Book Reviews
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More support for more-support: the role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic forms. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Reviewed by Arne Lohmann, University of Hamburg.
The blurb of this monograph states that “this book provides the most comprehensive account of novel and hitherto unexplained factors operative in the
choice between synthetic ( prouder) and analytic (more proud ) comparatives.”
This statement is certainly true: however, it is a modest understatement. This
book, although slim in size, goes even further than merely investigating novel
factors: In impressive detail it provides the most detailed and comprehensive
description and explanation of all (new and previously known) factors that
drive the alternation between the two English comparative forms to date. In
explaining these variables, Mondorf ( henceforth also the author) puts forward
a unified theoretical explanation, the hypothesis of more-support, which states
that in cognitively complex contexts language users resort to the more explicit
analytic comparative. Put simply, the entire book can be viewed as an em­
pirical investigation of factors feeding into cognitive complexity, which lead to
a preference for the analytic form; in the author’s view, buttressing the claim
that the aforementioned hypothesis is the principle governing the present case
of variation.
After shortly introducing the general perspective and outline of the book
in the first chapter, Mondorf sets out to explain the theoretical preliminaries
(Chapter 2) for the subsequent empirical studies. Here she puts forward her
general hypothesis of more-support. It hinges on the well-known assumption
that language users constantly perform a trade-off between economy and explicitness. The synthetic comparative (-er), which requires the processing of
less form and thus has advantages in terms of economy, is used in less com‑
plex environments that pose rather low processing demands. Conversely, in
complex contexts, when processing demands are high, speakers resort to the
Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6 –2 (2010), 301–311
DOI 10.1515/CLLT.2010.012
2318_6-2_07.indd 301
1613-7027/10/0006 – 0301
© Walter de Gruyter
23/7/2010 9:22:23
302 Book reviews
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
analytic form with more, which, although requiring more form processing, is
claimed to be more explicit and thus easier to process. Hence, language users
“tend to compensate for the additional effort by resorting to the analytic form”
( p. 6). This view is strongly inspired by Rohdenburg’s (1996) complexity principle, which states that when faced with two options, in complex environments
a tendency towards the more explicit variant can be observed. However, Mondorf does not restrict herself to that principle but also views her hypothesis to
be rooted in general theories of processing efficiency (Hawkins 1994) and
cognitive/neurological architecture (MacKay 1987). The question that n­aturally
arises with regards to more-support asks, what characteristics should make the
analytic comparative easier to process and thus render it a candidate for the
aforementioned compensation strategy. Mondorf gives three answers to this
question ( p. 7): First, the analytic variant has the advantage of unambiguously
signaling the beginning of a degree phrase, making phrase structure easier to
identify. Second, it is easier to parse, as it disentangles a complex lexeme by
assigning each function a separate form. Third, the more-form serves as a signal alerting the addressee that a complex Adjective Phrase follows, so that additional capacity can be allotted to its processing. An additional important assumption the author makes, which is crucial for understanding her argument,
is that complexity is a multi-dimensional concept which is not restricted to the
level of syntax. In the present study phonological, morphological, semantic,
lexical and stylistic factors are related to complexity and thus are assumed to
exert an influence on comparative choice. The ramifications of such a view for
the different levels of analysis will be presented in more detail below.
Next, in Chapter 3, Mondorf lays out her methodology. In terms of the scope
of the analysis, she naturally focuses only on those adjectives that actually
show a variation between the two variant forms. This restriction leads her to an
exclusion of long adjectives (three or more syllables), as these show an almost
deterministic preference for the analytic form. The study is a corpus-based one,
which relies on a database comprising synchronic and diachronic data. For the
synchronic part it, consists of the British National Corpus as well as British and
American English newspaper texts. The historical corpora are made up of
prose fiction from the 15th century to the present for British English and from
the 18th century to the present for American English. All in all, the database
amounts to an impressive 1.624 million-word corpus.
Throughout the next chapters (Chapters 4–9), Mondorf reports empirical
studies which are mostly based on the aforementioned corpus data. These
studies are intended to show that factors ranging from phonology to pragmatics
influence the choice of comparative form. In the following, I will largely restrict the summary to the empirical investigations the author undertakes, leaving out sections of the book in which the author alludes to other possibly influential variables, but for which she offers no empirical analysis.
