Comparative and Superlative Adjectives 1 Running head...

Comparative and Superlative Adjectives 1

Running head: COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE ADJECTIVES

Forming Comparative and Superlative Adjectives in English:

Prescriptive Versus Psychological Rules

Shelia M. Kennison

Oklahoma State University

Brian M. Friel and Laura A. Brannon

Kansas State University

Please Address Correspondence To:

Shelia M. Kennison

Department of Psychology

215 North Murray Hall

Oklahoma State University

Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078-3064

Telephone: 405-744-7335

Fax: 405-744-8067

Email: [email protected]


ABSTRACT

The research investigated how native English speakers formed comparative and

superlative adjectives. ESL textbooks typically dictate that the suffixes –er or –est

should be added to monosyllabic adjectives (e.g., cuter, cutest) and to disyllabic

adjectives ending in –y (e.g., happier, happiest); for all other adjective stems, the

premodifiers more and most (e.g., more important, most important) should be

used. The results of two studies showed that native English speakers did not

follow the pedagogical rule, suggesting that the pedagogical rule is an imperfect

description of the psychological rule. The pedagogical implication is that language

learners who master the pedagogical rule will, nonetheless, fail to achieve native-

like performance. The research highlights a potential disadvantage of methods of

L2 instruction that emphasize rule-learning.


Forming Comparative and Superlative Adjectives in English:

Prescriptive Versus Psychological Rules

Over the last hundred years, there have been numerous methods developed

for the teaching of second languages (See Bell, 1981; DeKeysar, 1998; Krashen,

1994; Richards & Rodgers, 1986; Stevick, 1980). Some methods emphasize the

learning of specific second language (L2) grammar rules (e.g., the grammar

translation approach, the traditional language learning approach, and the cognitive

code method). Students are exposed to explicitly stated rules that they typically

attempt to memorize. They may also demonstrate their mastery of the rules in

written and/or oral assessments. In the field of second language teaching, there has

been a great deal of debate regarding the usefulness of providing students with

explicit L2 grammar rules. Some researchers have opposed the practice (Krashen,

1982; 1985; Newmark, 1966). Others have argued that incorporating explicitly

stated rules in L2 instruction may facilitate language development (Robinson,

1996b; Schmidt, 1990; Schmidt & Frota, 1986).

The appeal of rule-based approaches to L2 instruction is due, at least in

part, to the long-standing characterization of human language as a set of rules. De

Saussure (1916) compared human language to the game of chess. Words and

sounds, De Saussure claimed, are manipulated following the principles of the

language, just as the pieces on a chessboard are manipulated following the rules of

the game. Chomsky (1965; 1986) has since shown how rules can account for a

native speaker of a language being able to generate of all the acceptable forms of a

language (i.e., language is generative and can be described by a generative


grammar). The role of rules in language development and language processing

continues to be of major importance to language researchers (See Pinker, 1989;

1991; 1995).

One of the most compelling demonstrations of rule learning in first

language development was Berko’s (19858) classic wug test. A series of studies

demonstrated unequivocally that children acquire rules of their native language. In

one study, children demonstrated the application of the rule for forming plural

nouns in English. Children were presented with a card on which a picture of a

novel bird-like creature appeared. Beneath the picture was written, “This is a

wug.” The word wug was created for the study. Children in the study would not

have ever heard the word before. Beneath the first sentence, two of the bird-like

creatures were depicted, followed by the sentence, “Now there are two of them.

There are two _________.” Children correctly answered wugs, demonstrating that

while they had never heard the word form wugs before, they knew the rule for

creating a plural noun, i.e., adding –s to a singular noun.

For students of second languages, the learning of L2 grammar rules most

certainly occurs. However, it may not occur in the same way that it occurs during

the acquisition of a native language during childhood. During childhood, language

acquisition occurs implicitly, i.e., with little conscious awareness of the specific

language rules acquired. During second language learning, the roles of implicit

learning and explicit learning, i.e., learning occurring with conscious awareness of

specific language rules, has received a great deal of attention of researchers (See

Bialystok, 1994; Ellis, 1994; 1995; Krashen, 1982; 1994; Robinson, 1995a; 1996a;


1997; Rutherford & Sharwood Smith, 1985; Sharwood Smith, M., 1981; Schmidt,

1990; Winter & Reber, 1994, among others). Researchers who have opposed the

use of explicitly stated language rules when teaching second languages generally

argue that second language acquisition also proceeds primarily implicitly.

Researchers who have advocated the rule of explicitly stated language rules

generally argue that explicit processing can facilitate second language learning.

