Running Head: ENGLISH COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

English comparatives and equatives: teaching language learners the forms and structures
for comparison
Angela Sharpe
Colorado State University

COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

Abstract
A fundamental human cognitive process is the ability to express that two things are
similar, different, or equal; this is often expressed in terms of degree. In English, the two most
important constructions for expressing the degree or extent to which stuff and things are similar,
different, or equal are the comparative and equative forms and structures. This paper will review
the forms and structures of comparatives and equatives with regard to English language learners
in the following ways: 1) by highlighting potential difficulties that learners may have in their
acquisition, 2) by demonstrating comparatives and equatives in a number of syntactic
environments so as to draw attention to the lexical diversity of comparison, and 3) by drawing
implications for teaching English comparatives and equatives to English language learners.
Introduction
According to Halliday and Hasan (1976, p. 81), comparison can be particular, in that, it
can be expressed using comparative forms of adjectives or adverbs; Comparison can also be
general in that it can be expressed by a certain class of adjectives and adverbs. In both types of
comparison there must be a standard of reference in order to state that one thing is superior,
equal, or inferior in quantity or quality, or likeness.
A comparison can be made using any major part of speech. However, a good place to
start, when teaching learners comparison, is by means of adjectives and adverbs in their
comparative form. Specifically, in English, the forms of degree comparatives are the inflectional
morpheme {-er}, or a quantifier word form such as more or less before an adjective or adverb.
More and less will be referred to as the periphrastic forms in this paper.
In utterances, comparison indicates how a main clause is similar to or different from a
subordinate (complementary) clause. Syntactically, comparative clauses and phrases commonly
contain, the complementizer as to express similarity, and the complementizer than to express
difference. This paper will focus on comparison using adjectives and intends to summarize
degree comparatives and equatives through their forms, functions, meanings, and uses in order to
effectively teach English language learners. As a starting point, it is useful to examine these
forms and structures from the point of view of what makes them difficult to acquire for language

COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

learners and then move into effective methods and techniques to help learners to acquire these
important forms and structures.
Learner difficulties in the acquisition of degree comparatives and equatives
Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) identify five common errors associated with
the acquisition of degree-comparatives and equatives in English. The first is the omission of the
inflectional {-er} morpheme on the adjective resulting in a comparative structure that makes no
degree comparison. Second, a learner may substitute inflectional {-er} morpheme for the
periphrastic form and vice versa. Third, a learner may replace the function word than with some
other function word or may place than in an noncanonical position within the sentence. A fourth
error results from overgeneralization where a learner places the regular {-er} inflectional
morpheme on the absolute form instead of the appropriate suppletive form, such as
badbadder, instead of worse. Finally, a learner may double mark the comparative by including
a periphrastic form before the {-er} inflected adjective or adverb, such as more taller.
A final caveat making comparison difficult in English is its wide range of comparison
construction types. Unlike many other languages, English allows for every major part of speech
to be compared. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999, p. 719) suggest that learners should
be made aware of the fact that English permits for such a wide range of comparison by defining a
comparison as any structure where a presupposed difference of degree or extent is being
communicated. In order to exemplify this factor, using any major part of speech, they suggest
illustrating a version of the following formula to teach comparison to learners:
X {is, has, other verbs} {MORE/LESS} A than Y.
Adjectives
Many grammar textbooks for EFL/ESL learners describe the class of words called
adjectives as words which describe nouns. A more precise definition by Huddleston (1988, p.
108) defines adjectives as a grammatically distinct word class that denotes properties or states of
the entity or notion that a noun names. The main functions of adjectives are to head adjective
phrases and to modify nouns. Attributive adjectives modify nouns and can fill the prenominal
syntactic slot. Predicative adjectives occur after be copular and other copular verbs. The
properties denoted by adjectives are frequently gradable, scalar, and contain pairs of words
which display polarity. Polarity refers to the adjective class that contains pairs of gradable

COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

opposites referred to as having positive and negative polarity (high-low, good-bad). In English,
positive polarity adjectives are unmarked and negative polarity adjectives are marked. Gradable
adjectives in English can be modified by an intensifier, such as very as their properties exist on a
scale or continuum. There are adjectives that do not readily permit degree modification, they are
referred to as non-gradable and generally denote categorical properties as opposed to scalar
properties. For example, perfect, impossible, and dead are adjectives which do not have degrees
of the quality that they denote, i.e. something or someone cannot be more or less perfect,
impossible, or dead.
Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999, p. 717) also suggest that learners should be
made aware of the distinction between the use of absolute adjectives and their relative forms
used in comparative and equative constructions. The absolute use of an adjective makes an
absolute assertion about the referent of the adjective (e.g. tall, small). The relative forms, e.g.
tall(er), small(er), are used in comparison because they make no absolute assertion about the
referents tallness or smallness. However, according to Jovanovi (2009, p. 23), the dichotomy
that an adjective is either absolute or relative can be slightly misleading. Jovanovi (2009)
points out that many adjectives that have a denotative absolute sense can also have a relative
figurative sense. An example of this can be seen in the use of dead in a figurative statement such
as: Fred feels more dead after eating a big lunch than after eating a big breakfast. This type of
use of an adjective has implications for learners, in that, many non-gradable adjectives can have
and gradable senses when their meaning is extended, such as in a metaphor.
The forms of comparison
Although, every major part of speech in English will permit comparison, adjectives,
present a good starting point to teach the comparative forms (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman,
1999, p. 719). The phonological explanation employed by many textbooks, in order to teach the
choice distinction between the {-er} inflection and the periphrastic form, is based on syllable
count and stress. If an adjective or adverb has one syllable, or if the adjective has two syllables
and ends in a final unstressed <y> it takes the inflectional {-er} endings. Many other twosyllable words which have a stressed first syllable and an unstressed second syllable ending in
ly, -ow, or le most often take the inflectional ending. It is important to note that two syllable
adjectives that add a derivational prefix still take the same inflection as the base form would
without the prefix. The rules or tendencies of two syllable adjectives are not as rigid as the prior

COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

explanations make it seem. The choice of form may depend on, for example, dialect, register
(i.e. informal/formal), pragmatic reasons, or may be discourse or discipline specific. This creates
some fuzziness for the learner and a teacher would be well informed to explicitly have learners
practice with suppleted forms and forms which do not follow the syllable tendencies outlined
above or can readily alternate their forms.
Use and meaning issues
Doetjes (2008) states that it is generally the case that morphological inflections for degree
combine most readily with adjectives while the periphrastic degree forms tend to have a larger
distribution among lexical words (as cited in Mcnally & Kennedy, 2008, p. 126). A study by
Solomon (1994) found that the periphrastic more is used in many cases where the {-er} form
would be expected. According to her study, the reasons include, a speakers desire to emphasize a
positive comparison, to maintain a parallel structure to a preceding clause which utilized more,
and collocational reasons (as cited in Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 728).
Less and fewer are the negative degree forms which are the counterparts of more. There
are use issues which occur with these forms that learners should be made aware. First, less
occurs most frequently with non-count nouns but can also occur with count nouns and countable
plural nouns. The double marked comparative form lesser can occur in attributive function, but
worser is no longer an acceptable form (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002, p. 1126). Fewer is a
suppletive form which can only occur with countable and plural nouns.
The construction of negative equatives in place of a comparative structure also presents
the learner with a use issue that should be formally addressed by a teacher. The use of a negative
structure is often much more tactful than a comparative structure when the adjective has negative
polarity or meaning that could be perceived in context as pejorative. In the following statements,
the first marked negative equative seems much less rude to a native speaker than the second
comparative example with a negative polarity adjective or even the semantically identical third
comparative example with a negative polarity degree quantifier which is more marked than the
first example. According to Mitchell (1990), the third form is also a cognitively more demanding
form than the first example (as cited in Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 731).
Dustin is not as tall as Fred.
Dustin is shorter than Fred.
Dustin is less tall than Fred

COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

According to Schwarzschild and Wilkinson (2002, p. 35), the bare equative construction
(e.g. x is as tall as y) is vague in terms of height. This construction only makes reference to the
individuals heights as overlapping but does not describe the heights of the individuals within the
whole domain of height. Therefore, equative construction than can be fairly vague if the speaker
and interlocutor do not have shared knowledge. In light of this, a learner needs to know that the
equative construction says little or nothing, from a meaning standpoint, without shared
knowledge.
The structure types of degree comparatives and equatives
Beyond the forms, and uses, four types of comparative constructions can be distinguished
as: scalar, non-scalar, expressing equality, and expressing inequality. As was mentioned in a
previous paragraph, gradable adjectives can be modified by an intensifier, such as somewhat,
quite, very, or extremely, because they name a semantic notion which can be placed on a
continuum of intensity. Scalar comparisons, then, are concerned with the position on some
continuum or scale and are one type of grading. Adjectives and adverbs which can be
inflectionally marked are scalar. Non-scalar comparisons are not concerned with grading but
instead deal with issues of identity or likeness. Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p. 1099) uses the
following examples to contrast scalar and non-scalar comparison:
Scalar: Kim is as old as Pat.
Non-scalar: I took the same bus as last time.
From the scalar example we could also say:
Kims age is at least equal to Pats.
Kims age is not equal to Pats. (Kim could be older)
The notions of equality and inequality can be applied to scalar comparisons, however the same is
not true if applied to the non-scalar comparison:
*The bus I took equals the bus I took last time.
*The bus I took does not equal the bus I took last time.
The meaning is not retained in the non-scalar comparisons because non-scalar comparison is
concerned with identity vs non-identity and likeness vs unlikeness, both of which are nongradable concepts. Grammatically, as is the main marker in similarity and equality comparisons,
whether scalar or non-scalar, while than is the main marker of scalar inequality and many types

COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

of non-scalar inequality. Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p.1099) give the following example to
illustrate how the (non)scalar and (in)equality dimensions intersect:
EQUALITY

INEQUALITY

SCALAR

Kim is as old as Pat.

Kim is older than Pat.

NON-SCALAR

I took the same bus as last time.

I took a different bus than last time.

This example gives a nice representation of the four types of construction and the grammatical
markers depending on the gradability of the notion being compared.
Two other structures learners should understand are term comparisons and set
comparisons. A term comparison makes a comparison between a primary term and secondary
term where the secondary term is syntactically subordinate to the primary term. A set
comparison is a comparative construction where members of a set are compared. For example,
one member of a set may be compared to the other members of the same set where the one
member is at the top of the scale of what is being compared. The following examples of term
and set comparison are given by in the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language
(Huddleston and Pullum, 2002 p. 1101):
Term comparison: Kims version is much superior to Pats [version].
Set comparison: Ed made the most mistakes of them all.
In a set comparison, it could be pointed out to a learner that the noun phrase them all identifies
the set. If context exists where the set can be assumed to be known by the interlocutor then the
entire prepositional phrase of them all can be left out of the construction. On the contrary, both
terms, in either bare or expanded complement forms, must be present in a term comparison
construction. Set comparisons can also, in most cases, be reformulated into a term comparison
construction. For example:
Set comparison: Ed made the most mistakes of them all.
Term comparison reformulation: Ed made more mistakes than all the others.
In the first example Ed is included in the set of them all, while in the reformulation Ed is
excluded from all the others which identifies the second set in the comparison. The notion of
term and set comparisons is important for learners to distinguish so that they can understand the
syntactic differences between the constructions. Huddleston and Pullum(2002, p. 1103) points

COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

out a major syntactic difference, between term and set comparison, is that comparative clauses
always occur in term comparisons (i.e. not in set comparisons).
Comparative clauses and phrases
The secondary term in a term comparison is most often in the form of a clause but can
also be expressed as a phrase with either form functioning syntactically as a complement to the
main clause. In a comparative phrase, the complement can occupy a variety of positions relative
the head of the phrase. Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p. 1105) give the following examples to
highlight the variety of positions a comparative complement can occupy (the comparative phrase
is enclosed by square brackets, bold marks the head of the phrase, and the expanded comparative
complement is underlined):
i
ii
iii
iv
v

He took out [a bigger loan than was necessary].