2318_6-2_07.indd 302
23/7/2010 9:22:23
Book reviews 303
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Starting with phonology, it is shown that certain phonological environments
lead to a preference for one form or the other since, she argues, “phonological
design causes increased processing complexity [ . . . ], which is compensated for
by means of more-support” ( p. 17). Mondorf largely focuses on phonological
variables that can be related to the general avoidance of the speech production
system to produce two similar or identical elements in close adjacency. For
example, she shows that identical phonological segments are avoided. Hence,
extending her study to the superlative in this section, Mondorf demonstrates
that adjectives ending in -st (e.g., modest) and in -r (e.g., bitter), favor the
periphrastic superlative and comparative respectively.
Turning to morphology, Mondorf shows (in Chapter 5) that morphological
complexity also influences comparative choice: Mono-morphemic adjectives
favor the synthetic variant, while multi-morphemic forms show a tendency
toward the periphrastic form.
In the following, Mondorf explains the effects of more-support in the lexicon (Chapter 6). She first discusses the well-known influence of the adjective’s
length in syllables on comparative choice. Consistent with her overall theory,
she also links length to complexity and thus argues that longer adjectives need
more-support. However, she warns us not to overrate the effect of length, as it
can be overridden by other factors, especially syntactic ones (see below). Another lexical characteristic she investigates is the token frequency of the adjective. Results show that the higher the frequency of comparative forms of an
adjective, the lower the percentage of analytic forms with that adjective. Thus,
according to her theory, frequency and complexity are inversely related – an
interpretation which is much in accordance with psycholinguistic findings.
Furthermore, in a somewhat independent case study, the book investigates
comparative choice with compounds, such as longer-lasting or more oldfashioned. Her data shows that the periphrastic form is generally preferred
with compounds, which Mondorf attributes partly to what she calls the avoidance of infixes and infix-like elements in English (as in longer-lasting) but also
to reasons of a higher complexity of compounds, in accordance with her overall perspective. Moreover, she shows that the lexicalization of the compound
plays a crucial role in comparative choice. She measures lexicalization using
graphemic conventions, namely the spelling as one word, a hyphenated word,
or two separate words, corresponding to a scale from more to less lexicalized.
Mondorf finds that the more lexicalized a compound, the stronger the tendency
for periphrastic comparison. She relates this finding to the hypothesis of moresupport, arguing that “tightly packaged information is harder to analyze than a
loosely bound entity that allows bit by bit processing” ( p. 54). As she sees it,
the avoidance of infixes cannot be the sole explanation for the findings, as the
degree of lexicalization also influences comparative choice in N+ADJ compounds where the comparative is in final position, as for instance in street-wise(r).
2318_6-2_07.indd 303
23/7/2010 9:22:23
304 Book reviews
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
On the syntactic level, Mondorf views two factors to be relevant: Argument
complexity of the degree phrase and the position of the comparative form.
Regarding argument complexity, the influence of two syntactic environments
on comparative choice is investigated, viz. the presence of infinitival and prepositional complements as exemplified by the following newspaper examples
(from p. 57, emphasis in the original):
(1) (. . .) losing here would make me even hungrier to win in Barcelona.
[Times 1991]
(2) It would be hard to find any couple more proud of their home than
Michael and Kathleen Kinsella. [Daily Telegraph 1991]
It is shown that language users prefer the more-variant when there is an infinitival complement compared to contexts without complementation. It is argued that these contexts are more complex and thus harder to process, which is
why more-support is again needed. Interestingly, this interpretation is validated
by a recent experimental study (Boyd 2007), which finds that comparatives
plus infinitival complements lead to longer reaction times. The argument for
prepositional complementation runs the same way and Mondorf demonstrates
that also in the presence of such a complement, the periphrastic variant is preferred. The book then goes on to show that positional differences with regards
to comparative choice exist among attributive, predicative and postnominal
contexts. In doing so, findings of previous empirical studies that the analytic
form is preferred in predicative and postnominal environments are confirmed
(cf. Lindquist 2000, Leech & Culpeper 1997).
In Chapter 8, Mondorf addresses relevant semantic factors. She shows that
concrete nouns have a preference for being attributed by synthetic comparatives, while conversely abstract nouns are preferentially accompanied by the
analytic variant. As it is a well-established finding in psycholinguistics that
words denoting concrete concepts are easier to process, this finding can be
straightforwardly explained by more-support.
