Brewer. Vinaver, Eugène. 1990. The Works of Sir Thomas Malory, vol. I. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Vincent, Nigel. 1994. “Exaptation and Grammaticalization”. Historical Linguistics 1993 ed. by Henning Andersen, 433–446. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Vincent, Nigel. 1997. “Synthetic and Analytic Structures”. The Dialects of Italy ed. by Martin Maiden & Mair Parry, 99–105. London: Routledge. Vising, Johan. 1923. Anglo-Norman Language and Literature, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Visser, Fredericus T. 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language, pt. 3. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Vogüé, Adalbert. 1978. Grégoire le Grand. Dialogues, vols. II–III. Paris: Éditions du Cerf.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:29/07/2008; 14:44

F: CI299REF.tex / p.21 (247)

References 

Von Stechow, Arnim. 1984. “Comparing Semantic Theories of Comparison”. Journal of Semantics. 1–77. Vorlat, Emma. 1975. The Development of English Grammatical Theory 1586–1737, Leuven: Leuven University Press. Wada, Yoko. 2003. “What is Ancrene Wisse?”. A Companion to Ancrene Wisse ed. by Yoko Wada, 1–28. Suffolk: Brewer. Waith, Eugène M. 1989. The Two Noble Kinsmen. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wales, Katie. 2001. “Varieties and Variation”. Reading Shakespeare’s Dramatic Language. A Guide ed. by Sylvia Adamson, Lynette Hunter, Lynne Magnusson & Katie Wales, 192–209. London: The Arden Shakespeare. Wallenberg, Johannes K. 1923. The Vocabulary of Dan Mitchel’s Ayenbite of Inwyt: A Phonological, Morphological, Etymological, Semasiological and Textual Study. Uppsala: Appelbergs Boktryckery. Wallis, John. 1653[1969]. Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 142. Menston: Scholar Press. Wasow, Thomas & Arnold, Jennifer. 2003. “Post-verbal Constituent Ordering in English”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English ed. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf, 119–154. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Watts, Richard. 2000. “Mythical Strands in the Ideology of Prescriptivism”. The Development of Standard English. Theories, Descriptions, Conflicts ed. by Laura Wright, 29–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact. The Hague: Mouton. West, Alfred S. 1897[1893]. The Elements of English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wharton, Jeremiah. 1654[1970]. The English Grammar ed. by Robin C. Alston for English Linguistics 1500–1800: A Collection of Facsimile Reprints, vol. 241. Menston: Scholar Press. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. “What’s in a Noun? (or: How do Nouns Differ in Meaning from Adjectives?)”. Studies in Language 10. 353–389. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wilkins, John. 1668. An Essay Towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language. London: Gellibrand. Willcock, Gladys D. 1966. “Shakespeare and Elizabethan English”. A Companion to Shakespeare Studies ed. by Harley Granville-Barker & G. B. Harrison, 117–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, R. M. 1943. “English and French in England 1100–1300”. History 28. 37–60. Woodbine, George E. 1943. “The Language of the English Law”. Speculum 18. 395–437. Wright, Elizabeth. M. 1913. Rustic Speech and Folk-lore. London: Oxford University Press. Wright, Thomas, ed. 1906. The Book of the Knight of La Tour-Landry. (= Early English Text Society O. S.), vol. 33. London: Kegan Paul. Wright, Thomas. 1800. An English Grammar. Yarmouth?. Wyld, Henry C. 1920. A History of Modern Colloquial English. London: F. T. Unwin.

