@article{bauer_grammatical_2007,
	title = {Some grammatical features of {New} {Zealand} {English}},
	volume = {21},
	issn = {1173-9886},
	abstract = {The grammatical peculiarities of New Zealand English are identified, listed, \& commented on, drawing on Raymond Hickey's (2004) \& Bend Kortmann's et al (2004) summary checklists of syntactic features that distinguish nonstandard, national, \& regional varieties of English around the world from a neutral written international English, assumed as an idealized standard. Uses both found \& absent in New Zealand English are listed separately \& illustrated with examples. Acknowledging that these inventories are incomplete, the lists are nevertheless recommended as updated versions of Laurie Bauer's (1987) \& Heidi Quinn's (2000) compilations. Tables, References. Z. Dubiel},
	language = {English},
	journal = {New Zealand English Journal},
	author = {Bauer, Laurie},
	year = {2007},
	keywords = {Dialects, Dialects of the Rest of the World, Double comparatives, Grammar, Language Grammars, Language Usage, Language Varieties, New Zealand English, Regional Dialects, Syntactic Features, Syntax of Contemporary English, The English Language, article},
	pages = {1--25},
}

The grammatical peculiarities of New Zealand English are identified, listed, & commented on, drawing on Raymond Hickey's (2004) & Bend Kortmann's et al (2004) summary checklists of syntactic features that distinguish nonstandard, national, & regional varieties of English around the world from a neutral written international English, assumed as an idealized standard. Uses both found & absent in New Zealand English are listed separately & illustrated with examples. Acknowledging that these inventories are incomplete, the lists are nevertheless recommended as updated versions of Laurie Bauer's (1987) & Heidi Quinn's (2000) compilations. Tables, References. Z. Dubiel

@incollection{clarke_newfoundland_2008,
	address = {Berlin},
	title = {Newfoundland {English}: {Morphology} and syntax},
	volume = {2},
	isbn = {978-3-11-019718-1},
	shorttitle = {Newfoundland {English}},
	url = {http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110175325/9783110175325.2.303/9783110175325.2.303.xml?format=EBOK},
	urldate = {2016-06-07},
	booktitle = {Varieties of {English}: {The} {Americas} and the {Caribbean}},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Clarke, Sandra},
	editor = {Schneider, Edgar W. and Schneider, Edgar W.},
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, Double comparatives, Embedded inversion, Invariant be},
	pages = {492--509},
}

@article{corver_double_2005,
	title = {Double comparatives and the {Comparative} {Criterion}},
	volume = {34},
	copyright = {© Presses universitaires de Vincennes},
	issn = {0986-6124},
	url = {http://rlv.revues.org/1387},
	doi = {10.4000/rlv.1387},
	abstract = {In this paper, I (re)consider a number of facets of adjectival comparative (and related) constructions as discussed in Corver (1997a,b). Rather than taking comparative words like more and less to be functional heads that head some Degree Projection, I claim that they are phrases (i.e. XPs) that undergo displacement within the adjective phrase to a Spec-position of a functional head that encodes ‘comparison’. In the spirit of Rizzi (1991), this Spec position is characterized as a criterial position. The empirical basis for my proposal is the phenomenon of Comparative Doubling, i.e. the co-occurrence of the bound comparative morpheme (-er) and the comparative word more in expressions like more safer.},
	language = {fr},
	urldate = {2016-06-07},
	journal = {Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes},
	author = {Corver, Norbert},
	month = dec,
	year = {2005},
	keywords = {-er doubling, Comparative Criterion, Double comparatives, Equatives, pied piping, superlatives},
	pages = {165--190},
}

In this paper, I (re)consider a number of facets of adjectival comparative (and related) constructions as discussed in Corver (1997a,b). Rather than taking comparative words like more and less to be functional heads that head some Degree Projection, I claim that they are phrases (i.e. XPs) that undergo displacement within the adjective phrase to a Spec-position of a functional head that encodes ‘comparison’. In the spirit of Rizzi (1991), this Spec position is characterized as a criterial position. The empirical basis for my proposal is the phenomenon of Comparative Doubling, i.e. the co-occurrence of the bound comparative morpheme (-er) and the comparative word more in expressions like more safer.