Mondorf then (in Chapter 9) turns to pragmatic and iconic factors influencing comparative choice. The first factor she investigates is end-weight, whose
influence she interprets as the “heavier” periphrastic comparative being preferred in clause-final position. Her data confirms this hypothesis and she argues that end-weight is an important contributor to the present alternation phenomenon. In terms of an outlook, the author then discusses a possible semantic/
pragmatic difference in intensity between the two comparatives, which may
become apparent in coordinated comparatives such as nearer and more near
where an increase in intensity may be the reason for the ordering preference
of putting the analytic form last. This chapter concludes the journey through
the different levels of language on which influences on the comparative are
detected.
2318_6-2_07.indd 304
23/7/2010 9:22:23
Book reviews 305
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Chapter 10 represents a somewhat self-contained study about “the emergence of more-support in diachrony” ( p. 117). It is considerably longer than
previous ones, making up a quarter of the book. Using the historical corpora
described above, Mondorf shows that a diachronic development from the synthetic to the analytic form can be observed. This finding stands in contrast to a
previous empirical study, which observed a shift in the contrary direction
(Kytö & Romaine 2000). The author argues that it is necessary to investigate
different groups of adjectives separately, as otherwise the great proportion of
adjectives ending in -y distort the picture, as this group shows a development
toward the synthetic form. Therefore, looking at the aggregate of all adjectives
invites false conclusions, Mondorf argues convincingly. Starting from the finding that different adjectives follow different developments, she puts forward a
hypothesis of a division of labor between the two comparative forms: In Early
Modern English, “a fierce battle” ( p. 117) took place between the two forms,
while “the system later moved towards a division of labour, in which the
analytic variant comes to be used in cognitively complex environments” ( p.
117). Hence, as implied in the title of the chapter, she argues for an emergence
of the more-support principle: Over the course of centuries, its complexityalleviating power unfolds in those contexts where support is needed, while less
demanding contexts are left to the reign of the synthetic variant. In order to
buttress that hypothesis with empirical evidence, she shows how complexityrelated variables influence this emergent division of labor. In the first empirical
section (10.6) it is shown in detail, dealing with 17 different groups of adjectives that morphologically and lexically complex adjectives develop a preference for the analytic variant, while forms not showing these characteristics
follow the converse path of development. In the second empirical section
(10.7), she charts the now-familiar influence of infinitival and prepositional
complements on comparative choice diachronically. As in the previous section,
a trend towards the more-variant in complex environments (with complements)
can be observed, which she interprets as evidence for “the emergent functional
specialization of the two competing variants” ( p. 164). Concluding, Mondorf
views the division-of-labor hypothesis confirmed by the empirical data. Addressing the question as to how it is possible that the synthetic variant still has
a firm foothold with some adjectives, she argues that it is dominant in adjectives ending in -y, as these can easily fuse with the -er suffix, and also due to a
high frequency of some forms within this class, such as risky and crazy, which
leads to greater entrenchment and thus greater processing ease.
In Chapter 11, dialectal differences between British and American English
with regards to the use of the comparative are addressed. According to Mondorf, there are two major differences: First, American English (AmE) uses
a higher ratio of analytic forms than British English (BrE), at least in jour­
nalese. Second, AmE generally uses fewer comparative forms, both synthetic
2318_6-2_07.indd 305
23/7/2010 9:22:23
306 Book reviews
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
and analytic. Regarding the first difference, the author alludes to two possible
explanations for the differing ratios of the analytic variant. She shows that, in
general, the adjectives that show a stronger proclivity towards the periphrastic
form in AmE, are also of a lower frequency in that variant compared to BrE.
Hence, a lower entrenchment of these forms could result in a greater need for
more-support in that dialect. The second reason she proposes is that the relevant adjectives in AmE may be of a weaker gradability, which she measures as
the frequency of comparative forms in general for a certain adjective. She finds
that adjectives that are only weakly gradable in AmE prefer the analytic v­ariant,
which thus could also serve to explain these differences between the dialects.
The second major difference between the two varieties is harder to explain.