There are prior studies whose results suggest that the learning of explicitly

stated L2 grammar rules may not result in the expected or desired levels of

proficiency in L2. Terrell, Baycrost, and Perrone (1987) found that students

acquiring Spanish as a second language performed well on written assessments

when learning the subjunctive in Spanish, but performed poorly in tasks requiring

the oral production of the Spanish subjunctive. Ellis (1984) found that students

acquiring English-as-a-second-language (ESL) who had been drilled for three

hours on the use of wh-questions did not show improved performance in the use of

wh-questions when the questions had to be produced spontaneously, during a

subsequent oral language game. Lightbown (1983) has also shown that the rules

that students learn and subsequently use may not be the rules explicitly taught in

class, but rather may be pseudo-rules that students have wrongly inferred during

their classroom instruction.

On the other hand, there are the results of experimental research showing

that learning is facilitated when learners are exposed to explicitly stated rules. For

example, Ellis (1993) compared three methods of instruction in a task involving

the learning of an artificial grammar. The task involved acquiring the soft mutation


rule of structures in Welsh by non native speakers. Three learning conditions were

compared: (1) implicit learning; (2) explicit learning; and (3) structured learning.

In the implicit learning condition, participants viewed randomly ordered instances.

In the explicit learning condition, participants viewed the grammatical rules. In the

structured learning condition, participants were shown the rules applied to specific

instances. In all conditions, participants were instructed to translate the written

Welsh words and phrases into English. The results showed that in the implicit

condition, participants learned the specific instances, but failed to master the

underlying regularity of the grammar rule. In the explicit condition, participants

learned the grammar rules, after many trials, but performed poorly when applying

the rules. In the structured learning condition, participants learned slowly, but they

performed the best in all tasks (See also DeKeysar, 1995, and Robinson, 1995b;

1996b.).

The research described in this paper addressed the broad issue of what

rules should be taught in the event that an instructor incorporates rule-learning into

the curriculum. We investigated the hypothesis that some of the language rules

that are taught to second language learners may not be generally followed by

native speakers of the language. Therefore, they may not be ideal for use in

second language classrooms. We recognize that native speakers of a language

follow psychological language rules. However, the language rules listed in

grammar books and second language textbooks, i.e., pedagogical rules, may be

imperfect descriptions of the psychological rules applied by native speakers of the

language.


Linguists generally distinguish between the language rules that are taught,

i.e., prescriptive language rules, and the psychological rules that language users

follow, i.e., descriptive language rules (Akmajian, Demers, Farmer, & Harnish,

1995; Carroll, 1999; Fromkin & Rodman, 1998). In English, many of the

prescriptive language rules found in grammar books were created by 18th century

grammarians (Finegan, 1980; Pinker, 1995). Pedagogical rules are typically similar

to the prescriptive rules of the language. Prescriptive rules and pedagogical rules

are generally simplified versions of the descriptive rules used by native speakers of

the language (Corder, 1988; Faerch, 1986; Westney, 1994). If pedagogical rules

are simplified, yet accurate, descriptions of the language use of native speakers,

then second language learners who learn the rules will ultimately achieve native-

like performance in the language. However, if pedagogical rules are simplified, but

inaccurate, descriptions of the language use of native speakers, then the second

language learner, who masters rules, will, nonetheless, fail to achieve native-like

performance in the second language.

In this paper, we provide evidence that a specific English language rule that

appears in English grammar textbooks and in English-as-a-second-language (ESL

textbooks is an imperfect characterization of the psychological grammar rule

followed by native speakers of American English. The rule is that involved in

forming comparative and superlative adjectives. Comparative adjectives are used

to compare two entities on a particular dimension, as shown in 1a and b.

Superlative adjectives are used to state that an entity is the top ranking entity on a

particular dimension, as in 1c and d. The rule was ideal for our investigation, as


there appeared not to be variants of the rule associated with nonstandard dialects

of English.

1 a. John is taller than Bill. Comparative

b. John is more intelligent than Bill. Comparative

c. Mary is the tallest girl in the class. Superlative

d. Mary is the most intelligent girl in school. Superlative

Our survey of English grammar textbooks yielded a number of variants of

the prescriptive language rule. The version of the rule most commonly

encountered in ESL textbooks, such as Rutherford (1968) and Sharp, Muller,

Claney, and Cole (1995), is also the rule listed in Shertzer (1986):

Monosyllabic adjectives and disyllabic adjectives ending in -y should be

used with the suffixes –er and –est; all other adjectives should be used with

the premodifiers more and most.

English grammar books can be found having simpler and more complex versions of

the rule. Simpler versions can be found in Mosberger (1975), Ellsworth and

Higgins (2001), and Givόn’s (1993). These works state only that short adjectives

are to be used with the suffixes –er and –est and long adjectives are to be used

with more and most. More complex versions of the rule can be found in Strang

(1968), Wells (1984), Harvey (1987), and Maclin (1987). These works describe

the different types of disyllabic adjectives that should be used with the suffixes –er

and –est. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech, and Svartvik (1972) provides the most

complex description. However, there was no formal statement of a succinct rule.