@article{diaz_adjectival_2004,
	title = {Adjectival {Double} {Periphrastic} {Comparison} in {EModE}: a {Socio}-{Stylistic} {Analysis}},
	volume = {38},
	issn = {1614-7308, 0168-647X},
	shorttitle = {{ADJECTIVAL} {DOUBLE} {PERIPHRASTIC} {COMPARISON} {IN} {EMODE}},
	url = {https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/flin/38/Historica-vol-25-1-2/article-p177.xml},
	doi = {10.1515/flih.2004.25.1-2.177},
	abstract = {Article ADJECTIVAL DOUBLE PERIPHRASTIC COMPARISON IN EMODE: A SOCIO-STYLISTIC ANALYSIS was published on 01 Jan 2004 in the journal Folia Linguistica (Volume 38, Issue Historica-vol-25-1-2).},
	language = {en},
	number = {Historica-vol-25-1-2},
	urldate = {2020-05-25},
	journal = {Folia Linguistica},
	author = {Díaz, Victorina González},
	month = jan,
	year = {2004},
	pages = {177--210},
}

Article ADJECTIVAL DOUBLE PERIPHRASTIC COMPARISON IN EMODE: A SOCIO-STYLISTIC ANALYSIS was published on 01 Jan 2004 in the journal Folia Linguistica (Volume 38, Issue Historica-vol-25-1-2).

@article{embick_blocking_2007,
	title = {Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations},
	volume = {25},
	issn = {0167-806X},
	url = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/27642855},
	abstract = {A number of interactions in grammar are referred to as showing blocking effects, typically defined as cases in which the existence of one form prevents the existence of a form that is otherwise expected to occur. Patterns of analytic/synthetic alternation, in which two-word and one-word forms alternate with each other, have been taken to be instances of blocking in this sense. An example is found in the formation of English comparatives and superlatives, where, for example, the synthetic form smarter appears to block the analytic form *more smart. Analytic forms are available in other cases (e.g. more intelligent), such that the interaction between the "one word" and "two word" forms is crucially at issue. This paper examines English comparative and superlative formation, concentrating on the question of how the morphophonology relates to syntax and semantics. A central point is that in the architecture of Distributed Morphology, these cases do not involve word/word or word/phrase competition-based blocking. Rather, blocking effects broadly construed are reduced to the effects of distinct mechanisms: (1) Vocabulary Insertion at a particular terminal node (morpheme), and (2) the operation of combinatory processes. The paper provides a detailed discussion of the latter type, showing that synthetic comparative/superlative forms are created post-syntactically by affixation under adjacency. Throughout the discussion, questions concerning the status of blocking effects in Distributed Morphology, and those found in analytic/synthetic alternations in particular, play a central role.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2016-06-07},
	journal = {Natural Language \& Linguistic Theory},
	author = {Embick, David},
	year = {2007},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {1--37},
}

A number of interactions in grammar are referred to as showing blocking effects, typically defined as cases in which the existence of one form prevents the existence of a form that is otherwise expected to occur. Patterns of analytic/synthetic alternation, in which two-word and one-word forms alternate with each other, have been taken to be instances of blocking in this sense. An example is found in the formation of English comparatives and superlatives, where, for example, the synthetic form smarter appears to block the analytic form *more smart. Analytic forms are available in other cases (e.g. more intelligent), such that the interaction between the "one word" and "two word" forms is crucially at issue. This paper examines English comparative and superlative formation, concentrating on the question of how the morphophonology relates to syntax and semantics. A central point is that in the architecture of Distributed Morphology, these cases do not involve word/word or word/phrase competition-based blocking. Rather, blocking effects broadly construed are reduced to the effects of distinct mechanisms: (1) Vocabulary Insertion at a particular terminal node (morpheme), and (2) the operation of combinatory processes. The paper provides a detailed discussion of the latter type, showing that synthetic comparative/superlative forms are created post-syntactically by affixation under adjacency. Throughout the discussion, questions concerning the status of blocking effects in Distributed Morphology, and those found in analytic/synthetic alternations in particular, play a central role.