After all, why should “the American national standard be less prone to use
comparatives?” ( p. 182). In order to come to terms with that finding, Mondorf
argues that a developing colloquialization in American English plays a role
here. To make that point she shows a relation holding between complexity and
style: “the less formal in terms of style, the higher the use of more-support, and
vice versa” ( p. 187). As AmE is assumed to be more colloquial, there is a
stronger need to use the analytic variant. In addition to more-support, A­merican
speakers also resort to another strategy, which is simply avoiding the use of the
comparative. As the author puts it “American English is far more prone than
British English to either compensate for or to avoid cognitively complex structures” ( p. 192).
In the concluding chapter, Mondorf emphasizes that all levels of analysis
dealt with in previous chapters belong to the domain of more-support, and thus
can be related to an alleviation strategy to cognitive complexity. At the end of
the book (Chapter 13), she sketches out the theoretical implications of the
study and provides an outlook for future research. Mondorf stresses that in face
of the multitude of different factors influencing the choice between the two
comparative forms, any theory which wants to arrive at descriptive accuracy
must take these factors and their interaction into account. Such a theory would
have to be non-modular, as “comparative alternation crosses the boundaries of
modules by system-internally trading syntax against morphology” ( p. 201).
Furthermore, the different strengths of individual factors would have to be
taken into account by a theoretical analysis. She alludes to spreading activation
models from language production, which in her opinion may be suitable candidates for incorporating the wealth of factors of variable strength.
In terms of an evaluation of the contents of the monograph, it should be
mentioned that much of the general arguments and also some of the empirical
studies were published in previous works by the author, most importantly in
Mondorf (2003). Therefore, to avid readers of her work, this monograph may
come as a mild disappointment. Nevertheless, the wealth of data that is provided is impressive and, due to the many perspectives on the discussed case of
2318_6-2_07.indd 306
23/7/2010 9:22:23
Book reviews 307
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
variation, including a diachronic and dialectal discussion, the book almost has
the feel of a reference work. The part I personally find most interesting is the
chapter on the diachronic development of the two comparative forms. This
section may be viewed as the selling point of the book, as it contains genuinely
new, hitherto unpublished insights. Mondorf shows convincingly how a division of labor between the two competing forms emerged, making the analytic
form the variant for instances of high complexity. Here, her meticulous approach of separately dealing with many sub-groups of adjectives pays off, as it
is this fine-grained method that allows for the tracking of this extraordinarily
interesting case of language change. The explanation the author gives is intriguing and its relevance not only for studies on the comparative but for research on variation in general can hardly be overestimated. While many studies
are successful in revealing the factors which underlie cases of variation, little
is known about the reasons as to why the language system should allow or
create variation at all, which is certainly one of the most fascinating yet hardto-answer questions in the study on variation phenomena. Mondorf’s explanation in terms of a division of labor influenced by processing demands may be
an answer to this question, which may also hold explanatory power for other
alternations.
While the book is to be commended for providing extraordinarily detailed
studies, some points have to be critically discussed both in the theoretical argument, as well as in the applied methodology. Turning to theoretical aspects
first, certainly the most provocative claim Mondorf makes is that all factors are
being governed by a common principle – the strategy of more-support. In my
opinion, the overall argument that processing load or complexity influences
speakers in performing the tradeoff between explicitness and economy in
choosing between the two forms is a very sound one, yet it is not equally convincing for all analyzed factors. The problem is that the book stretches the
notion of complexity a little too far, thereby reducing its explanatory power. To
illustrate the problem, let us review the logic of the argument inherent in moresupport: Mondorf argues that some variable X leads to an increased complexity of the to-be-produced comparative, which then leads to a preference of the
analytic more-form, as this is easier to process. This principle can be applied to
the syntactic and semantic factors discussed in the book without controversy.
