@article{schluter_why_2001,
	title = {Why worser is better: {The} double comparative in 16th- to 17th-century {English}},
	volume = {13},
	issn = {1469-8021, 0954-3945},
	shorttitle = {Why worser is better},
	url = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/why-worser-is-better-the-double-comparative-in-16th-to-17thcentury-english/1188C85190A624F9E76C7BA09B030CD0},
	doi = {10.1017/S0954394501132047},
	abstract = {In Early Modern English, double comparatives were often
encountered in both spoken and written language. The present
article investigates the redundantly marked comparative
worser in relation to its irregular, but etymologically
justified, counterpart worse. My aim is to examine
the diachronic development of the form as well as its distribution
in the written language of the 16th and 17th centuries. Two
detailed corpus studies are used to reveal the set of parameters
underlying the variation between worse and
worser, which include system congruity, semantics,
and standardization effects. However, the focus here is on the
tendency to maintain an alternation of stressed and unstressed
syllables, known as the Principle of Rhythmic Alternation. This
prosodic principle (which has been argued to be particularly
influential in English) turns out to be responsible for most
of the results obtained in the analysis of the corpus data.},
	language = {en},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2020-05-25},
	journal = {Language Variation and Change},
	author = {Schlüter, Julia},
	month = jul,
	year = {2001},
	pages = {193--208},
}

{"_id":"GJpwM6LeLDEf2NSbG","bibbaseid":"schlter-whyworserisbetterthedoublecomparativein16thto17thcenturyenglish-2001","author_short":["Schlüter, J."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Why worser is better: The double comparative in 16th- to 17th-century English","volume":"13","issn":"1469-8021, 0954-3945","shorttitle":"Why worser is better","url":"https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/why-worser-is-better-the-double-comparative-in-16th-to-17thcentury-english/1188C85190A624F9E76C7BA09B030CD0","doi":"10.1017/S0954394501132047","abstract":"In Early Modern English, double comparatives were often encountered in both spoken and written language. The present article investigates the redundantly marked comparative worser in relation to its irregular, but etymologically justified, counterpart worse. My aim is to examine the diachronic development of the form as well as its distribution in the written language of the 16th and 17th centuries. Two detailed corpus studies are used to reveal the set of parameters underlying the variation between worse and worser, which include system congruity, semantics, and standardization effects. However, the focus here is on the tendency to maintain an alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables, known as the Principle of Rhythmic Alternation. This prosodic principle (which has been argued to be particularly influential in English) turns out to be responsible for most of the results obtained in the analysis of the corpus data.","language":"en","number":"2","urldate":"2020-05-25","journal":"Language Variation and Change","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Schlüter"],"firstnames":["Julia"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"July","year":"2001","pages":"193–208","bibtex":"@article{schluter_why_2001,\n\ttitle = {Why worser is better: {The} double comparative in 16th- to 17th-century {English}},\n\tvolume = {13},\n\tissn = {1469-8021, 0954-3945},\n\tshorttitle = {Why worser is better},\n\turl = {https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/why-worser-is-better-the-double-comparative-in-16th-to-17thcentury-english/1188C85190A624F9E76C7BA09B030CD0},\n\tdoi = {10.1017/S0954394501132047},\n\tabstract = {In Early Modern English, double comparatives were often\nencountered in both spoken and written language. The present\narticle investigates the redundantly marked comparative\nworser in relation to its irregular, but etymologically\njustified, counterpart worse. My aim is to examine\nthe diachronic development of the form as well as its distribution\nin the written language of the 16th and 17th centuries. Two\ndetailed corpus studies are used to reveal the set of parameters\nunderlying the variation between worse and\nworser, which include system congruity, semantics,\nand standardization effects. However, the focus here is on the\ntendency to maintain an alternation of stressed and unstressed\nsyllables, known as the Principle of Rhythmic Alternation. This\nprosodic principle (which has been argued to be particularly\ninfluential in English) turns out to be responsible for most\nof the results obtained in the analysis of the corpus data.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2020-05-25},\n\tjournal = {Language Variation and Change},\n\tauthor = {Schlüter, Julia},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2001},\n\tpages = {193--208},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Schlüter, J."],"key":"schluter_why_2001","id":"schluter_why_2001","bibbaseid":"schlter-whyworserisbetterthedoublecomparativein16thto17thcenturyenglish-2001","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/language-variation-and-change/article/why-worser-is-better-the-double-comparative-in-16th-to-17thcentury-english/1188C85190A624F9E76C7BA09B030CD0"},"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/4976940/collections/NVP3S3XU/items?key=HB5ooAZGCiqh7e2wvqkMNOn0&format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["KyP5wz6kyu8oj9d9u","7Y83op6DC4jWuox69"],"keywords":[],"search_terms":["worser","better","double","comparative","16th","17th","century","english","schlüter"],"title":"Why worser is better: The double comparative in 16th- to 17th-century English","year":2001}