In two studies, we investigated the extent to which the pedagogical

grammar rule stated in Shertzer (1986), Rutherford (1968), and Miller et al.

(1995) predicted the usage preferences of native speakers of American English. In

Study 1, participants were presented with both forms of a comparative adjective

(e.g., eviler vs. more evil) or with both forms of a superlative adjective (e.g.,

evilest vs. most evil). Participants were instructed to indicate which form they

preferred to use. In Study 2, an additional group of native speakers of American

English were presented a list of sentences containing a specific comparative or

superlative adjective form. They were instructed to rate the acceptability of the

adjective form (1=low acceptability, 7=high acceptability). The results of both

studies showed that usage preferences of native speakers of American English did

not strictly follow the pedagogical language rule. Specific adjectives proved to be

exceptions to the rule, i.e., the usage preference was the opposite of that predicted

by the rule. Furthermore, there were adjectives for which either form of the

comparative or superlative was acceptable.

Study 1

The purpose of Study 1 was to investigate the extent to which native

speakers of American English follow the prescriptive language rule for forming

comparative and superlative adjectives. Preferences were obtained for 279 English

adjectives. These adjectives were selected from Francis and Kucera (1982). The

set of 279 adjectives contained 97 one-syllable adjectives; 43 two-syllable

adjectives ending in –y; 83 two-syllable adjectives not ending in –y; and 56


adjectives containing three- or four-syllables. Adjectives were included in a

questionnaire in which participants were presented with both forms of comparative

adjectives (e.g., happy vs. more happy) or both forms of superlative adjectives

(e.g., happiest vs. most happy) and instructed to circle the form of the adjective

that they preferred to use. For example:

Circle One

John is _______ than Bill. happy more happy

Participants either judged all comparative forms or all superlative forms. For the

comparative questionnaires, four lists were constructed. Lists 1 and 2 were each

composed of 65 items. Lists 3 and 4 were each composed of 85 items. List 4 was

composed of 85 items. Twenty-one of the 279 adjectives appeared in two lists.

Of the items that appeared in more than one list, 2 were one syllable; 1 was

disyllabic, ending in –y; 16 were disyllabic, not ending in –y; and 2 were three or

more syllables The items in each list were arranged in a random order. Two

versions of each list were constructed in order to counterbalance the order of

responses. In one version, the suffixed form appeared as the choice on the left. In

the second version, the suffixed form appeared as the choice on the right. Twenty-

five participants completed each of the resulting eight lists. A total of two hundred

participants completed the comparative questionnaires. The superlative

questionnaires were constructed from the lists used for the comparative conditions.

Sentence frames were altered to accommodate a superlative adjective form (e.g.,

John is the ______ student in the class.) The two choices provided for each

sentence were a suffixed form and the premodifier (or most) form. Twenty-five


additional participants completed each of the eight lists. A total of two hundred

participants completed the superlative questionnaires. All participants who

participated in Study 1 were undergraduates at the University of Oklahoma and

enrolled in a psychology course. All were native speakers of American English

and received course credit in exchange for their participation.

Results and Discussion

The mean percent preference for the suffixed forms was calculated for each

adjective stem.1 The mean percent preference was then calculated for the four

types of adjectives: (1) one syllable; (2) syllables ending in –y; (3) two syllables,

not ending in –y; and (4) three or more syllables. Figure 1 displays these results.

These means were analyzed in a series of one-sample t-tests in order to

determine whether the percent preference for the suffixed form was different from

100% or 0%, as predicted by the prescriptive language rule. Means for each

adjective type were calculated for each participant and for each item and analyzed

using participants (t1) and items (t2) as random effects, following Clark (1973).

The results of these analysis indicated that for each type of adjective, preferences

did not strictly follow the pedagogical language rule. For monosyllabic adjectives,

the mean preference for the suffixed forms (i.e., –er and –est) differed significantly

from 100%: -er, 79%, t1(199)=-24.13, SE=.87, p < .001; t2(96)=-7.59, SE=2.58, p

< .001 and –est, 84%, t1(199)=-22.02, SE=.73, p < .001; t2(96)=-6.97, SE=2.24, p

< .001. For two-syllable adjectives ending in -y, the mean preference for the

suffixed forms also differed significantly from 100%: –er, 79%, %, t1(199)=-16.23,

