How safer is America today?
Yes, that's the headline on
a
UPI story (of 8/31/06) by
Claude Salhani,
UPI's International Editor, on the current terrorist threat. I
think that question deserves an asterisk of ungrammaticality: "How safe
is America today?", ok; "How much safer is America today?", ok; "How
safer is America today?", no. Comparative adjectives like "safer"
just don't take the same degree modifiers as plain adjectives like
"safe" -- in standard English. But it turns out that there's a
fairly widespread non-standard English out there in which comparatives
can work just like plain adjectives.
Cornelius Puschmann, who alerted me to the headline (after checking
with a native speaker of English and eliciting an "ick" response much
like mine), speculated that "how safer" was either a typo or a piece of
non-native English. Either thing might be possible in this
particular case -- though we probably can't blame Salhani, because he
almost surely didn't write the headline, and the odd comparative
doesn't occur in the article -- but you can find plenty of examples of
modified comparatives like "how safer", apparently from native
speakers, on the web. I don't know how long this has been going
on, or what the social distribution of the non-standard comparatives
is, or even whether the non-standard comparatives coexist with standard
ones or (more likely) supplant them. But they're out there.
Now some background about the system of standard English...
1. English has two schemes for comparing adjectives (and adverbs,
though I'm going to focus on adjectives here): a morphological scheme,
for "inflected comparatives" in -
er,
like
safer and
handsomer; and a syntactic scheme,
for "periphrastic comparatives" with
more
(or
less), like
more comfortable and
more handsome. There's a lot
to be said about which adjectives use which scheme, but that's
(fortunately) beside the point here. The first big generalization
is
Same Syntax: Inflected comparatives and
periphrastic comparatives have almost entirely the same syntax.
This is no great surprise, since comparison by inflection and
comparison by periphrasis have the same semantics. But notice the
hedge "almost entirely"; alternative expressions virtually never have
EXACTLY
the same syntax. The differences between the distribution of
inflected and periphrastic comparatives are (again, fortunately) beside
the point here; it's a similarity we're interested in, a similarity in
the kinds of modifiers they can take.
2. To get at this, I'm going to introduce a piece of terminology:
the
MODIFIER SET for a word is the set of all
expressions that can combine as an adjunct with this word as head; and
the modifier set for a word class is the union of the modifier sets for
all the words of that class. To illustrate: the modifier set for
the class of (plain) adjectives is the set of degree expressions, among
them
very,
pretty,
how,
so, and
more. And the modifier set
for the class of nouns comprises both adjectival expressions (
safe,
handsome,
comfortable) and determiner
expressions, both determinatives (words especially devoted to serving
as determiners, like
the,
a,
much,
many,
more, and
this) and expressions of other
types, like the noun
lot of
a lot of and possessive NPs like
the doctor's.
An important complexity: the determiners in the modifier set for nouns
are different for different types of nouns. In particular,
(singular) mass nouns, singular count nouns, and plural count nouns
take somewhat different determiners;
much
goes only with mass nouns
(much
shrubbery),
a only
with singular count nouns (
a bush),
many only with plural count
nouns (
many bushes), while
more and
lot go with "extended" nouns (mass
or plural count:
more shrubbery,
a lot of shrubbery;
more bushes,
a lot of bushes). Hang on;
we're going to need these facts in a little while.
In any case, we can now state the relevant special case of Same Syntax:
Inflected comparatives and periphrastic
comparatives have the same modifier sets.
Examples (from standard English):
much/
a lot handsomer,
much/
a lot more handsome, *
very/
so handsomer, *
very/
so more handsome.
Put another way:
Same Modifier Set: The modifier set for
inflected comparatives is the same as the modifier set for the degree
word more.
3. And the modifier set for the degree word
more (a quantity modifier) is
something of a surprise. To start with, it's nothing like the
modifier sets for other degree words. Many degree words don't
allow any modifiers, but some do, and these are themselves familiar
degree words:
so very big,
with
so modifying
very;
very surprisingly big, with
very modifying
surprisingly. But, as we've
just seen,
very and
so can't modify degree
more.
In case you were trying to think of the degree word
more as just an adjective, you'll
now see that that can't be right, since the modifier set for adjectives
is just the familiar degree words, and none of these can modify degree
more.