For instance, an adjective denoting an abstract concept can be assumed to be
more complex, the same with a long degree phrase containing a complement
(see above). Both of these variables thus lead to increased processing load and
henceforth more-support is needed. The principle is carried too far, in my
opinion, in the section where it is applied to avoidance-of-identity effects. For
instance, as explained above, it is shown that speakers try to avoid phonologically identical final segments. Hence, adjectives that end in -er/-r, as for
instance bitter, have a strong tendency toward the analytic form in order to
2318_6-2_07.indd 307
23/7/2010 9:22:23
308 Book reviews
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
avoid the repetitive form bitterer. While I have no doubts regarding the existence of this effect, I doubt that it can be grasped with the same aforementioned
logic, as in this case it is unclear to me what the variable should be that leads
to an increased complexity. After all, there is nothing very complex about adjectives such as bitter. Complexity would only arise, if speakers chose to produce the phonologically-hard-to-process synthetic variant. Thus, in contrast to
other factors influencing the inherent complexity of the adjective, or the degree
phrase in which it is featured, here we seem to be dealing with hypothetical
processing difficulty. Hence, this case does not seem to follow the same, simple yet appealing logic of more-support outlined above, but seems to require
additional assumptions: In order to still be able to incorporate this variable into
the present theory, we would need to expand the notion of complexity to situations where the language user may decide for a hard-to-process form – a situation we may argue to require increased processing load. However, the shortcoming of such a solution is that the more is incorporated in complexity, the
less exclusive and thus explanatory the concept becomes, which is why in this
case, I would opt for a different solution: The avoidance of identical phonological segments, as for instance with -r/-er endings and avoidance of identity
as a general phenomenon can be explained by the activation course of nodes
during speech production (MacKay 1987). After a node has been activated, it
goes through a refractory phase during which it cannot be easily re-activated.
To avoid such a repeated activation, language users strive for contrasting forms
in immediate adjacency, as has been argued elsewhere (Schlüter 2003). Hence,
in my view, the processes at work that show such a striving for contrast should
be related to this architectural feature of the language production system,
which does not need to be incorporated into complexity, but may serve as a
convincing stand-alone explanation. This solution of course comes with the
drawback of having to entertain more than one explanation to describe the
present case of variation, but nevertheless it would serve more-support well, as
its explanatory power would not be lessened by overstretching the underlying
concept of complexity.
Moreover, related to theoretical aspects are criticisms that have been raised
by Hilpert (2008) regarding a possible circularity in the argument the book
makes.1 Circularity may arise if complexity for a given variable is claimed
when we find an effect towards the analytic variant, without providing independent evidence for this assumed complexity. For some factors, such independent evidence does exist – for instance, the experimental study by Boyd
(2007) – but, in my opinion, more evidence of that sort would be needed to
strengthen the theory of more-support, since, although it certainly has much
intuitive appeal, is not backed up by independent evidence on all levels of
analysis. Albeit this criticism is justified, in Mondorf’s defense, the present
book at least offers a theoretical explanation, while Hilpert (2008) gives no
2318_6-2_07.indd 308
23/7/2010 9:22:23
Book reviews 309
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
particular theoretical account of the phenomenon. Thus, viewed positively, the
book’s argument should be acknowledged as a suggested theoretical explanation which others may now attempt to falsify.
The second strand of criticism relates to methodological aspects of the study
which may be of particular interest to the readership of CLLT. The book certainly provides an impressive wealth of data regarding influential variables;
however, its analysis could be much improved by the application of more sophisticated statistical methods. Two points should be mentioned here: First, for
almost all levels of analysis Mondorf uses small samples of selected adjectives
to make her point. For instance, she uses a sample of 28 adjectives to show the
influence of syntactic environment – not really a lot when regarding the number
of alternating adjectives solely in the BNC: 247 according to Hilpert (2008).
As has been argued in a review of Mondorf (2003), these small samples may
be a reason for questioning whether the results can be generalized (GonzálezDíaz 2004), which is a point of criticism I share. Secondly, the author almost
exclusively relies on methods of descriptive statistics. Inferential quantitative
methods, such as tests of significance, are only very rarely applied, which naturally raises the questions as to whether the inferences she draws are really
justified on the basis of the data that is provided. Due to the fact that a wealth
of different variables influences this case of language variation, multi-factorial
methods would be the tool of choice (cf. González-Díaz 2004). During several
parts of the book, Mondorf is busy “weeding out” confounding variables and
more than once, she alludes to possible interactions between different factors.