SE=1.33, p < .001; t2(42)=-6.54, SE=3.00, p < .001 and –est, 86%, t1(199)=-


13.74, SE=1.06, p < .001; t2(42)=-6.12, SE=2.23, p < .001. For two-syllable

adjectives not ending in -y, the mean percent preference for the suffixed forms

differed significantly from 0%: –er, 9%, t1(199)=20.58, SE=.45, p < .001;

t2(82)=4.30, SE=2.29, p < .001 and –est, 14%, t1(199)=19.62, SE=.67, p < .001;

t2(82)=6.27, SE=2.41, p < .001, respectively. For adjectives containing three or

four syllables, the mean percent preference for the suffixed forms differed

significantly from 0%: –er, 2%, t1(199)=6.63, SE=.21, p < .001; t2(55)=3.22,

SE=.70, p < .002 and –est, 7%, t1(199)=7.73, SE=.57, p < .001; t2(55)=4.65,

SE=1.44, p < .001.

Numerous individual adjectives were found to be exceptions to the

pedagogical language rule. Table 1 displays thirty-four monosyllabic adjectives for

which the mean percent preference for the suffixed forms was below 90%. Table

2 displays sixteen disyllabic adjectives ending in –y for which the mean percent

preference for the suffixed forms was below 90%. Table 3 displays fifteen

disyllabic adjectives not ending in –y for which the mean percent preference for the

suffixed forms was above 10%. Table 4 displays four three-syllabic adjectives for

which the mean percent preference for the suffixed forms was above 10%.

Although participants’ responses did not strictly conform the pedagogical

language rule, participants’ responses did appear to be systematic, suggesting the

existence of a psychological rule. For example, the adjectives for which the

suffixed comparative form was preferred were also the adjectives for which the

suffixed superlative form was preferred. The correlation between the observed


percent preference for –er forms and the observed percent preference for –est

forms was highly significant, r(279)=+.97, p < .001.

An unexpected trend in the data was that suffixed superlative forms

appeared to be preferred more often than suffixed comparative forms (i.e.,

between 4% and 6% more often). This pattern was observed for each of the four

types of adjectives. The difference was statistically significant, t1(799)=-8.63,

SE=.54, p < .001; t2(278)=-7.21, SE=.66, p < .001. It may be the case that

language users do, in fact, prefer to use suffixed superlative forms of specific

adjectives more often than the suffixed comparative forms of those adjectives. A

second possibility is that language users prefer to use the premodifier more forms

of specific adjectives more often than the premodifier most forms of those

adjectives. A third possibility is that, to some extent, both of the aforementioned

explanations are true and each contribute to the difference in preferences observed

between suffixed superlative forms and suffixed comparative forms.

The purpose of Study 2 was to obtain judgments using a different

methodology. In Study 1, participants were presented with both forms of a

comparative or superlative. We considered the possibility that in everyday

language use, at least for some adjectives, participants may generally use one form

or the other and may not be aware of the existence of the second form.

Preferences provided by participants in Study 1 may have been influenced by the

unfamiliarity of the unpreferred form when that form was presented alongside the

preferred form. In Study 2, we employed a methodology in which participants

were asked to judge a single comparative or superlative form.


Study 2

In Study 2, an additional group of native speakers of American English was

asked to rate the acceptability of comparative or superlative adjective forms. For

each adjective form, a sentence was presented containing a target adjective. The

comparative or superlative adjective form was underlined. A rating scale was

presented on the same line to the right. Participants were instructed to circle the

number that reflected how acceptable they found the underlined adjective form.

For example:

Not Acceptable Acceptable

John is nicer than Bill. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

In a given questionnaire, choices were either all comparative or superlative

forms. Furthermore, in a given questionnaire all forms were either suffixed forms

or premodifiers forms involving more or most. Of the 280 adjectives tested in

Study 1, 265 adjectives were tested in Study 2. Participants were instructed to

rate comparative or superlative adjective forms. There were four lists of items.

Two lists contained 65 items. Two lists contained 85 items. Thirty-four items

appeared in two lists. Of the items that appeared in more than one list, 5 were one

syllable; 4 were two syllables, ending in –y; 22 were two syllables, not ending in –

y; and 3 were three or more syllables. For each of the four lists, there were four

versions created. One version contained all –er forms. One version contained all –

est forms. One version contained more forms. One version contained most forms.

The items in a given list were presented in a random order. The same random

order was used for all four versions of the questionnaire. Eighteen participants


completed each list. All participants were undergraduates at the University of

Oklahoma and were enrolled in a Psychology course. All were native speakers of

American English and received course credit in exchange for their participation.

Results and Discussion

For each adjective stem, the mean acceptability rating for the suffixed and

premodifier forms were calculated. 1 For each type of adjective, the mean

acceptability ratings for suffixed and premodifier forms were calculated. Figure 2

displays the mean acceptability rating for suffixed and premodifier forms by type of

adjective.