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 10:46

F: CI299IND.tex / p.1 (249)

Index

A Adjective(s) ambiguity see ambiguity adjective-participle comparative, studies/works/literature on ff., , ,  in Latin ff. position/placement (of positive adjectives) , , ff.,  positive , , , ,  see also attributive, attribution, predicative, predication Aelfric fn., ,  affix(es) comparative ,  derivative  French fn. pleonastic  (see also doubling, reduplication, grammatical replication) Alfred, king fn., , , , ,  ambiguity avoidance of ,  of past participles ff. amplifier(s) , ,  (see also intensification, intensifier(s)) analogical modelling  spread  analogy , ,  analytic  comparative construction  comparative marker , ,  drift/tendency/development , , ff.,  language , fn.,  Latin forms/comparatives ,  analyticity ,  antonymic pair(s) , , fn.,  types ff.,  antonym(s) ff., ,  equipollent ff.,  overlapping ff., , ,  polar ff., , 

antonymy ,  model/system , , ff. arbiter(s) of grammaticality ,  (see also correctness, authority) attributive (see also attribution) adjectives , , , , , ,  position/slot , , fn., fn., , , , , , ,  attribution , , ,  authority of grammatical correctness  (see also arbiter(s) of correctness)

B borrowing , , fn., , fn., ,  French  Latin  Romance fn., fn. scale of  C Caxton , , , fn., fn., , , fn., , , fn., , ,  Chaucer , , , fn. codification of English  cognitive determinants of comparison ,  entrenchment  factors/properties ,  processing effort/complexity , , , , , , ,  salience  colloquial  comparative  English  language  use/registers/style , , , ,  committed (see also committedness) constructions  readings/interpretations ff., ff. committedness, notion of 

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 10:46

F: CI299IND.tex / p.2 (250)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective

comparative(s) particle/marker , ff., , ,  participial , ff. pseudo-comparative constructions ff., ff. true comparatives , , ff. completive (see also non-contrastive) comparative type ff.,  foci  contact-induced grammatical change , ff., fn., , , ,  contrastive reading/meaning/use of comparatives , , , ff. contrast-of-degree , , , ,  contrast-of-quality , , ,  correctness (see also arbiters, authority, prescriptivism)  grammatical ,  ideal of  of linguistic constructions  creole ff. creolisation concept/hypothesis  of English ,  process  D descriptive  grammars  diagrammatic  (see also iconicity) dialect(s) fn., , , , , ,  (see also dialectal) LModE  London  Rural  West-Saxon  dialectal  forms  markers  speech  spread  study  variation  doubling , , ,  (see also pleonasm, reduplication, grammatical replication) E emphatic (comparative) structures , , ,  environments ,  meaning(s) , , ,  semantic import  variant 

eighteenth-century grammars/grammarians fn., , , , , ,  prescriptivism  (see prescriptivism) entrenchment ,  erosion (linguistic) fn.,  establishment of comparative marker  of comparatives in discourse ff., , , ff. of length of adjective  of periphrastic comparatives , , , , ,  evolutionary change  exaptation , fn. expressiveness , ,  F foreign adjectival form/base ,  element, lexical item  features  influence/inference , , ,  languages (see also borrowings)  origin , ,  foreignisation  formal/formalist (see also generative) approach to language, studies, theory/ frameworks , , , , ,  functionalism/functionalist ,  G generative/formal studies on adjective comparison ,  (see also formal/formalist) grammatical categories fn.,  complexity fn. construction , ,  contact-induced change , , ff., ff., ,  content  correctness (see correctness) function  fusion  Latin distinctions ,  patterns  pleonasm (see pleonasm) regulations  replication , ,  system ,  theory 

TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 10:46

F: CI299IND.tex / p.3 (251)

