Inhaltszusammenfassung

The comparative form of morphologically complex ADJs raises new issues for a theory of word-formation. According to grammar books it is the number of syllables and the nature of the word ending that condition the choice between synthetic comparatives in -er (e.g. fuller) and the analytic comparatives with more (e.g. more important). There is general consent in the literature that trisyllabic words take the historically more recent more com¬parative, while monosyllables take -er variants, wit...The comparative form of morphologically complex ADJs raises new issues for a theory of word-formation. According to grammar books it is the number of syllables and the nature of the word ending that condition the choice between synthetic comparatives in -er (e.g. fuller) and the analytic comparatives with more (e.g. more important). There is general consent in the literature that trisyllabic words take the historically more recent more com¬parative, while monosyllables take -er variants, with disyllabic words being subject to variation. The status of compounds is, however, still unclear. Empirical analyses of the theoretical issues raised in the present paper indicate that (a) Hyphenation is not as random as is often suggested. Speakers apparently have strong intuitions about the degree of lexicalisation of a compound and their use of inflections matches these intuitions. (b) Compound adjectives do take inflections. (c) The number of syllables is by no means the only factor conditioning the choice between the synthetic and analytic comparison. (d) A clear delimitation of compound vs. syntactic group appears arbitrary and theoretically unfounded. The problem does not only lie in the often discussed borderline cases like the so-called ?synthetic compounds? in -ed but in the need to account for more and less prototypical compounds that fulfil phonological, morphological, semantic and syntactic conditions of ?compoundness? to a different extent. The transition in integration, lexicalisation or entrenchment appears to be observable for all four types of morphologically complex adjectives rather than an isolated exception. And the extent to which a morphologically complex adjective is considered a single concept is reflected in the comparative formation strategies it prefers. » weiterlesen» einklappen

Autoren

Klassifikation

DFG Fachgebiet:
Sprachwissenschaften

DDC Sachgruppe:
Englisch