These means were analyzed in a series of one-sample t-tests in order to

determine whether the percent preference for the suffixed form was different from

7 (7=acceptable) or 1 (1=not acceptable), as predicted by the prescriptive

language rule. As in Study 1, means were analyzed using participants (t1) and items

(t2) as random effects, following Clark (1973). The results indicated that

judgments of native speakers of American English did not conform to the

pedagogical rule for any of the four types of adjectives.

For monosyllabic adjectives, the mean acceptability ratings for the suffixed

form were significantly different from 7: –er, 5.47, t1(71)=-17.55, SE=.09, p <

.001; t2(93)=-10.81, SE=.14, p < .001 and –est, 5.53, t1(71)=-17.32, SE=.09, p <

.001; t2(93)=-11.59, SE=.13, p < .001. The mean acceptability ratings for more

and most forms differed significantly from 1: more, 2.45, t1(71)=16.45, SE=.09, p

< .001; t2(93)=25.65, SE=.10, p < .001 and most, 2.21, t1(71)=15.28, SE=.09, p <

.001; t2(93)=25.53, SE=.09, p < .001.


For disyllabic adjectives ending in –y, the mean acceptability ratings for the

suffixed form differed significantly from 7: –er, 5.33, t1(71)=-14.55, SE=.12, p <

.001; t2(40)=-9.37, SE=.18, p < .001 and –est, 5.44, t1(71)=-13.69, SE=.12, p <

.001; t2(40)=-8.56, SE=.18, p < .001. The mean acceptability ratings for the more

and most forms differed significantly from 7: more, 2.73, t1(71)=12.00, SE=.15, p

< .001; t2(40)=17.32, SE=.16, p < .001 and most, 2.54, t1(71)=13.21, SE=.12, p <

.001; t2(40)=19.68, SE=.13, p < .001.

For disyllabic adjectives not ending in -y, the mean acceptability ratings for

the suffixed forms differed significantly from 1: –er, 1.79, t1(71)=8.03, SE=.08, p <

.001; t2(78)=16.88, SE= .11, p < .001 and –est, 2.19, t1(71)=15.23, SE=.08, p <

.001; t2(78)=16.19, SE=.14, p < .001. The mean acceptability ratings for the more

and most forms differed significantly from 7: more, 4.97, t1(71)=-15.19, SE=.15, p

< .001; t2(78)=-13.71, SE=.15, p < .001, and most, 4.64, t1(71)=-20.97, SE=.10, p

< .001; t2(78)=-15.16, SE=.16, p < .001.

For adjectives containing three or four syllables, the mean acceptability

ratings for the suffixed forms differed significantly from 1: –er, 1.42, t1(71)=4.44,

SE=.07, p < .001; t2(50)=25.83, SE=.06, p < .001 and –est, 1.75, t1(71)=4.82,

SE=.08, p < .001; t2(50)=20.26, SE=.09, p < .001. The mean acceptability ratings

for the more and most forms differed significantly from 7: more, 5.32, t1(71)=-

12.26, SE=.14, p < .001; t2(50)=-11.63, SE=.14, p < .001 and most, 5.39, t1(71)=-

11.90, SE=.15, p < .001; t2(50)=-11.83, SE=.14, p < .001.

As observed in Study 1, participants’ judgments suggested the existence of

psychological rule, as there were consistencies across response types. Ratings


obtained for suffixed comparative forms was inversely related to the acceptability

of more forms, r(265)=-.77, p < .001, and the acceptability of suffixed superlative

forms was inversely related to the acceptability of most form, r(265)=-.79, p <

.001. Furthermore, ratings obtained for suffixed comparative forms and suffixed

superlative forms were highly similar, r(265)=+.94, p < .001. Ratings obtained for

premodifier forms containing more and premodifier forms containing most were

highly similar, r(265)=+.92, p < .001.

We compared the item-by-item usage preference data obtained in Study 1

with the ratings obtained in Study 2. The results of these comparisons suggested

that judgments were consistent across methodologies. Acceptability ratings for

suffixed comparative forms were positively correlated with the percent preference

for the suffixed comparative forms, r(265)=+.97, p < .001. Acceptability ratings

suffixed superlative forms were positively correlated with the percent preference

for the suffixed superlative forms, r(265)=+.93, p < .001. The correlations

indicated that the adjectives for which the suffixed form was preferred were also

the adjectives for which the suffixed forms were rated higher in acceptability and

also that the adjectives for which the suffixed form was not preferred were also the

adjectives for which the suffixed forms were rated lower in acceptability.