Index

tradition  transfer , ,  treatises , , fn.,  variation , , fn., ,  gramaticalisation , , , , , , , , fn., ,  gramaticalising element/construction ,  (see also grammaticalisation) grammaticality , ,  I iconic , , , , fn.,  principle ,  (see also principle) iconicity , , , ff. impartial uses/interpretation ff., ff. inflection(s) fn., , , ,  inflectional double comparative , fn. passive ,  properties  information contextual  given  fn., , ,  new fn., , , , , fn.,  sentence  shared  information-structure  informational complexity  informativeness ,  intensification  intensifier , , , , , , , , , , , , ff., , , , , ff., , , , ff.,  intra-linguistic factors ,  hypothesis  reason  L language-contact issues ,  motivations  phenomenon  language-external, considerations/factors ,  language-internal factors  linguistic corruption ,  (see also prescriptivism, prescriptive) avoidance of  M Malory, Sir Thomas , ff., , , fn., , , , fn., 

morphological autonomy ,  characteristic/factor/determinant , , , , ,  comparison  (see inflectional) configuration  constraints  Doubling Theory  integrity  length  modification  opacity  reduplication (see reduplication) system (in OE) ,  morphosyntactic configuration/structure of comparatives , ,  French constructions  system ,  Morte Darthur , ff., , fn., ff., , fn., ,  N non-contrastive comparative use/type ff. non-standard language/speech , , , , ff., ,  P periphrastic complexity of comparative , ff. Double superlative  French/Latin constructions , ff., , , ,  in Germanic languages  marker(s) , ,  participial comparatives , ff., , ,  pleonasm/pleonastic , ,  (see also doubling, reduplication, grammatical replication) predication , ff., ,  (see also predicative) predicative adjective/comparative/uses , fn., , , ff., , ,  constructions  position/environment , , , , ff., ff., , ,  participle  premodifier(s) , ff., , , ff., ff.,  prescriptive/prescriptivist attitude(s)  grammar/grammar teaching , , 



TSL[v.20020404] Prn:4/08/2008; 10:46

F: CI299IND.tex / p.4 (252)

 English adjective comparison: A historical perspective grammarians , ,  (see also eighteenth-century) labels fn. model(s) ,  norms  tendencies , , , ,  prescriptivism , , , , , ,  prestige languages , ,  loss of fn. norms  of French  reasons of  social , fn. principle iconic ,  (see also iconicity) of isomorphism  of complexity fn., , ,  of exposure ,  of linguistic economy  of proximity  of quantity ff.,  purism, linguistic  (see also prescriptivism, prescriptive) R reanalysis , ,  Renaissance , , ,  English grammars of  reduplication , ff., , ,  (see also doubling, grammatical replication, pleonasm)

S scale borrowing  of degree , ,  semantic (adjective-based) , , , ff., ff., ,  Shakespeare ff., ,  (see also Shakespearean) Shakespearean fn., fn.,  standardisation, , , , , , , , , ,  standard grammars , ,  language/model of language , , , , , , , , , , ,  social downgrading , , ff., ,  (see also stigmatisation) stigmatisation , , , , , , ,  synthetic (see also analytic) change from  comparison ,  language , ,  U universal tendencies of change ,  cognitive abilities  V vernacular prose style/tradition 