@article{embick_architecture_2008,
	title = {Architecture and blocking},
	volume = {39},
	issn = {0024-3892},
	doi = {10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1},
	abstract = {We discuss theoretical approaches to blocking effects, with particular emphasis on cases in which words appear to block phrases (and perhaps vice versa). These approaches share at least one intuition: that syntactic and semantic features create possible “cells” or slots in which particular items can appear, and that blocking occurs when one such cell is occupied by one form as opposed to another. Accounts of blocking differ along two primary dimensions: the size of the objects that compete with one another (morphemes, words, phrases, sentences); and whether or not ungrammatical forms are taken into consideration in determining the correct output (relatedly, whether otherwise well-formed objects are marked ungrammatical by competition). We argue that blocking in the sense of competition for the expression of syntactic or semantic features is limited to insertion of the phonological exponents of such features (the Vocabulary items of Distributed Morphology) at terminal nodes from the syntax. There is thus no blocking at the word level or above, and no competition between grammatical and ungrammatical structures. The architectural significance of these points is emphasized throughout the discussion.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2016-06-10},
	journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	author = {Embick, David and Marantz, Alec},
	month = jan,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {1--53},
}

We discuss theoretical approaches to blocking effects, with particular emphasis on cases in which words appear to block phrases (and perhaps vice versa). These approaches share at least one intuition: that syntactic and semantic features create possible “cells” or slots in which particular items can appear, and that blocking occurs when one such cell is occupied by one form as opposed to another. Accounts of blocking differ along two primary dimensions: the size of the objects that compete with one another (morphemes, words, phrases, sentences); and whether or not ungrammatical forms are taken into consideration in determining the correct output (relatedly, whether otherwise well-formed objects are marked ungrammatical by competition). We argue that blocking in the sense of competition for the expression of syntactic or semantic features is limited to insertion of the phonological exponents of such features (the Vocabulary items of Distributed Morphology) at terminal nodes from the syntax. There is thus no blocking at the word level or above, and no competition between grammatical and ungrammatical structures. The architectural significance of these points is emphasized throughout the discussion.

@article{gonzalez-diaz_nature_2006,
	title = {On the nature and distribution of {English} double periphrastic comparison},
	volume = {57},
	issn = {0034-6551, 1471-6968},
	url = {http://res.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/232/623},
	doi = {10.1093/res/hgl120},
	abstract = {Perhaps because of their ‘marginal’ status, double comparative forms (e.g. more better, worser, lesser) have received scarce scholarly attention. The present study aims at shedding more light on the history of double comparison by means of a corpus-based analysis of double periphrastic comparatives (e.g. more better). The article sets out to explore the linguistic and the social distribution of double periphrastic forms across periods and the way in which the two developments may be interrelated. The data from these analyses will at a later stage constitute a suitable starting point for an investigation of the reasons behind their appearance in the language and their position within the system of comparison in English.},
	language = {en},
	number = {232},
	urldate = {2016-06-10},
	journal = {The Review of English Studies},
	author = {González-Díaz, Victorina},
	month = nov,
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {623--664},
}

Perhaps because of their ‘marginal’ status, double comparative forms (e.g. more better, worser, lesser) have received scarce scholarly attention. The present study aims at shedding more light on the history of double comparison by means of a corpus-based analysis of double periphrastic comparatives (e.g. more better). The article sets out to explore the linguistic and the social distribution of double periphrastic forms across periods and the way in which the two developments may be interrelated. The data from these analyses will at a later stage constitute a suitable starting point for an investigation of the reasons behind their appearance in the language and their position within the system of comparison in English.