Acceptability ratings for premodifier forms containing more were inversely related

to the percent preference for the suffixed comparative forms, r(265)=-.84, p <

.001. Acceptability ratings for premodifier forms containing most were inversely

related to the percent preference for the suffixed superlative forms, r(265)=-.87, p

< .001. These correlations indicated that the adjectives for which the suffixed


forms were preferred were also the adjectives for which the premodifier forms

were rated lower in acceptability and also that the adjectives for which the suffixed

form was not preferred were also the adjectives for which the premodifier forms

were rated higher in acceptability.

The results of Study 2 provided additional evidence that suffixed

superlative forms may be more acceptable in general than suffixed comparative

forms. Participants generally rated suffix superlative forms as more acceptable

than suffixed comparative forms (3.79 vs. 3.55, respectively), t1(287)=-2.96,

SE=.07, p < .004; t2(264)=-5.21, SE=.04, p < .001. There was also a tendency for

participants to rate premodifier more forms as more acceptable than suffixed most

forms (3.79 vs. 3.60, respectively), but the difference was significant only in the

items analysis, t1 < 1; t2(264)=4.60, SE=.04, p < .001. Consequently, the results

more strongly support the conclusion that generally suffixed comparative forms are

preferred more often than suffixed comparative forms. Phonology may play an

important role, as many of the adjectives for which the difference in ratings for the

suffixed superlative and the suffixed comparative was large ended with the

phonemes /r/, /l/, /d/, or /k/ (e.g., fair, dull, blind, drunk). Producing the suffix –

est may be easier following certain phonological sequences than producing the

suffix –er.

General Discussion

The research described in this paper provided evidence that a specific

pedagogical rule, i.e., the rule for forming comparative and superlative adjectives

in English, is not generally followed by native speakers, indicating that the


pedagogical rule is an imperfect description of the psychological rule used by

native English speakers. Second language learners, who master this pedagogical

rule and any other pedagogical rule that inaccurately describes the language use of

native speakers, will, nonetheless, fail to achieve native-like proficiency. These

results can be viewed as a noteworthy disadvantage of methods of second

language instruction that emphasize the learning of explicit L2 language rules.

Because there is a lack of research investigating the relationship between specific

pedagogical rules and the language use of native speakers, instructors have no way

of knowing which pedagogical rules may impede, rather than facilitate, the second

language learner in developing native-like proficiency.

Stating the specifics of the psychological rule involved in forming

comparative and superlative adjectives in English will likely be challenging. Prior

research has shown that characterizing the psychological rules involved in the

language performance of native speakers can be complex and the subject of

disagreement among researchers. Consider the English rule for forming the

regular past tense by adding the suffix –ed to a verb stem (e.g., walk, walked).

Pinker and colleagues (Marcus, Brinkmann, Clahsen, Wiese, & Pinker, 1995;

Pinker & Prince, 1988; Prasada & Pinker, 1993) have argued that native speakers

of English learn the rule, but also learn a list of exceptions, i.e., irregular forms.

However, Rumelhart and McClelland (1986) argued that the performance of native

speakers can be explained within a connectionist framework in which language

users are assumed to learn specific word forms, rather than relying on rules. The

frequency of occurrence would predict which forms are learned early versus later.


The psychological rules involved in forming comparative and superlative

adjectives may involve similar complexities and similar controversies. Native

speakers of English may follow a psychological rule for adding the suffixes –er and

–est and also may learn a list of exceptions (e.g., See Tables 1 – 4). However,

many of the adjectives investigated in the present research cannot be classified as

strictly regular or irregular, as both forms of the comparative or both forms of the

superlative were judged to be comparably preferred or comparably acceptable

(e.g., proud, prouder, more proud). Regardless of which approach is most

successful in explaining the acquisition and use of the descriptive language rule

(i.e., the rules plus exceptions approach versus the connectionist approach), the

present results suggest that morphological and phonological characteristics of the

adjective stem are likely to be involved in determining the likelihood that the

suffixes –er and –est will be used. Stems containing a suffix (i.e., careless,

depressed, helpful, willing) appeared not to be used with the suffixes –er and –est.

Stems containing a reduced final syllable appeared to be used with the suffixes –er

and –est. Monosyllabic stems ending in /r/, /l/, /t/, and /k/ appeared not to be used

with the suffixes –er and –est.

The pedagogical question raised by the present results is what should be

taught to second language learners? Our results may reinforce the conclusion held

by some researchers that methods of second language instruction that emphasize

the learning of explicit L2 rules are inferior to methods that do not expose students

to rules. These individuals advocate that no rule be taught. Students will develop

a psychological language rule from their repeated exposure to the language. Over


time, second language learners may develop a psychological rule similar to that

possessed by native speakers of the language. However, we do not agree with this

interpretation of our results. Following the results of Ellis (1993), DeKeysar

(1995) and Robinson (1996b), we advocate providing language learners with some

information about the language rule, supplemented with information about the

application of the language rule. We further propose that these examples of

applications of the rule be supplemented with information about the language

performance of native speakers, i.e., examples of specific adjectives and the

percentage of the time that a sample of native speakers follows the rule. Further

research is needed to test empirically the extent to which providing these different

amounts of information about the application of language rules facilitates second

language learning.