These problems could be addressed by a multifactorial analysis such as binary
logistic regression, as has been shown by Hilpert (2008). These two shortcomings, a reliance on small samples and an avoidance of inferential methods, cast
a shadow of doubt on some of the book’s analyses, which are certainly theoretically appealing, but not always investigated in an empirically watertight
fashion. One section where this problem becomes particularly apparent is in
Chapter 11 on dialectal differences. As mentioned above, it is claimed that
American English generally uses fewer comparative forms than British English, again based on samples of selected adjectives. When I read this passage, I
had the suspicion that this finding may be due to differences in lexical frequency of those adjectives between the two varieties and not due to a divergence in the use of comparative forms. Therefore, I conducted a corpus search
for all synthetic comparatives and all strings of more followed by an adjective
in the BNC and the COCA corpus (Corpus of Contemporary American English), using Mark Davies’s webpage at <http://view.byu.edu/>. To make r­esults
comparable to Mondorf’s data, I restricted the search to newspaper sources. A
quantitative analysis of my findings revealed a very weak yet statistically significant trend in the opposite direction: American English uses more comparative forms than the British variant.2 I admit right away that unlike in the work
2318_6-2_07.indd 309
23/7/2010 9:22:23
310 Book reviews
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
reviewed, the data did not undergo a filtering and selection process, thus I
would not consider it sufficient reason to jump to conclusions with regards to
possible dialectal differences. Nonetheless, the finding may challenge the results put forward in the present book. In general, regarding methodological
aspects, it can be stated that the relations between variables the author d­iscusses
are mostly convincing, yet the study could improve considerably through the
application of more sophisticated statistical analyses.
By way of conclusion, Mondorf must be commended for putting forward
an impressively thorough and comprehensive empirical study of the English
comparative. In short, for anyone who is interested in the comparative, there is
no way around this book. Despite the weaknesses pointed out above, her ex­
planation in terms of complexity and processing load is certainly an appealing
and largely convincing one, which may inspire future research in search for
further validation of this principle. The explanations offered in this book are
certainly of relevance beyond the study of the English comparative. The hypothesis of a developing division of labor between the two forms is particularly intriguing one and other researchers should feel invited to test whether it
may also work as an explanation for the diachronic development of other alternating constructions.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Bionote
Arne Lohmann is a junior researcher and instructor at the University of Hamburg, Germany. He is currently working towards a PhD degree in English Linguistics. His interests include corpus linguistics, psycholinguistics and corpuslinguistic methodology. E-mail: [email protected]
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Notes
1. Hilpert (2008) addressed the argument put forward in Mondorf (2003). However, as there are
no major differences in the general argument between that publication and the reviewed book,
it also applies here.
2. Furthermore I conducted a second search in the spoken parts of the two corpora to check
whether the finding might be due to register-specific differences between the two varieties.
For spoken data again a tendency for American English to use more comparative forms was
found, however unlike with journalese it did not reach statistical significance.
38
39
References
40
41
42
Boyd, Jeremy 2007. Comparatively Speaking: A psycholinguistic study of optionality in grammar.
Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, San Diego.
2318_6-2_07.indd 310
23/7/2010 9:22:23
Book reviews 311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
González-Díaz, Victorina. 2004. “Review article: Günther Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds.),
2003. Determinants of grammatical variation in English”. English Language and Linguistics
8(2). 360–373.
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The English comparative – language structure and language use. English
Language and Linguistics 12(3). 395–417.
Kytö, Merja & Suzanne Romaine. 2000. Adjective comparison and standardization processes in
American and British English from 1620 to the present. In Laura Wright (ed.), The development
of Standard English 1300 –1800: theories, descriptions, conflicts, 171–194. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey N. & Jonathan Culpeper. 1997. The comparison of adjectives in recent British
English. In Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds.), To explain the present: studies in
the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 353–74. Helsinki: Memoires de la
Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.
Lindquist, Hans. 2000. Livelier or more lively? Syntactic and contextual factors influencing thecomparison of disyllabic adjectives. In John M. Kirk (ed.), Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English, 125–32. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
MacKay, Donald G. 1987. The organization of perception and action: a theory for language and
other cognitive skills. New York: Springer.
Mondorf, Britta. 2003. Support for more-support. In Günther Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf
(eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 251–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rohdenburg, Günther. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in
English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2). 149–182.
Schlüter, Julia. 2003. Phonological determinants of grammatical variation in English: Chomsky’s
worst possible case. In Günther Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 305–328. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
2318_6-2_07.indd 311
23/7/2010 9:22:23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
2318_6-2_07.indd 312
23/7/2010 9:22:23