@incollection{kautzsch_earlier_2004,
	address = {Berlin},
	title = {Earlier {African} {American} {English}: {Morphology} and syntax},
	volume = {2},
	isbn = {978-3-11-019718-1},
	shorttitle = {Newfoundland {English}},
	url = {http://www.degruyter.com/view/books/9783110175325/9783110175325.2.303/9783110175325.2.303.xml?format=EBOK},
	urldate = {2016-06-07},
	booktitle = {A handbook of varieties of {English}: {A} multimedia reference tool},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Kautzsch, Alexander},
	editor = {Kortmann, Bernd and Schneider, Edgar W.},
	year = {2004},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {341--355},
}

@incollection{kennedy_syntax_2005,
	address = {Stanford, CA},
	title = {The syntax and semantics of multiple degree modification in {English}},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 12th {International} {Conference} on {Head}-{Driven} {Phrase} {Structure} {Grammar}},
	publisher = {CSLI Publications},
	author = {Kennedy, Christopher and McNally, Louise},
	editor = {Müller, Stefan},
	year = {2005},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {178--191},
}

@incollection{kortmann_global_2004,
	address = {Berlin},
	title = {Global synopsis: {Morphological} and syntactic variation in {English}},
	volume = {2},
	booktitle = {A handbook of varieties of {English}: {A} multimedia reference tool},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Kortmann, Bernd and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt},
	editor = {Kortmann, Bernd and Schneider, Edgar W.},
	year = {2004},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {1142--1202},
}

@article{szmrecsanyi_morphosyntax_2009,
	title = {The morphosyntax of varieties of {English} worldwide: {A} quantitative perspective},
	volume = {119},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384108001721},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.016},
	abstract = {What are the large-scale patterns and generalizations that emerge when investigating morphosyntactic variation in World Englishes from a bird’s eye perspective? To address this question, this study draws on the questionnaire-based morphosyntactic database of the Handbook of Varieties of English, utilizing a number of quantitative analysis techniques (frequency and correlation measures, multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, and principal component analysis). We demonstrate (i) that the database yields a number of generalizations and implicational tendencies relating to vernacular angloversals and universals of New Englishes, (ii) that there is a surprisingly consistent typological division between English L1 vernaculars, on the one hand, and English-based pidgins and creoles on the other hand, and (iii) that World Englishes can, on aggregate, be seen to vary along two major dimensions which we interpret as being indicative of morphosyntactic complexity and analyticity. In conclusion, we offer that the Handbook’s morphosyntactic database presents some interesting methodological challenges to dialectology and dialectometry.},
	urldate = {2016-06-10},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Kortmann, Bernd},
	month = nov,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Creolistics, Dialectology, Dialectometry, Double comparatives, Typology, Variation, World Englishes},
	pages = {1643--1663},
}

What are the large-scale patterns and generalizations that emerge when investigating morphosyntactic variation in World Englishes from a bird’s eye perspective? To address this question, this study draws on the questionnaire-based morphosyntactic database of the Handbook of Varieties of English, utilizing a number of quantitative analysis techniques (frequency and correlation measures, multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, and principal component analysis). We demonstrate (i) that the database yields a number of generalizations and implicational tendencies relating to vernacular angloversals and universals of New Englishes, (ii) that there is a surprisingly consistent typological division between English L1 vernaculars, on the one hand, and English-based pidgins and creoles on the other hand, and (iii) that World Englishes can, on aggregate, be seen to vary along two major dimensions which we interpret as being indicative of morphosyntactic complexity and analyticity. In conclusion, we offer that the Handbook’s morphosyntactic database presents some interesting methodological challenges to dialectology and dialectometry.

