“Every time you ask me not to hum, I’ll hum more louder.”
'Double comparatives' are structures where there is more than one instance of comparative marking, such as the word more along with the suffix -er, as in the example above, I'll hum more louder. Superlatives (most, -est) may also be doubled, as shown below. Double comparatives may also involve two instances of the affix, but this might be a distinct phenomenon. In particular, there is typically no semantic difference between louder and more louder, while it may be that there is a difference between louder and louderer.
Who says this?
The use of more than one morpheme to express the comparative or superlative is widespread across varieties of English, and is attested in other languages as well. It is attested as far back as Old English (González-Días 2007), and remains a property of many dialects across the globe (Wolfram and Schilling-Estes 1998:337; Bauer 2007; Wlodarczyk 2007; Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann 2009). According to Wlodarczyk (2007), it is associated with Appalachian English and AAVE (see also Montgomery 2008:267), though it may be found in other North American dialects as well, such as Newfoundland English (Clarke 2004:314).
As noted by Corver (2005), there are a number of examples from Shakespeare of double comparatives and superlatives:
1) a. The Duke of Milan, and his more braver daughter could controul thee.
(Shakespeare, The Tempest)
b. This was the most unkindest cut of all.
(Shakespeare, Julius Caesar)
Nevins (2012:92) cites Radford (1977) for the observation that double comparatives do not license an extra 'layer' of semantic comparison, even if a compositional analysis would seem to allow it:
2) a. * John is more more intelligent than Bill than you are.
b. * John is more taller than Bill than you are.
That is, double comparatives do not seem to license extra semantic operators. Kennedy and McNally (2005), however, provide examples like (5), with less, which do seem to license an extra layer of comparison.
3) an old department store a lot less taller than the city hall building than is the new company headquarters
Corver (2005) notes that the -er affix doesn't always mean 'more', but can be realized on forms like less happier. He gives the following example from Shakespeare:
4) Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
(Shakespeare, King Richard II, ii, i)
Examples of less happier and similar forms are widely attested on the web.
5) a. Parents are Not Less Happier than Non-Parents (retrieved 11/5/12)
b. Why Americans are less happier in 2010 (retrieved 11/5/12)
c. is "less and less happier" correct in English? (retrieved 11/5/12)
d. Looks like Android Developers are less happier when compared to iPhone Developers (retrieved 11/5/12)
Biggerer is betterer?
Corver (2005) also discusses cases of double comparatives in Dutch which involve two instances of the affix, something like biggerer. It is at present not clear what the grammatical status of this kind of doubling is in English. Certainly, one finds cases of this, as in the following from the web:
6) a. he's getting biggerer (retrieved 11/5/12)
b. STEALING MURAKAMI: THE PLOT GETS STILL THICKERER (retrieved 11/5/12)
However, it is not clear what kind of phenomenon this is, such as whether it is always a form of language play (where its users are consciously aware of what they are doing). Many instances involve multiple uses together which might suggest that it is at least sometimes conscious language play.
7) a. Biggerer is Betterer (retrieved 11/5/12)
b. If anything had to be BIGGERER, BETTERER, and MORE BADASSER? What would it be? (retrieved 11/5/12)
c. Biggerer, Thickerer, Widerer! (retrieved 11/5/12)
Other instances suggest that -er-er is semantically contentful doubling. There is, for example, a youtube video showing two children wrestling, which has the title: "guy who's taller than me vs. guy who's evan [sic] tallerer than me". A lot of instances of this seem to come with evenalong with a previous instance of a non-doubled comparative:
b. The bumps on the toneau are taller, and go back further. [...] Even tallerer and longer humps. (retrieved 11/5/12)
c. If it's so easy for you to destroy the target by running into it, it can conversely lob a small cheap missile your way which will destroy you when you run into it first. Of course, you can lob an even smaller cheaper missile its way which will destroy it before it destroys you, thus allowing you to go on to destroy the target. And conversely, the small cheap missile can lob an even smallerer cheaperer missile which will destroy the smaller cheaper missile before it destroys the small cheap missile; the small cheap missile can then destroy you before you can destroy the target. (retrieved 11/5/12)
English -er-er, however, has not yet been the subject of syntactic research.