[post-head]
Shes [more experienced in these matters than I am].
[postposed in phrase]
[More people] attended the meeting than ever before.
[postposed in clause]
He chose Kim, than whom no one could be [more suitable].[preposed]
Theyve achieved [a better than expected result].
[pre-head]

The most common position, however, for a comparative complement is at the end of the clause
that contains the comparative phrase, as in examples i-iii. This postposing of the comparative
complement relative to the head of the phrase can be optional or obligatory but is most likely
when the complement is longer relative to the other material in the sentence. This tendency to
include new information and longer constituents or structures towards the end of a sentence is a
characteristic that can be seen in the basic syntactic and semantic structuring of English
sentences. According to the principle of end-weight, since the elements of a clause differ in size,
complexity and weight, the tendency to place heavier items toward the end of the clause eases
the processing burden on the receiver thus allowing, in terms of comparisons, the embedded or
secondary clause to be easier to comprehend (Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad & Finnegan,
1999 p. 898). Likewise, Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p.1106) state that the longer, or
heavier, the complement is, relative to the other material, the more likely it is to be postposed.
Comparative clauses are distinguished from relative clauses in a few distinct ways. First,
in term comparison, it is the subordinate clause which expresses the comparison, making the
subordinate clause obligatory for comparison. A second distinction is that the secondary term in
a comparative clause always expresses comparison of a variable instead of a constant.

COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

Huddleston and Pullum (2002, p. 1107) give three good example sentences to highlight the
difference between variable and constant comparison:
i
ii
iii

It was better [than I had expected]. (variable-variable comparison)

I stayed longer [than six weeks].
(variable-constant comparison)
Sue is just like her mother.
(constant-constant comparison)

Example i illustrates a comparison where the second term is a variable so it is a comparative

clause. In contrast, example ii contains a variable in the primary term but the secondary term is
constant so it is not a clause. Further, in this example, six weeks is a NP which is the object of
the PP [than six weeks], instead of a clause. It should be noted that in examples where the NP
after than is a pronoun, it usually changes from subject to object form. In iii, Sue and her mother
are constants.
Another distinctive feature pertaining to comparative clauses is reduction. Comparative
clauses are structurally reduced in comparison to full main clauses, i.e., material that is explicit
in the full main clause is left out of the comparative clause. This reduction is the main syntactic
feature that distinguishes comparative clauses from other kinds of clauses. An interesting
characteristic of reduction, in comparisons, is that under certain conditions the position of the
subject can occur after the verb and exhibit subject-auxiliary inversion as is the case in the
following:
Spains financial problems were less acute than were those of Portugal.
Yet another feature of reduced clauses, and a source of difficulty for learners, are
substitution expressions that can occur in reduced clauses. In English, a criterion for substitution
is the grammatical function of the substitute item. The nominal substitutions one/ones always
function as the head of a nominal group and can substitute only for a form which is itself the
head of a nominal group (Halliday & Hasan, 1976, p. 90). The substitution of one/ones can only
occur for count nouns. Nominal substitution can also occurs with a definite article determiner or
a demonstrative where a possessive pronoun is not appropriate. Whereas one/ones are more
prevalent in informal contexts, the demonstrative pronouns that/those are used in formal contexts
to introduce the second of two PP phrases or to introduce a relative clause as part of a
comparison. A common error for learners is the omission of the demonstrative pronouns
that/those in reduced clauses where they are necessary to maintain parallel structure to the matrix
clause.
Conclusion

COMPARATIVES AND EQUATIVES

10

The information in this paper is intended as a summary of what an ESL/EFL teacher

should know in order to effectively teach the degree comparatives, equatives, and the
corresponding structures. However, many issues, especially pertaining to use and meaning,
suggest that the grammatical category of comparison is far more complex than the systematic
descriptions of it in learner textbooks. In order to teach this content, learners should be exposed
to the rules and tendencies of comparative forms, their functions, their meanings, and the
corresponding types and constructions of clauses and phrases where comparison occurs. One
implication for teaching comparison is that attention should be given to all of the above and also
to the use tendencies exhibited in everyday language.
References
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of
Spoken and Written English. Harlow, England: Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's
course. 2nd ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Huddleston, R. D. (1988). English grammar: An outline. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Huddleston, R. D. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language.
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Jovanovi, V. . (2009). Certain morpho-semantic implications with the grammatical category of
comparison in English. FACTA UNIVERSITATIS-Linguistics and Literature, (VII-01),
19-28.
McNally, L. & Kennedy, C. (2008). Adjectives and adverbs: Syntax, semantics, and discourse.
Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Schwarzchild, R., & Wilkinson, K. (2002). Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree
based on intervals. Natural language semantics, 10(1), 1-41.