@article{embick_architecture_2008,
	title = {Architecture and blocking},
	volume = {39},
	issn = {0024-3892},
	doi = {10.1162/ling.2008.39.1.1},
	abstract = {We discuss theoretical approaches to blocking effects, with particular emphasis on cases in which words appear to block phrases (and perhaps vice versa). These approaches share at least one intuition: that syntactic and semantic features create possible “cells” or slots in which particular items can appear, and that blocking occurs when one such cell is occupied by one form as opposed to another. Accounts of blocking differ along two primary dimensions: the size of the objects that compete with one another (morphemes, words, phrases, sentences); and whether or not ungrammatical forms are taken into consideration in determining the correct output (relatedly, whether otherwise well-formed objects are marked ungrammatical by competition). We argue that blocking in the sense of competition for the expression of syntactic or semantic features is limited to insertion of the phonological exponents of such features (the Vocabulary items of Distributed Morphology) at terminal nodes from the syntax. There is thus no blocking at the word level or above, and no competition between grammatical and ungrammatical structures. The architectural significance of these points is emphasized throughout the discussion.},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2016-06-10},
	journal = {Linguistic Inquiry},
	author = {Embick, David and Marantz, Alec},
	month = jan,
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {1--53},
}

We discuss theoretical approaches to blocking effects, with particular emphasis on cases in which words appear to block phrases (and perhaps vice versa). These approaches share at least one intuition: that syntactic and semantic features create possible “cells” or slots in which particular items can appear, and that blocking occurs when one such cell is occupied by one form as opposed to another. Accounts of blocking differ along two primary dimensions: the size of the objects that compete with one another (morphemes, words, phrases, sentences); and whether or not ungrammatical forms are taken into consideration in determining the correct output (relatedly, whether otherwise well-formed objects are marked ungrammatical by competition). We argue that blocking in the sense of competition for the expression of syntactic or semantic features is limited to insertion of the phonological exponents of such features (the Vocabulary items of Distributed Morphology) at terminal nodes from the syntax. There is thus no blocking at the word level or above, and no competition between grammatical and ungrammatical structures. The architectural significance of these points is emphasized throughout the discussion.

@incollection{kennedy_syntax_2005,
	address = {Stanford, CA},
	title = {The syntax and semantics of multiple degree modification in {English}},
	booktitle = {Proceedings of the 12th {International} {Conference} on {Head}-{Driven} {Phrase} {Structure} {Grammar}},
	publisher = {CSLI Publications},
	author = {Kennedy, Christopher and McNally, Louise},
	editor = {Müller, Stefan},
	year = {2005},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {178--191},
}

@incollection{montgomery_appalachian_2008,
	address = {Berlin/New York},
	title = {Appalachian {English}: {Morphology} and syntax},
	booktitle = {A {Handbook} of {Varieties} of {English} {Vol}. {II}: {Morphology} and {Syntax}},
	publisher = {Mouton de Gruyter},
	author = {Montgomery, Michael},
	editor = {Kortmann, Bernd and Upton, Clive},
	year = {2008},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {428--467},
}

@incollection{nevins_haplological_2012,
	address = {Oxford},
	series = {Oxford {Studies} in {Theoretical} {Linguistics}},
	title = {Haplological dissimilation at distinct stages of exponence},
	isbn = {978-0-19-957372-1},
	number = {41},
	booktitle = {The morphology and phonology of exponence},
	publisher = {Oxford University Press},
	author = {Nevins, Andrew},
	editor = {Trommer, Jochen},
	year = {2012},
	keywords = {Double comparatives, Grammar, Comparative and general, Morphosyntax, Phonology},
	pages = {84--116},
}

@misc{nevins_mo_2009,
	address = {Leipzig},
	title = {Mo’ better morphotactics: doubling the output of syntax},
	author = {Nevins, Andrew},
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
}

@incollection{rizzi_form_2006,
	address = {Cambridge, MA},
	series = {Current {Studies} in {Linguistics}},
	title = {On the form of chains: {Criterial} positions and {ECP} effects},
	url = {http://site.ebrary.com/lib/yale/edf.action?p00=&docID=10173719},
	number = {42},
	booktitle = {Wh-movement: {Moving} on},
	publisher = {MIT Press},
	author = {Rizzi, Luigi},
	editor = {Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert},
	year = {2006},
	keywords = {Agree, Chamorro, Double comparatives, Egyptian Coptic, Minimalism, Palauan, Relative clauses, Syntax, Wh-agreement, Wh-in-situ, Wh-questions},
	pages = {97--134},
}

