Variations of comparative forms in online discourses: Acceptability and practicality
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53696/27753719.51249Keywords:
English online discourses, comparative forms in English, double comparatives, generative grammar, linguistic innovationAbstract
As non-native users of English, multilinguals sometimes produce discourses that seemingly deviate from the English norm. One dispute on Facebook, for instance, tagged someone being linguistically incompetent for using double comparatives (DCs), seeing that its use (e.g. more taller) violates the English grammar. Hence this study directs its attention to DC’s emergence in online discourses to explore its acceptability and practicality. As a qualitative content inquiry informed by Chomsky’s (1961) generative grammar and theory of linguistic structure, this study found 9 DC structures, which at a glance, deviate the English norms, suggesting a variation in the application of comparative forms in English. Surprisingly, at a closer look, DCs are linguistic innovations characterizing users’ creativity and practical intent and their way to maximize the flexibility of English to serve a practical purpose. Understanding the purpose of Facebook discourses (e.g. to influence decisions) is crucial in this study to explain the use of DCs. As a result, promotional is the main purpose that justifies the use of DCs as it contains transactional and practical details to influence decisions (e.g. customers to grab discounted services). Significantly, this study introduces three types of DCs used in online discourses not yet explored in linguistics, namely: 1) intralingual (coreference) which coreferences with other lexical items composing units of linguistic references that denote meaning of an entire discourse in semantic level, 2) interlingual (intensifier) which intensifies the presentation of meaning according to how they are intended by users, and 3) extra-lingual (meaning marker) which adds related ideas not explicitly conveyed in a discourse. Although DCs appear to be acceptable in practical uses, particularly in online discourses, applying them in formal writing (where grammar accuracy is crucial) needs consensus among language experts because its usage may not be acceptable to convey technical information.
Downloads
References
Al-Sharqi, L., & Abbasi, I. S. (2020). The influence of technology on English language and literature. English Language Teaching, 13(7), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n7p1
Bungsu, O., Daud, A., & Masyhur, M. (2021). An analysis on students’ grammatical errors in writing degrees of comparison. Indonesian Journal of Economics, Social, and Humanities, 3(1), 55-63. https://doi.org/10.31258/ijesh.3.1.55-63
Caleffi, P. M. (2015). The hashtag: A new word or a new rule? SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 12(2), 46-69. http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL28/
Chomsky, N. (1961). Some methodological remarks on generative grammar. WORD, 17(2), 219-239. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1961.11659755
Corver, N. (2005). Double comparatives and the comparative criterion. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes, 34, 165-190. https://doi.org/10.4000/rlv.1387
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. In P. Femila (Ed.) Innovations in world Englishes: A multifaceted linguistic phenomenon. BODHI International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Science, 4(1), 59-61.
Dor, D. (2004). From Englishization to imposed multilingualism: Globalization, the internet, and the political economy of the linguistic code. In O. L. Klymenko (Ed.) Linguistic innovations paving the way for language democratization. A Collective Monograph on Modern Approaches to Philological Studies, pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.36059/978966-397-196-4/1-21
Downe‐Wamboldt, D. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313321. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399339209516006
Femila, P. (2020). Innovations in world Englishes: A multifaceted linguistic phenomenon. BODHI International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Science, 4(1), 5961.
Gonzàlez-Dìaz, V. (2008). English adjective comparison: A historical perspective. In M.
Morton (Ed.) The double comparative: A more better use of the English language. Schwa Language and Linguistics, (18), 103-115. https://schwa.byu.edu/
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
Halle, M. (1962). Phonology in generative grammar. WORD, 18(1-3), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1962.11659765
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. (2005). Three Approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Imran, M., & Wahid, M. R. (2020). The syntactic variations in adjective phrase – double comparatives and double superlatives in Pakistani English (PakE): A corpus-based study. American Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 1-11. https://www.americanjournals.com/
Kleinheksel, A. J., Rockich-Winston, N., Tawfik, H., & Wyatt, T. R. (2020). Demystifying content analysis. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84(1), 7113. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7113
Klymenko, O. L. (2020). Linguistic innovations paving the way for language democratization. A Collective Monograph on Modern Approaches to Philological Studies, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.36059/978-966-397-196-4/1-21
Kurniawan, I., & Oktalia, M. (2017). An analysis of students’ mastery in using degrees of comparison at the 1st semester of the 10th grade of SMK PGRI 4 Bandar Lampung in the academic year of 2016/2017. Jurnal Tadris Bahasa Inggris, 10(1), 88-103. https://ejournal.radenintan.ac.id/index.php/ENGEDU
Morgan, D. L. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 112-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300107
Morton, M. (2018). The double comparative: A more better use of the English language. Schwa Language and Linguistics, (18), 103-115. https://schwa.byu.edu/
Nashaat, O. (2018). Double comparative forms in William Shakespeare plays: Sociolinguistic analysis. Iraqi Academic Scientific Journal, 11(44), 485-498. https://iasj.net/iasj/article/156386
Nghipondoka, T. (2020). Exploring linguistic “creativity” on social media: A case of selected posts by Namibians on Facebook, Twitter, and Whatsapp. Master’s Thesis, Scholarly Repository, University of Namibia. https://repository.unam.edu.na/handle/11070/2863
Sung, W.M., Ng, Y.L., & Choi, L.K. (2018). Integrating corporate social media communication into the English language curricula. In U. Tariq, S. Sarfraz, & A. Abbas (Ed.) Digital media users and Facebook hashtags' misinterpretation. Online Information Review, 44(6), 1183-1198. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2019-0262
Tafesse, W., & Wien, A. (2017). A framework for categorizing social media posts. Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1284390
Tariq, U., Sarfraz, S., & Abbas, A. (2020). Digital media users and Facebook hashtags' misinterpretation. Online Information Review, 44(6), 1183-1198. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-08-2019-0262
Wàodarczyk, M. (2007). More stronger and mightier: Some remarks on double comparison in middle English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 43, 195-217. http://hdl.handle.net/10593/19052
Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412983488
Wei, L. (2020). Multilingual English users’ linguistic innovation. World Englishes, 39, 236248. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12457
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Michael John Tagadiad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The authors certify that:
- if the manuscript is co-authored, they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- the work described has not been formally published before in a registered ISSN or ISBN media, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis.
- it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- they secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere (it does not infringe on the rights of others).
- they agree to license and copyright agreement.
All articles published are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
- Authors retain copyright and other proprietary rights related to the article.
- Authors retain the right and are permitted to use the substance of the article in their own future works, including lectures and books.
- Authors grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post or self-archive their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