CURRENT ISSUES IN LINGUISTIC THEORY

E. F. K. Koerner, Editor

Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Typologie und Universalienforschung, Berlin [email protected] Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (CILT) is a theory-oriented series which welcomes contributions from scholars who have significant proposals to make towards the advancement of our understanding of language, its structure, functioning and development. CILT has been established in order to provide a forum for the presentation and discussion of linguistic opinions of scholars who do not necessarily accept the prevailing mode of thought in linguistic science. It offers an outlet for meaningful contributions to the current linguistic debate, and furnishes the diversity of opinion which a healthy discipline must have. A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers’ website, www.benjamins.com 302 Ferraresi, Gisella and Maria Goldbach (eds.): Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction. xvii, 216 pp. + index. Expected November 2008 301 Parkinson, Dilworth B. (ed.): Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XXI. Papers from the twenty-first annual symposium on Arabic linguistics, Provo, Utah, March 2007. x, 207 pp. Expected September 2008 300 Vajda, Edward J. (ed.): Subordination and Coordination Strategies in North Asian Languages. xi, 213 pp. Expected September 2008 299 González-Díaz, Victorina: English Adjective Comparison. A historical perspective. 2008. xix, 252 pp. 298 Bowern, Claire, Bethwyn Evans and Luisa Miceli (eds.): Morphology and Language History. In honour of Harold Koch. 2008. x, 364 pp. 297 Dossena, Marina, Richard Dury and Maurizio Gotti (eds.): English Historical Linguistics 2006. Volume III: Geo-Historical Variation in English. Selected papers from the fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006. 2008. xiii, 197 pp. 296 Dury, Richard, Maurizio Gotti and Marina Dossena (eds.): English Historical Linguistics 2006. Volume II: Lexical and Semantic Change. Selected papers from the fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006. 2008. xiii, 264 pp. 295 Gotti, Maurizio, Marina Dossena and Richard Dury (eds.): English Historical Linguistics 2006. Volume I: Syntax and Morphology. Selected papers from the fourteenth International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (ICEHL 14), Bergamo, 21–25 August 2006. 2008. xiv, 259 pp. 294 Frellesvig, Bjarke and John Whitman (eds.): Proto-Japanese. Issues and Prospects. 2008. vii, 229 pp. 293 Detges, Ulrich and Richard Waltereit (eds.): The Paradox of Grammatical Change. Perspectives from Romance. 2008. vi, 252 pp. 292 Nicolov, Nicolas, Kalina Bontcheva, Galia Angelova and Ruslan Mitkov (eds.): Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing IV. Selected papers from RANLP 2005. 2007. xii, 307 pp. 291 Baauw, Sergio, Frank Drijkoningen and Manuela Pinto (eds.): Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2005. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Utrecht, 8–10 December 2005. 2007. viii, 338 pp. 290 Mughazy, Mustafa A. (ed.): Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XX. Papers from the twentieth annual symposium on Arabic linguistics, Kalamazoo, Michigan, March 2006. 2007. xii, 247 pp. 289 Benmamoun, Elabbas (ed.): Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XIX. Papers from the nineteenth annual symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Urbana, Illinois, April 2005. 2007. xiv, 304 pp. 288 Toivonen, Ida and Diane Nelson (eds.): Saami Linguistics. 2007. viii, 321 pp. 287 Camacho, José, Nydia Flores-Ferrán, Liliana Sánchez, Viviane Déprez and María José Cabrera (eds.): Romance Linguistics 2006. Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), New Brunswick, March-April 2006. 2007. viii, 340 pp. 286 Weijer, Jeroen van de and Erik Jan van der Torre (eds.): Voicing in Dutch. (De)voicing – phonology, phonetics, and psycholinguistics. 2007. x, 186 pp. 285 Sackmann, Robin (ed.): Explorations in Integrational Linguistics. Four essays on German, French, and Guaraní. 2008. ix, 239 pp. 284 Salmons, Joseph C. and Shannon Dubenion-Smith (eds.): Historical Linguistics 2005. Selected papers from the 17th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Madison, Wisconsin, 31 July - 5 August 2005. 2007. viii, 413 pp. 283 Lenker, Ursula and Anneli Meurman-Solin (eds.): Connectives in the History of English. 2007. viii, 318 pp. 282 Prieto, Pilar, Joan Mascaró and Maria-Josep Solé (eds.): Segmental and prosodic issues in Romance phonology. 2007. xvi, 262 pp.