In order for instructors of second languages to incorporate information

about the variation among native speakers for specific prescriptive language rules,

more research is needed. Thus far, very little research has been conducted

investigating the relationship between specific prescriptive grammar rules and the

corresponding native speaker performance. The research presented in this paper

demonstrates the usefulness of further research in this area.


References

Akmajian, A., Demers, R. A., Farmer, A. K., & Harnish, R. M. (1995).

Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.

Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14, 150-177.

Carroll, D. W. (1999). Psychology of language (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove,

California: Brooks/Cole.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New

York: Praeger.

Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language

statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and

Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359.

Corder, S. P. (1988). Pedagogic grammars. In W. Rutherford & M. Sharwood

Smith (Eds.), Grammar and Second Language Teaching (pp. 123-145).

New York: Newbury House.

DeKeysar, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment

with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 17, 379-410.

DeKeysar, R. M. (1998). Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing L2

grammar. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in


Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. (1998). Acquiring competence in a second language: Form and

function. In H. Byrnes (Ed.). Learning Foreign and Second Languages:

Perspectives in Research and Scholarship (pp 128-156). New York:

Modern Language Association of America.

Ellis, N. C. (1993). Rules and instances in foreign language learning: Interactions

of explicit and implicit knowledge. European Journal of Cognitive

Psychology, 5, 289-318.

Ellis, N. C. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning: An overview. In N. C.

Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages (pp. 1-32). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Ellis, N. C. (1995). Consciousness in second language acquisition: A review of

field studies and laboratory experiments. Language Awareness, 4, 123-146.

Ellis, R. (1984). Can syntax be taught? A study of the effects of formal instruction

on the acquisition of Wh Questions by children. Applied Linguistics, 5,

138-155.

Ellsworth, B., & Higgins, J. A. (2001). English simplified (9th ed.). New York:

Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, inc.

Faerch, C. (1986). Rules of thumb and other teacher formulated rules in the

foreign language classroom. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Learning, Teaching and

Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom, (pp. 65-79). Aarhus:

Aarhus University Press.


Finegan, E. (1980). Attitudes toward English Usage. New York: Teachers College

Press.

Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage:

Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Fromkin, V., & Rodman, R. (1998). An introduction to language (6th ed.).

Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace.

Givόn, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction. Philadelphia:

John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Green P., & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study.

Applied Linguistics, 13, 385-407.

Harvey, T. H. (1987). A practical grammar of the English language. Delmar, New

York: Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints.

Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.

New York: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York:

Pergamon.

Lightbown, P. (1983). Exploring relationships between development and

instructional sequences in L2 acquistion. In H. Seliger & M. Long (Eds).

Classroom-oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp 217-

243). Rowley: Newbury.

Maclin, A. (1987). Reference guide to English. New York: CBS College

Publishing.


Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995).

German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive

Psychology, 29, 198-256.

Morsberger, R. E. (1975). Common sense grammar and style. New York:

Thomas Y. Crowell Co.

Newmark, L. (1966). How not to interfere with language learning. International

Journal of Applied Linguistics, , 77-83.

Pinker, S. (1989). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science, 253, 530-535.

Pinker, S. (1995). The Language Instinct. New York: HarperPerennial.

Pinker, S., & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a

parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition,

28, 73-193.

Prasada, S., & Pinker, S. (1993). Generalization of regular and irregular

morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 1-56.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of

contemporary English. London: Longman.

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Robinson, P. (1995a). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis.

Language Learning, 45, 283-331.


Robinson, P. (1995b). Aptitude, awareness, and the fundamental similarity of

implicit and explicit second language learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.),

Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 303-358).

Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

Robinson, P. (1996a). Consciousness, Rules, and Instructed Second Language

Acquisition. New York: Peter Lang.

Robinson, P. (1996b). Learning simple and complex second language rules under

implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 18, 27-68.

Robinson, P. (1997). Individual differences and the fundamental similarity of

implicit and explicit adult second language learning. Language Learning,

47, 45-99.

Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L (1986). On learning the past tenses of

English verbs. In J. L. McClelland, D. E. Rumelhart, & the PDP Research

Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Vol. 2. Psychological and

biological models (pp. 216-271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rutherford, W. E. (1968). Modern English: A textbook for foreign students. New

York: Harcourt Brace & World, inc.

Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and

universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-282.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.

Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.


Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a

second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R.

Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversations in second language learning

(pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Seliger, H. (1979). On the nature and function of language rules in language

teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 359-396.

Sharp, D., Muller, S., Claney, P., & Cole, L. (1995). Language exercises for

adults. Austin, Texas: Steck-Vaughn Company.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and second language

acquisition theory. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.

Shertzer, M.D. (1986). The Elements of Grammar. New York: Macmillan.

Strang, B. M. H. (1968). Modern English Structure.New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Terrell, T., Baycroft, B., & Perrone, C. (1987). The subjunctive in Spanish

interlanguage: Accuracy and comprehensibility. In T. Dvorak, J. Lee, & B.

VanPatten (Eds.). Foreign language learning: A Research Perspective (pp

19-32). New York: Newbury.

Wells, W. H. (1984). A grammar of the English Language. Delmar, New York:

Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints.

Westney, P. (1994). Rules and pedagogic grammar. In T. Odlin (Ed.),

Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar, (pp. 72-96). New York:

Cambridge University Press.


Winter, B., & Reber. A. S. (1994). Implicit learning and the acquisition of natural

languages. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages

(pp. 115-146). London: Academic Press.


Authors’ Notes

Shelia M. Kennison, Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University; Brian M.

Friel, Department of Psychology, Kansas State University; Laura A. Brannon, Department of

Psychology, Kansas State University.

Portions of these data were presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society in

Dallas, Texas, in 1998.

Many thanks are extended to those who assisted in testing participants: Lori Wheat and

Cynthia Moore. Correspondence regarding the research described in this paper should be

addressed to the author at 215 North Murray Hall, Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State

University, Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078 or [email protected].


Footnotes

1Item-by-item results are available at the following URL:

http://psychology.okstate.edu/faculty/kennis/adjectives.htm.


Table 1

Thirty-four Monosyllabic Adjectives with Mean Preference for both Suffixed forms Below 90%

from Study 1.

Adjective % –er % –est

Real 2 23

Frank 4 20

Right 12 20

Prompt 18 24

Sane 18 4

Fair 24 82

Nude 30 64

Sure 36 68

Dull 38 86

Blunt 42 48

Sound 44 56

Grim 46 52

Drunk 48 86

Rare 48 76

Gold 52 80

True 52 76

Deaf 54 64

Table continues


Gray 54 76

Blind 58 78

Brisk 62 18

Free 64 32

Proud 66 66

Pure 66 74

Square 66 84

Blonde 66 82

Red 68 68

Grave 70 66

Brief 74 52

Harsh 78 84

Bleak 80 76

Plain 80 86

Sick 84 84

Brave 86 76

Kind 86 80


Table 2

Sixteen Disyllabic Adjectives ending in –y with Mean Preference for both Suffixed forms below

90% from Study 1.

Adjective Stem % -er % -est

Costly 22 24

Sorry 28 58

Worthy 40 52

Weary 54 86

Lusty 56 70

Chilly 56 82

Needy 60 78

Handy 62 66

Deadly 66 74

Lacy 70 86

Hungry 72 78

Lively 74 84

Milky 74 88

Stormy 80 82

Grassy 82 80

Smoky 88 88


Table 3

Fifteen Disyllabic Adjectives not ending in –y with Mean Preference for both Suffixed forms

above 10% from Study 1.


Little 96 100

Quiet 88 78

Simple 86 74

Narrow 78 76

Gentle 60 32

Shallow 60 76

Yellow 54 76

Evil 26 54

Purple 24 58

Sour 16 50

Somber 14 22

Clever 12 22

Direct 12 14

Slender 12 22

Wicked 12 54


Table 4

Four Three-Syllabic Adjectives with Mean Preference for both Suffixed forms above 10% from

Study 1.


Heavenly 16 28

Miniscule 12 20

Specific 16 18

Uneasy 30 54


Figure Captions

Figure 1. Mean percent preference for suffixed comparative and superlative adjective

forms by type of adjective from Study 1.

Figure 2. Mean acceptability rating for comparative and superlative adjective forms by

type of adjective from Study 2. The top panel displays the results for comparative forms. The

bottom panel displays the results for superlative forms.


0

20

40

60

80

100

1-syllable 2 syllablesending in -y

2 syllables notending in -y

3 or moresyllables

Type of Adjective

% P

refe

ren

ce

-er -est


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 syllable 2 syllables,ending in -y

2 syllables, notending in -y

3 or moresyllables

Type of Adjective

Mea

n R

atin

g

-er more

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 syllable 2 syllables,ending in -y

2 syllables, notending in -y

3 or moresyllables

Type of Adjective

Mea

n R

atin

g

-est most

Comparative and Superlative Adjectives 1 Running head...

Documents

Transcript of Comparative and Superlative Adjectives 1 Running head...