@book{wolfram_american_2016,
	address = {Chichester, UK},
	edition = {3},
	series = {Language in {Society}},
	title = {American {English}: {Dialects} and variation},
	isbn = {978-1-118-39022-1},
	shorttitle = {American {English}},
	abstract = {"The thoroughly revised new edition now includes a companion website with an extensive array of sound files, video clips, and other online materials to enhance and illustrate discussions in the text"--},
	number = {25},
	publisher = {Wiley Blackwell},
	author = {Wolfram, Walt and Schilling, Natalie},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Americanisms, Americanisms., Dialects, Double comparatives, Embedded inversion, English language, English language -- Dialects -- United States., English language -- Variation -- United States., Fixing to, Liketa, United States, Variation},
}

"The thoroughly revised new edition now includes a companion website with an extensive array of sound files, video clips, and other online materials to enhance and illustrate discussions in the text"–

@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},
}

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.

@incollection{seuren_comparative_1973,
	address = {Dordrecht},
	series = {Foundations of {Language}, {Supplementary} {Series}},
	title = {The comparative},
	isbn = {978-90-277-0218-0},
	language = {eng ger},
	number = {13},
	booktitle = {Generative grammar in {Europe}},
	publisher = {D. Reidel},
	author = {Seuren, Pieter A. M.},
	editor = {Kiefer, F. and Ruwet, N.},
	year = {1973},
	keywords = {Double comparatives, Europa, Europe, Generative grammar, Investigación, Linguistics, Lingüística, Research, Taller than what he is},
	pages = {528--564},
}

@incollection{kortmann_global_2004,
	address = {Berlin},
	title = {Global synopsis: {Morphological} and syntactic variation in {English}},
	volume = {2},
	booktitle = {A handbook of varieties of {English}: {A} multimedia reference tool},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	author = {Kortmann, Bernd and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt},
	editor = {Kortmann, Bernd and Schneider, Edgar W.},
	year = {2004},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
	pages = {1142--1202},
}

@article{szmrecsanyi_morphosyntax_2009,
	title = {The morphosyntax of varieties of {English} worldwide: {A} quantitative perspective},
	volume = {119},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024384108001721},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2007.09.016},
	abstract = {What are the large-scale patterns and generalizations that emerge when investigating morphosyntactic variation in World Englishes from a bird’s eye perspective? To address this question, this study draws on the questionnaire-based morphosyntactic database of the Handbook of Varieties of English, utilizing a number of quantitative analysis techniques (frequency and correlation measures, multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, and principal component analysis). We demonstrate (i) that the database yields a number of generalizations and implicational tendencies relating to vernacular angloversals and universals of New Englishes, (ii) that there is a surprisingly consistent typological division between English L1 vernaculars, on the one hand, and English-based pidgins and creoles on the other hand, and (iii) that World Englishes can, on aggregate, be seen to vary along two major dimensions which we interpret as being indicative of morphosyntactic complexity and analyticity. In conclusion, we offer that the Handbook’s morphosyntactic database presents some interesting methodological challenges to dialectology and dialectometry.},
	urldate = {2016-06-10},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Kortmann, Bernd},
	month = nov,
	year = {2009},
	keywords = {Creolistics, Dialectology, Dialectometry, Double comparatives, Typology, Variation, World Englishes},
	pages = {1643--1663},
}

What are the large-scale patterns and generalizations that emerge when investigating morphosyntactic variation in World Englishes from a bird’s eye perspective? To address this question, this study draws on the questionnaire-based morphosyntactic database of the Handbook of Varieties of English, utilizing a number of quantitative analysis techniques (frequency and correlation measures, multidimensional scaling, cluster analysis, and principal component analysis). We demonstrate (i) that the database yields a number of generalizations and implicational tendencies relating to vernacular angloversals and universals of New Englishes, (ii) that there is a surprisingly consistent typological division between English L1 vernaculars, on the one hand, and English-based pidgins and creoles on the other hand, and (iii) that World Englishes can, on aggregate, be seen to vary along two major dimensions which we interpret as being indicative of morphosyntactic complexity and analyticity. In conclusion, we offer that the Handbook’s morphosyntactic database presents some interesting methodological challenges to dialectology and dialectometry.

