English comparative constructions at different levels of schematicity: what is the role of adjective-specific variability?

Abstract This study analyzes the English comparative alternation (morphological prouder and periphrastic more proud ) with regard to adjective-specific variability. Substantial empirical evidence indicates that speakers redundantly represent both abstract schemas (e.g., ADJ + -er ) and their specific instantiations (e.g., prouder ) as symbolic units, which together constitute a network of constructions at different levels of schematicity. Against this background, we offer a re-analysis of data from (Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The English comparative - Language structure and use. English Language & Linguistics 12(3). 395–417), which yields new results on the basis of a mixed-effects (multi-level) model that incorporates individual adjectives as random effects. The results demonstrate robust lexical idiosyncrasies in this alternation. First, many adjectives exhibit tendencies that deviate from the general conditioning factors incorporated as fixed effects. Furthermore, frequency of adjectives in comparative forms positively correlates with the degree of skewness. In other words, the more an adjective is used in comparative forms, the stronger its preference becomes, regardless of the direction of the preference. These findings support the idea that competition between linguistic forms occurs across different levels of schematicity: at the schematic level, the competition between variants is governed by probabilistic factors, while at the lexically specific level, the conventionalization of concrete forms can override these factors.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Cognitive Linguistics
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2025-0025
Primary Topic
Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

English comparative constructions at different levels of schematicity: what is the role of adjective-specific variability?

Cognitive Linguistics
Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping
article

English comparative constructions at different levels of schematicity: what is the role of adjective-specific variability?

article en

Abstract

Abstract This study analyzes the English comparative alternation (morphological prouder and periphrastic more proud ) with regard to adjective-specific variability. Substantial empirical evidence indicates that speakers redundantly represent both abstract schemas (e.g., ADJ + -er ) and their specific instantiations (e.g., prouder ) as symbolic units, which together constitute a network of constructions at different levels of schematicity. Against this background, we offer a re-analysis of data from (Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The English comparative - Language structure and use. English Language & Linguistics 12(3). 395–417), which yields new results on the basis of a mixed-effects (multi-level) model that incorporates individual adjectives as random effects. The results demonstrate robust lexical idiosyncrasies in this alternation. First, many adjectives exhibit tendencies that deviate from the general conditioning factors incorporated as fixed effects. Furthermore, frequency of adjectives in comparative forms positively correlates with the degree of skewness. In other words, the more an adjective is used in comparative forms, the stronger its preference becomes, regardless of the direction of the preference. These findings support the idea that competition between linguistic forms occurs across different levels of schematicity: at the schematic level, the competition between variants is governed by probabilistic factors, while at the lexically specific level, the conventionalization of concrete forms can override these factors.

Cognitive LinguisticsVol. 36(4)
University of Neuchâtel (CH)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Geochemistry and Geologic Mapping
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.