281 Vermeerbergen, Myriam, Lorraine Leeson and Onno Crasborn (eds.): Simultaneity in Signed Languages. Form and function. 2007. viii, 360 pp. (incl. CD-Rom). 280 Hewson, John and Vit Bubenik: From Case to Adposition. The development of configurational syntax in Indo-European languages. 2006. xxx, 420 pp. 279 Nedergaard Thomsen, Ole (ed.): Competing Models of Linguistic Change. Evolution and beyond. 2006. vi, 344 pp. 278 Doetjes, Jenny and Paz González (eds.): Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Leiden, 9–11 December 2004. 2006. viii, 320 pp. 277 Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa and Lyle Campbell (eds.): Grammar from the Human Perspective. Case, space and person in Finnish. 2006. x, 280 pp. 276 Montreuil, Jean-Pierre Y. (ed.): New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics. Vol. II: Phonetics, Phonology and Dialectology. Selected papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Austin, Texas, February 2005. 2006. x, 213 pp. 275 Nishida, Chiyo and Jean-Pierre Y. Montreuil (eds.): New Perspectives on Romance Linguistics. Vol. I: Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. Selected papers from the 35th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Austin, Texas, February 2005. 2006. xiv, 288 pp. 274 Gess, Randall S. and Deborah Arteaga (eds.): Historical Romance Linguistics. Retrospective and perspectives. 2006. viii, 393 pp. 273 Filppula, Markku, Juhani Klemola, Marjatta Palander and Esa Penttilä (eds.): Dialects Across Borders. Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Methods in Dialectology (Methods XI), Joensuu, August 2002. 2005. xii, 291 pp. 272 Gess, Randall S. and Edward J. Rubin (eds.): Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics. Selected papers from the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Salt Lake City, March 2004. 2005. viii, 367 pp. 271 Branner, David Prager (ed.): The Chinese Rime Tables. Linguistic philosophy and historicalcomparative phonology. 2006. viii, 358 pp. 270 Geerts, Twan, Ivo van Ginneken and Haike Jacobs (eds.): Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2003, Nijmegen, 20–22 November. 2005. viii, 369 pp. 269 Hargus, Sharon and Keren Rice (eds.): Athabaskan Prosody. 2005. xii, 432 pp. 268 Cravens, Thomas D. (ed.): Variation and Reconstruction. 2006. viii, 223 pp. 267 Alhawary, Mohammad T. and Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.): Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XVII–XVIII. Papers from the seventeenth and eighteenth annual symposia on Arabic linguistics. Volume XVII–XVIII: Alexandria, 2003 and Norman, Oklahoma 2004. 2005. xvi, 315 pp. 266 Boudelaa, Sami (ed.): Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XVI. Papers from the sixteenth annual symposium on Arabic linguistics, Cambridge, March 2002. 2006. xii, 181 pp. 265 Cornips, Leonie and Karen P. Corrigan (eds.): Syntax and Variation. Reconciling the Biological and the Social. 2005. vi, 312 pp. 264 Dressler, Wolfgang U., Dieter Kastovsky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer and Franz Rainer (eds.): Morphology and its demarcations. Selected papers from the 11th Morphology meeting, Vienna, February 2004. With the assistance of Francesco Gardani and Markus A. Pöchtrager. 2005. xiv, 320 pp. 263 Branco, António, Tony McEnery and Ruslan Mitkov (eds.): Anaphora Processing. Linguistic, cognitive and computational modelling. 2005. x, 449 pp. 262 Vajda, Edward J. (ed.): Languages and Prehistory of Central Siberia. 2004. x, 275 pp. 261 Kay, Christian J. and Jeremy J. Smith (eds.): Categorization in the History of English. 2004. viii, 268 pp. 260 Nicolov, Nicolas, Kalina Bontcheva, Galia Angelova and Ruslan Mitkov (eds.): Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing III. Selected papers from RANLP 2003. 2004. xii, 402 pp. 259 Carr, Philip, Jacques Durand and Colin J. Ewen (eds.): Headhood, Elements, Specification and Contrastivity. Phonological papers in honour of John Anderson. 2005. xxviii, 405 pp. 258 Auger, Julie, J. Clancy Clements and Barbara Vance (eds.): Contemporary Approaches to Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the 33rd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Bloomington, Indiana, April 2003. With the assistance of Rachel T. Anderson. 2004. viii, 404 pp. 257 Fortescue, Michael, Eva Skafte Jensen, Jens Erik Mogensen and Lene Schøsler (eds.): Historical Linguistics 2003. Selected papers from the 16th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Copenhagen, 11–15 August 2003. 2005. x, 312 pp. 256 Bok-Bennema, Reineke, Bart Hollebrandse, Brigitte Kampers-Manhe and Petra Sleeman (eds.): Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2002. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’, Groningen, 28–30 November 2002. 2004. viii, 273 pp. 255 Meulen, Alice ter and Werner Abraham (eds.): The Composition of Meaning. From lexeme to discourse. 2004. vi, 232 pp.

