In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms
  • Olga Fischer
More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. By Britta Mondorf. (Studies in language variation 4.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. Pp. xi, 222. ISBN 9789027234841. $143 (Hb).

There is 'more' to this book than meets the eye. On the surface the book only deals with two different ways of expressing the comparative form in English: the synthetic comparative with -er, and the analytic comparative with more. The book aims to explore what factors are involved in the [End Page 416] choice between these two. A much larger and a more profound aim is to find out how the choice relates to the way language is processed, and what role efficiency and processing complexity (or processing effort) play. These issues further lead to even larger questions, including the general nature of language processing and its relation to cognition and linguistic theory building.

In Ch. 1, M makes clear that the choice between the two comparative forms has been treated most widely in terms of word length (especially the number of syllables) and the phonetic nature of the final segment of the adjective. To discover the extent of the variability, she wishes to 'provide a quantitative and qualitative in-depth account of the multifarious forces that continually and systematically shape and design this area of morpho-syntax' (1). She investigates thoroughly and systematically what factors play a role in (synchronic) processing and considers the various diachronic tendencies in relation to the processing factors.

Both variants are considered thoroughly and insightfully on different levels so as to pull apart the complex knot of the processes at work. For example, Ch. 4 presents phonological constraints and conditions, followed by a similar approach to constraints on the morphological, lexical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic levels (Chs. 5–9). M attempts to tie the various factors together since they interact with one another. Chs. 10–11 deal with general diachronic developments and the different pathways that are found in British and American English. The investigations are firmly based on evidence from corpora such as British and American newspapers, the British National Corpus, and a diachronic corpus of British and American prose fiction. To investigate all of the possible constraints, adjectives are carefully selected for their appropriateness and frequency. The results are presented in a clear style, and amply illustrated by easy-to-read figures and tables.

Relying on studies of processing efficiency (e.g. Rohdenburg 1996, Hawkins 1999), M notes a trade-off between the use of an explicit marker (more) and a more economic inflective marker (-er): the former is less dependent on context and short-term memory, making it easier to process, while the latter, being less visible, needs more processing effort. The advantage of more is that by preceding the adjective, it alerts the language user that the adjective is a comparative. It is also advantageous because it can be stressed, is more clearly isomorphic, and has a 'higher cue reliability' (7) than the -er suffix, which is also a suffix used with agent nouns. M's working hypothesis is based on this idea of processing ease: 'Language users, when faced with the option between the synthetic and the analytic variant, prefer the latter in environments that are for some reason more difficult, more complex, less entrenched, less frequent, less accessible or in any way cognitively more complex' (6). It is assumed that similar compensatory strategies will be used in other cases where there is a choice between an inflected and a periphrastic construction. This study, therefore, is meant to provide 'more' support to such a complexity principle in general, and to bring to light the parameters that potentially cause complexity.

Each linguistic level has its own particular constraints. On the phonological level, the influence of the so-called principle of rhythmic alternation, which concerns the avoidance of successive stressed syllables (cf. Rohr 1929, Schlüter 2005), is first considered. In English, with its essentially iambic rhythm, A próuder cándidate is preferred to A móre próud...

pdf

Share