Instead, the modifiers of degree
more
(and
less) are quantity
modifiers:
much,
no,
any,
a
lot,
lots,
a bit,
a great/good deal. Where else
do we see these? Astonishingly, they also function as
DETERMINERS,
in the modifier set for nouns -- specifically, for mass nouns:
much shrubbery,
any confusion,
no information,
a lot of trouble,
lots of rice,
a bit of grass,
a great/good deal of wine, parallel
to
much more handsome,
no more satisfactory,
any more intelligent,
a lot more complicated,
lots more ridiculous,
a bit less convincing,
a great/good deal less tasty.
Not all mass determiners of quantity can also modify degree
more --
some and
all can't -- but the relationship
is very close.
At this point, it looks like
degree
more is acting like a
noun. But that can't be right, either, because the nominal
determiners
lot,
lots,
bit,
deal don't get the
of that's required when they
combine with a noun.
4. However, there's one more place where we see essentially the
modifier set
much,
a lot, etc.: as the modifier set
for
DETERMINER more
with mass nouns:
much more shrubbery,
no more information,
any more confusion,
a lot more trouble,
lots more rice,
a bit more grass,
a great/good deal more wine.
We even pick up at least one more modifier that degree
more shares with determiner
more, namely
somewhat (
somewhat more handsome,
somewhat more lettuce, but *
somewhat lettuce). In other
words:
DetDeg: The modifier set for degree more is almost identical to the
modifier set for mass determiner more.
(We have to specify the
MASS determiner
more here, because determiner
more can also be used with plural
count nouns, in which case its modifier set reflects the properties of
the plural count noun:
many more
bushes vs.
much more shrubbery.)
Another way of thinking about these facts is:
One More:
There is only one lexical item more
here, but it gets used in in two different constructions, in two
different syntactic functions, degree modifier and determiner; the
facts about the modifier sets are (virtually) identical because they
are facts about a single lexical item.
(There's now a question about what the
CATEGORY of this
lexical item is -- a fascinating question, but one that would take us
even further afield.)
5. These connections between different constructions have long
been known -- the early monument of the literature on English
comparatives is Joan Bresnan's 1973 monograph "Syntax of the
comparative clause construction in English", published as a 70-page
article in
Linguistic Inquiry --
but I've always thought of them as one of the coolest facts about
English, not at all something that you'd be likely to predict from
first principles.
In any case, the standard English system hangs together in a remarkable
way: Same Modifier Set and One
More,
together with a stipulation of the modifier set for this item
more, do the job.
6. So what's happened with the non-standard degree modification,
as in "How safer is America?" and other examples like those below
(involving both inflectional and periphrastic comparatives)?
Computer Newbies- it should show them
why to switch and how safer and easier it is than other browsers. (
link)
Hmmmmmm....now just how healthier are
we going to be when volatile climates have wiped out half the world's
wheat crop one of these years? (
link)
... and above all this the products are very, very safer for both
myself and family and the environment. (
link)
And nobody knew what will happen if we reach communism so it was pretty
safer for the party to say we're just on the way. (
link)
But how more efficient is this system when compared to current ones? (
link)
And, if you're embarrassed about it, think of how more comfortable
sucking your thumb is when you have one. (
link)
I would feel very more comfortable if there was a Carepaq style support
mechanism. (
link)
I can tell a story that would get you to a place like this. You
extend the modifier sets for plain adjectives to comparative
adjectives, thus eliminating the oddity of modification for
comparatives. And somewhere along the way, you stop treating the
periphrastic comparatives as involving degree modification in the
syntax; instead, you treat
more
plus adjective as a kind of compound adjective, the whole thing having
the comparative property, just like an inflected comparative word.
By the way, the result is briefer comparatives; you don't need that
much any more.
This development would make One
More
dispensable, though you'd still have stipulated oddities for determiner
more.
On the other hand, you could stick to One
More, in which case determiner
more would have its syntax altered
as well. And there are a few hits suggesting that this has
happened for some people:
General good security practices will
suffice for web based access since if done right, there will be very
more information available than is available on ... (
link)
Here I break out in asterisks.
[Addendum: I left out the Shakespeare -- "How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is / To have a thankless child!" (King Lear), one of my favorite quotations -- but now Russell Borogove (and the Mome Raths?) has written to remind me. The quotation suggests the possibility that the current modified comparatives, or at least some of them, are survivals rather than (re)inventions. I don't know a damn thing about the history; as I keep telling people, I don't do
REAL historical linguistics (or
REAL phonetics or
REAL formal semantics), but just appeal, whimpering, to the specialists. In any case, I hope to post soon about yet another case where survival and (re)invention are both live possibilities.]
zwicky at-sign csli period stanford period edu
Posted by Arnold Zwicky at September 18, 2006 02:31 PM