254 Baldi, Philip and Pietro U. Dini (eds.): Studies in Baltic and Indo-European Linguistics. In honor of William R. Schmalstieg. 2004. xlvi, 302 pp. 253 Caffarel, Alice, J.R. Martin and Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen (eds.): Language Typology. A functional perspective. 2004. xiv, 702 pp. 252 Kay, Christian J., Carole Hough and Irené Wotherspoon (eds.): New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics. Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 21–26 August 2002. Volume II: Lexis and Transmission. 2004. xii, 273 pp. 251 Kay, Christian J., Simon Horobin and Jeremy J. Smith (eds.): New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics. Selected papers from 12 ICEHL, Glasgow, 21–26 August 2002. Volume I: Syntax and Morphology. 2004. x, 264 pp. 250 Jensen, John T.: Principles of Generative Phonology. An introduction. 2004. xii, 324 pp. 249 Bowern, Claire and Harold Koch (eds.): Australian Languages. Classification and the comparative method. 2004. xii, 377 pp. (incl. CD-Rom). 248 Weigand, Edda (ed.): Emotion in Dialogic Interaction. Advances in the complex. 2004. xii, 284 pp. 247 Parkinson, Dilworth B. and Samira Farwaneh (eds.): Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics XV. Papers from the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, Salt Lake City 2001. 2003. x, 214 pp. 246 Holisky, Dee Ann and Kevin Tuite (eds.): Current Trends in Caucasian, East European and Inner Asian Linguistics. Papers in honor of Howard I. Aronson. 2003. xxviii, 426 pp. 245 Quer, Josep, Jan Schroten, Mauro Scorretti, Petra Sleeman and Els Verheugd (eds.): Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2001. Selected papers from 'Going Romance', Amsterdam, 6–8 December 2001. 2003. viii, 355 pp. 244 Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa and Yves Roberge (eds.): Romance Linguistics. Theory and Acquisition. Selected papers from the 32nd Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Toronto, April 2002. 2003. viii, 388 pp. 243 Cuyckens, Hubert, Thomas Berg, René Dirven and Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.): Motivation in Language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden. 2003. xxvi, 403 pp. 242 Seuren, Pieter A.M. and Gerard Kempen (eds.): Verb Constructions in German and Dutch. 2003. vi, 316 pp. 241 Lecarme, Jacqueline (ed.): Research in Afroasiatic Grammar II. Selected papers from the Fifth Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Paris, 2000. 2003. viii, 550 pp. 240 Janse, Mark and Sijmen Tol (eds.): Language Death and Language Maintenance. Theoretical, practical and descriptive approaches. With the assistance of Vincent Hendriks. 2003. xviii, 244 pp. 239 Andersen, Henning (ed.): Language Contacts in Prehistory. Studies in Stratigraphy. Papers from the Workshop on Linguistic Stratigraphy and Prehistory at the Fifteenth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 17 August 2001. 2003. viii, 292 pp. 238 Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael, Luis López and Richard Cameron (eds.): A Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use. Selected papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Chicago, 19–22 April 2001. 2003. xvi, 386 pp. 237 Blake, Barry J. and Kate Burridge (eds.): Historical Linguistics 2001. Selected papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001. Editorial assistance Jo Taylor. 2003. x, 444 pp. 236 Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie, Miriam Taverniers and Louise J. Ravelli (eds.): Grammatical Metaphor. Views from systemic functional linguistics. 2003. vi, 453 pp. 235 Linn, Andrew R. and Nicola McLelland (eds.): Standardization. Studies from the Germanic languages. 2002. xii, 258 pp. 234 Weijer, Jeroen van de, Vincent J. van Heuven and Harry van der Hulst (eds.): The Phonological Spectrum. Volume II: Suprasegmental structure. 2003. x, 264 pp. 233 Weijer, Jeroen van de, Vincent J. van Heuven and Harry van der Hulst (eds.): The Phonological Spectrum. Volume I: Segmental structure. 2003. x, 308 pp. 232 Beyssade, Claire, Reineke Bok-Bennema, Frank Drijkoningen and Paola Monachesi (eds.): Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2000. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2000, Utrecht, 30 November–2 December. 2002. viii, 354 pp. 231 Cravens, Thomas D.: Comparative Historical Dialectology. Italo-Romance clues to Ibero-Romance sound change. 2002. xii, 163 pp. 230 Parkinson, Dilworth B. and Elabbas Benmamoun (eds.): Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics. Papers from the Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. Volume XIII-XIV: Stanford, 1999 and Berkeley, California 2000. 2002. xiv, 250 pp. 229 Nevin, Bruce E. and Stephen B. Johnson (eds.): The Legacy of Zellig Harris. Language and information into the 21st century. Volume 2: Mathematics and computability of language. 2002. xx, 312 pp.