Corver (2005) analyzes this phenomenon as support for the "comparative criterion," on par with the "wh-criterion" and the "negative criterion" (see Rizzi 2004 on criterial positions more generally). The -er affix is the head of a ComparP that needs a comparative operator in its specifier. Corver proposes that the periphrastic form moves from a post-adjectival position to SpecComparP (or SuperlativeP, as the case may be). As is the case with many criterial positions, the head and specifier do not both need to be overt all the time.
Corver adapts (Dutch) -er-er to his analysis by adopting a lexicalist, checking analysis of morphology. The fully formed word bigger is merged in the syntax as an adjective, and head-moves to the higher Compar head to check the comparative features of the affix -er. Assuming the copy theory of movement, the syntax thus generates two instances of bigger; later, it deletes the lower instance of big, leaving behind the second -er. This analysis thus takes biggerer to be a morphological phenomenon, which should not have any syntactic or semantic differences from the analytic more bigger. For English, it is not clear whether this holds, though Corver's proposal was intended specifically for Dutch.
According to Corver, the data on less happier in (4-5) support the idea that -er is the head of a ComparP whose semantic value comes from the operator in its specifier. This hinges on the idea that less happier is syntactically parallel to more happier; this might not be the case, if the contrast between (2b) and (3) holds. That is, the syntax of less might be distinct from the syntax of more.
Nevins (2009) proposes that the -er suffix is attached to its head by a post-syntactic morphological operation, metathesis (see also Embick 2007; Embick & Marantz 2008). When -er does not metathesize and attach to a head, the mo- morpheme is inserted, yielding more (what he calls "mo-support", similar to "do-support"). In his analysis, metathesis involves copying and deletion; he argues that in cases of metathesis, we should generally find dialectal or historical variants of doubling—that is, variants that have copying but lack the deletion. Comparative/superlative doubling, then, is exactly that: -er is copied and attached the host, but the original copy is left in place, allowing for mo-support. This seems to require distinct analyses of less happier and more happier. Whether distinct analyses are independently needed remains an open question.
Page contributed by Jim Wood
Bauer, Laurie. 2007. Some Grammatical Features of New Zealand English. New Zealand English Journal 21: 1–25.
Clarke, Sandra. 2004. Newfoundland English: Morphology and syntax. In A Handbook of Varieties of English Vol. II: Morphology and Syntax, edited by Bernd Kortmann and Clive Upton, 303-318. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Corver, Norbert. 2005. Double comparatives and the comparative criterion. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 34: 165–190.
Embick, David. 2007. Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25: 1–37.
Embick, David and Alec Marantz. 2008. Architecture and Blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39 (1): 1–53.
González-Díaz, Victorina. 2007. On the nature and distribution of English double periphrastic comparison. The Review of English Studies 57 (232): 623–664.
Kennedy, Christopher and Louise McNally. 2005. The syntax and semantics of multiple degree modification in English. In António Branco, Francisco Costa and Manfred Sailer [eds.] The 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Conference Notes, 63-68.
Montgomery, Michael B. 2008. Appalachian English: Morphology and syntax. In A Handbook of Varieties of English Vol. II: Morphology and Syntax, edited by Bernd Kortmann and Clive Upton, 428–467. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Nevins, Andrew. 2009. Mo’ better morphotactics: doubling the output of syntax. Talk presented at Morphology of the World’s Languages, Leipzig, and at the CrISP Colloquium, UC Santa Cruz.
Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Haplological dissimilation at distinct stages of exponence. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, edited by Jochen Trommer, 84–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Radford, Andrew. 1977. Counter-filtering Rules. York Papers in Linguistics 7: 7–45.
Rizzi, Luigi. 2004. On the Form of Chains: Criterial Positions and ECP Effects. Manuscript, University of Siena. http://www.ciscl.unisi.it/doc/doc_pub/Rizzi_2004-On_the_form_of_chains.pdf
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Bernd Kortmann. 2009. The morphosyntax of varieties of English worldwide: A quantitative perspective. Lingua 119 (11): 1643–1663.
Wlodarczyk, Matylda. 2007. “More strenger and mightier”: Some Remarks on Double Comparison in Middle English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 43: 195–216.
Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes. 1998. American English. Dialects and variation. London: Blackwell.