Why languages vary between synthetic and analytic means of expression

What is it about?

Grammar books makes us believe that in English short adjectives form their comparative form by adding -er (prouder), while long ones require more (more important). Whenever we are in contact with native speakers or read texts written by native speakers of English, we find that this cannot be true. There is a lot more variation and this rule is coarsely oversimplified. While native speakers have no problem using more proud, more apt, more strict, etc. the competition between -er vs. more reveals interesting aspects concerning the way in which our cognitive system makes use of language - albeit subconsciously.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The historical development of morpho-syntactic alternation patterns observed for 6 synthetic-analytic contrasts raises the question of why the English language has not long ago settled the conflict between synthetic and analytic variants by promoting one variant to the detriment of the other. After all, in other areas, the system has established purely analytic rather than synthetic marking, as, for instance, in case marking (with the exception of the genitive). Why did this streamlining not take place in the area of English comparatives, genitives or subjunctives? It appears to be the case that languages retain morpho-syntactic alternations in order to optimally exploit the system.

Perspectives