228 Nevin, Bruce E. (ed.): The Legacy of Zellig Harris. Language and information into the 21st century. Volume 1: Philosophy of science, syntax and semantics. 2002. xxxvi, 323 pp. 227 Fava, Elisabetta (ed.): Clinical Linguistics. Theory and applications in speech pathology and therapy. 2002. xxiv, 353 pp. 226 Levin, Saul: Semitic and Indo-European. Volume II: Comparative morphology, syntax and phonetics. 2002. xviii, 592 pp. 225 Shahin, Kimary N.: Postvelar Harmony. 2003. viii, 344 pp. 224 Fanego, Teresa, Belén Méndez-Naya and Elena Seoane (eds.): Sounds, Words, Texts and Change. Selected papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000. Volume 2. 2002. x, 310 pp. 223 Fanego, Teresa, Javier Pérez-Guerra and María José López-Couso (eds.): English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Selected papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000. Volume 1. 2002. x, 306 pp. 222 Herschensohn, Julia, Enrique Mallén and Karen Zagona (eds.): Features and Interfaces in Romance. Essays in honor of Heles Contreras. 2001. xiv, 302 pp. 221 D’hulst, Yves, Johan Rooryck and Jan Schroten (eds.): Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 1999. Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 1999, Leiden, 9–11 December 1999. 2001. viii, 406 pp. 220 Satterfield, Teresa, Christina Tortora and Diana Cresti (eds.): Current Issues in Romance Languages. Selected papers from the 29th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Ann Arbor, 8–11 April 1999. 2002. viii, 412 pp. 219 Andersen, Henning (ed.): Actualization. Linguistic Change in Progress. Papers from a workshop held at the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, B.C., 14 August 1999. 2001. vii, 250 pp. 218 Bendjaballah, Sabrina, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer and Maria D. Voeikova (eds.): Morphology 2000. Selected papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000. 2002. viii, 317 pp. 217 Wiltshire, Caroline R. and Joaquim Camps (eds.): Romance Phonology and Variation. Selected papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Gainesville, Florida, February 2000. 2002. xii, 238 pp. 216 Camps, Joaquim and Caroline R. Wiltshire (eds.): Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition. Selected papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Gainesville, Florida, February 2000. 2001. xii, 246 pp. 215 Brinton, Laurel J. (ed.): Historical Linguistics 1999. Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Vancouver, 9–13 August 1999. 2001. xii, 398 pp. 214 Weigand, Edda and Marcelo Dascal (eds.): Negotiation and Power in Dialogic Interaction. 2001. viii, 303 pp. 213 Sornicola, Rosanna, Erich Poppe and Ariel Shisha-Halevy (eds.): Stability, Variation and Change of Word-Order Patterns over Time. With the assistance of Paola Como. 2000. xxxii, 323 pp. 212 Repetti, Lori (ed.): Phonological Theory and the Dialects of Italy. 2000. x, 301 pp. 211 Elšík, Viktor and Yaron Matras (eds.): Grammatical Relations in Romani. The Noun Phrase. with a Foreword by Frans Plank (Universität Konstanz). 2000. x, 244 pp. 210 Dworkin, Steven N. and Dieter Wanner (eds.): New Approaches to Old Problems. Issues in Romance historical linguistics. 2000. xiv, 235 pp. 209 King, Ruth: The Lexical Basis of Grammatical Borrowing. A Prince Edward Island French case study. 2000. xvi, 241 pp. 208 Robinson, Orrin W.: Whose German? The ach/ich alternation and related phenomena in ‘standard’ and ‘colloquial’. 2001. xii, 178 pp. 207 Sanz, Montserrat: Events and Predication. A new approach to syntactic processing in English and Spanish. 2000. xiv, 219 pp. 206 Fawcett, Robin P.: A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. 2000. xxiv, 360 pp. 205 Dirven, René, Roslyn M. Frank and Cornelia Ilie (eds.): Language and Ideology. Volume 2: descriptive cognitive approaches. 2001. vi, 264 pp. 204 Dirven, René, Bruce Hawkins and Esra Sandikcioglu (eds.): Language and Ideology. Volume 1: theoretical cognitive approaches. 2001. vi, 301 pp. 203 Norrick, Neal R.: Conversational Narrative. Storytelling in everyday talk. 2000. xiv, 233 pp. 202 Lecarme, Jacqueline, Jean Lowenstamm and Ur Shlonsky (eds.): Research in Afroasiatic Grammar. Papers from the Third conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis, 1996. 2000. vi, 386 pp. 201 Dressler, Wolfgang U., Oskar E. Pfeiffer, Markus A. Pöchtrager and John R. Rennison (eds.): Morphological Analysis in Comparison. 2000. x, 261 pp.