@article{wlodarczyk_more_2007-1,
	title = {'{More} strenger and mightier': {Some} remarks on double comparison in {Middle} {English}},
	volume = {43},
	issn = {0081-6272},
	shorttitle = {'{More} {Strenger} and {Mightier}'},
	url = {http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2003&xri:pqil:res_ver=0.2&res_id=xri:ilcs-us&rft_id=xri:ilcs:rec:abell:R04095688},
	abstract = {The marginal participation of double comparison, like more nicer, in adjective gradation in historical and contemporary English has been corroborated by numerical evidence (Kyto and Romaine 1997, 2000; Gonzalez-Diaz 2004, 2006a). The studies in question, however, failed to address some data limitations and their distorting impact on the picture of real language use. Although this omission may seem less striking regarding the historical sources, it nevertheless calls for an immediate remedy. Also, the alleged marginal participation of the construction in adjective gradation, as well as its grounds, require thorough verification. What cannot be ignored, is the fact that a clear contradiction exists between the disappearance of double comparison from standard English and its popularity and persistence in colloquial speech and manifold nonstandard varieties of English and other genetically related languages. In other words, even though in the analysed data, the appearance of double comparison in English appears to be as abrupt as is its demise, its ubiquity outside the standard varieties points to a continuous development not reflected in the surviving record or the analysed contemporary corpora. With a view to this, this paper aims at an analysis based on data (so far excluded from investigations) representing the period of the highest incidence of the construction, i.e. Middle English. Also, bearing in mind the limitations of historical record, apart from synchronically or diachronically-oriented explanations, the study proposes resorting to some externally-oriented explanations (cf. Good, forthcoming). Adapted from the source document},
	language = {English},
	urldate = {2016-06-10},
	journal = {Studia Anglica Posnaniensia},
	author = {Wlodarczyk, Matylda},
	month = jan,
	year = {2007},
	keywords = {Comparison, Double comparatives, English language (Middle), English language Middle, Historical Text Analysis, Language Change, Language History, Language Usage, Middle English, Redundancy, Syntactic Structures, Syntax, adjective comparison, adverb comparison, article, morphology, pleonasm},
	pages = {195 -- 217},
}

The marginal participation of double comparison, like more nicer, in adjective gradation in historical and contemporary English has been corroborated by numerical evidence (Kyto and Romaine 1997, 2000; Gonzalez-Diaz 2004, 2006a). The studies in question, however, failed to address some data limitations and their distorting impact on the picture of real language use. Although this omission may seem less striking regarding the historical sources, it nevertheless calls for an immediate remedy. Also, the alleged marginal participation of the construction in adjective gradation, as well as its grounds, require thorough verification. What cannot be ignored, is the fact that a clear contradiction exists between the disappearance of double comparison from standard English and its popularity and persistence in colloquial speech and manifold nonstandard varieties of English and other genetically related languages. In other words, even though in the analysed data, the appearance of double comparison in English appears to be as abrupt as is its demise, its ubiquity outside the standard varieties points to a continuous development not reflected in the surviving record or the analysed contemporary corpora. With a view to this, this paper aims at an analysis based on data (so far excluded from investigations) representing the period of the highest incidence of the construction, i.e. Middle English. Also, bearing in mind the limitations of historical record, apart from synchronically or diachronically-oriented explanations, the study proposes resorting to some externally-oriented explanations (cf. Good, forthcoming). Adapted from the source document