English Adjective Comparison: A Historical Perspective (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Volume 299)

English Adjective Comparison: A Historical Perspective (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Volume 299)

Morphological Analysis in Comparison (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Saami Linguistics (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistics Theory)

Grammar from the Human Perspective: Case, Space and Person in Finnish (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Language Typology: A Functional Perspective (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Language Typology: A Functional Perspective (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Emotion in Dialogic Interaction: Advances in the Complex (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Proto-Japanese; Issues and Prospects (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Linguistics and Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Rulon S. Wells (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Verb Constructions in German and Dutch (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Subordination and Coordination Strategies in North Asian Languages (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Connectives in the History of English (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science)

Papers in theoretical linguistics (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

The Laws of Indo-European (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

The Paradox of Grammatical Change: Perspectives from Romance (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, CILT 293)

Phonetics and Phonology: Interactions and interrelations (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Typological Models in Reconstruction (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory & History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Postvelar Harmony (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Loan Phonology (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Anaphora Processing (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Loan Phonology (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2004: Selected Papers from 'Going Romance', Leiden, 911 December 2004 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History ... IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

New Perspectives on English Historical Linguistics - Volume I: Syntax and Morphology (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Historical Linguistics 2003: International Conference On Historical Linguistics, Copenhagen, 11-15 August 2003 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History ... IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

The Transformational-Generative Paradigm and Modern Linguistic Theory (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Historical Linguistics 2003: International Conference On Historical Linguistics, Copenhagen, 11-15 August 2003 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History ... IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory

Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory

Germanic linguistics: syntactic and diachronic (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory)

English Adjective Comparison: A Historical Perspective (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series IV: Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, Volume 299)