@book{wolfram_american_2016,
	address = {Chichester, UK},
	edition = {3},
	series = {Language in {Society}},
	title = {American {English}: {Dialects} and variation},
	isbn = {978-1-118-39022-1},
	shorttitle = {American {English}},
	abstract = {"The thoroughly revised new edition now includes a companion website with an extensive array of sound files, video clips, and other online materials to enhance and illustrate discussions in the text"--},
	number = {25},
	publisher = {Wiley Blackwell},
	author = {Wolfram, Walt and Schilling, Natalie},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Americanisms, Americanisms., Dialects, Double comparatives, Embedded inversion, English language, English language -- Dialects -- United States., English language -- Variation -- United States., Fixing to, Liketa, United States, Variation},
}

"The thoroughly revised new edition now includes a companion website with an extensive array of sound files, video clips, and other online materials to enhance and illustrate discussions in the text"–

@article{wlodarczyk_more_2007,
	title = {“{More} strenger and mightier”: {Some} remarks on double comparison in {Middle} {English}},
	copyright = {info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess},
	issn = {0081-6272},
	shorttitle = {“{More} strenger and mightier”},
	url = {https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/handle/10593/19052},
	abstract = {The marginal participation of double comparison1, like more nicer, in adjective gradation in historical 
and contemporary English has been corroborated by numerical evidence (Kytö and Romaine 
1997, 2000; González-Díaz 2004, 2006a). The studies in question, however, failed to address some 
data limitations and their distorting impact on the picture of real language use. Although this omission 
may seem less striking regarding the historical sources, it nevertheless calls for an immediate 
remedy. Also, the alleged marginal participation of the construction in adjective gradation, as well as 
its grounds, require thorough verification. What cannot be ignored, is the fact that a clear contradiction 
exists between the disappearance of double comparison from standard English and its popularity 
and persistence in colloquial speech and manifold nonstandard varieties of English and other genetically 
related languages. In other words, even though in the analysed data, the appearance of double 
comparison in English appears to be as abrupt as is its demise, its ubiquity outside the standard 
varieties points to a continuous development not reflected in the surviving record or the analysed 
contemporary corpora. With a view to this, this paper aims at an analysis based on data (so far excluded 
from investigations) representing the period of the highest incidence of the construction, i.e. 
Middle English. Also, bearing in mind the limitations of historical record, apart from synchronicallyor 
diachronically-oriented explanations, the study proposes resorting to some externally-oriented 
explanations (cf. Good, forthcoming).},
	language = {eng},
	urldate = {2020-05-25},
	author = {Włodarczyk, Matylda},
	year = {2007},
}

The marginal participation of double comparison1, like more nicer, in adjective gradation in historical and contemporary English has been corroborated by numerical evidence (Kytö and Romaine 1997, 2000; González-Díaz 2004, 2006a). The studies in question, however, failed to address some data limitations and their distorting impact on the picture of real language use. Although this omission may seem less striking regarding the historical sources, it nevertheless calls for an immediate remedy. Also, the alleged marginal participation of the construction in adjective gradation, as well as its grounds, require thorough verification. What cannot be ignored, is the fact that a clear contradiction exists between the disappearance of double comparison from standard English and its popularity and persistence in colloquial speech and manifold nonstandard varieties of English and other genetically related languages. In other words, even though in the analysed data, the appearance of double comparison in English appears to be as abrupt as is its demise, its ubiquity outside the standard varieties points to a continuous development not reflected in the surviving record or the analysed contemporary corpora. With a view to this, this paper aims at an analysis based on data (so far excluded from investigations) representing the period of the highest incidence of the construction, i.e. Middle English. Also, bearing in mind the limitations of historical record, apart from synchronicallyor diachronically-oriented explanations, the study proposes resorting to some externally-oriented explanations (cf. Good, forthcoming).

@book{kortmann_handbook_2004,
	address = {Berlin},
	title = {A handbook of varieties of {English}: {A} multimedia reference tool},
	publisher = {De Gruyter},
	editor = {Kortmann, Bernd and Schneider, Edgar W.},
	year = {2004},
	keywords = {Double comparatives},
}