1.

PROLEGOMENA TO INTENSIFICATION
The hallmark of physical and spiritual existence itself, intensity is a boundless, all-pervasive and so much the more fuzzy feature that pertains to the extralinguistic and linguistic worlds alike, encompassing the variables of quality and quantity in time and space. As a cognitive category, it evokes the fascination of a paradox of continuous change and permanence of thought, feelings and states throughout time. The coalescence of non-numerical, continuously evaluative processes of intensification, of quantitative-qualitative values of quantification, emphasis and modality1 has generated some of the most striking definitions of intensification. 2 For Vidal-Sephiha, to intensify is to increase or to decrease, to diminish or to reduce a little or a lot, to add, multiply, subtract, abstract, underline, stress, innovate, to singularize the plural or pluralize the singular, to exaggerate. Any linguistic means that
Cf. Mrioara Gheorghiu, Procds dexpression de lintensit en franais contmporain, Editura Universitii Al. I. Cuza, Iai, p. 70, 1994. 2 Apud ibid., Vidal-Sephiha, Introduction a letude de lintensif, in Languages, 18, 1970, p. 104 119, argues that: Dans tous les cas de caractrisation intensive il y a quantification grce une tension extrme de la langue la recherche de ses extrmes qui ont en commun de ltre. (The quotations have not been translated in this book). Vasile Robu and Iorgu, Iordan, Limba romn contemporan, Editura didactic i pedagogic, Bucureti, 1978, p. 404: ,,Introducnd n metalimbaj termenul intensitate, l-am pus mereu n legtur cu valori cantitative degajate de formanii adverbiali ai diferitelor grade de intensitate comparat i noncomparat; dar cantitatea este strns legat de calitate, ntuct formanii de marc nu snt valori numerice, discontinui, ci implic o apreciere sau o aproximare; n consecin, vom considera c, n realizarea gradelor de intensitate i de comparaie, valorile semantice cantitative degajate de formanii adverbiali ori de alt natur au zone de interferen cu valori semantice calitative, implicnd emfaza. In Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund Studies in English, Lund University Press, 1997, p. 13, Carita Paradis concludes that the semantic features of degree and modality are capable of getting on well together without creating ambiguity and that degree should be perceived as a non-numerical specification of quantity/degree which potentially encompasses modality.
1

allows us to approximate or to go beyond the boundaries of a notion, anything strange, curious, out of the ordinary, extraordinary, unheard of, beyond the norm, huge, be it concrete or abstract, is intense. 3 In very much the same vein, Charles Bally regards intensity as a general category inherent in all our perceptions and thoughts, and in the comparison of all language facts: all differences, be they concrete representations or abstract concepts, are expressed in quantity, size, value, force, etc.4 H. Hultenberg5 equates intensity with exaggeration solely, that is the highest degree, whereas William Labov,6 more technical, grasps the imprecise nature of intensity and its modus operandi: it represents a gradient feature at the heart of social and emotional expression, which is most often dependent on other linguistic structures.7 By its very nature not precise, and therefore difficult to describe, intensity seems to lend itself to scalar measurement rather than to a treatment in terms of Componential Analysis of Meaning. It operates on a scale centered about the zero or unmarked expression with both positive (aggravated or intensified) and negative (mitigated or minimized) poles; features marked for intensity raise an expression to a value greater than zero and those marked for deintensification lower expressions to values less than zero.8
Cf. Mrioara Gheorghiu, op. cit., p. 7f. It is this line of approach that the present thesis follows. Most definitions in French have been translated into English. Definitions and comments in Romanian are either given in the original, in notes, or in translation, in the text. 4 Cf. idem, p. 5-6. 5 Cf. idem, p. 6. 6 William, Labov, Intensity. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table Meeting on Language and Linguistics, Washington, D.C., Georgetown University Press. 1-10, 1984, p. 43-70. 7 idem, p. 43-44. Intensity is the emotional expression of social orientation toward the.linguistic proposition: the commitment of the self to the proposition, the speaker relating future estimates of his or her honesty, intelligence, and dependability to the truth of the proposition. 8 idem, p. 44. Their position on the scale of intensity is indeterminate, since there is no way of assessing the quantitative value of such marks at present (idem, p. 67n3).
3

Angela Downing and Philip Locke perceive intensification as a kind of grading. They describe it in terms of three degrees: high, medium and attenuated, which constitute a cline rather than a scale of fixed points and are exclusively realised by lexical items rather than varied structures.9 Surprisingly enough, in semantic studies and English grammars on semantic principles, intensity/intensification has only been approached as a feature of certain lexico-grammatical items. 10 It has no entry in dictionaries of linguistic terms,11 whereas in English dictionaries for current use it is treated as either a member of the derivational paradigm intense intensive intensely intensity intensification intensifier intensify etc., and defined as the act of intensifying (CED),12 or as a synonym of acceleration, escalation, exacerbescence, heightening, increase, worsening (CT), eg: They dramatized the intensification of the crisis. (CED); The intensification of the conflict in Bosnia. (CCD) In the comments and reduced quotes from dictionaries of linguistics and from other English language dictionary entries, intensity has, concurrently with accentuation, been defined in terms
Angela Downing and Philip Locke, A University Course in English Grammar, Prentice Hall International, 1992. 10 Intensification in English has also occasionally been given some attention in articles on markers of intensification, but it has not, to the best of our knowledge, been the object of a thorough examination. Ever-growing attention seems to be given at present to the stylistic function of intensification in fiction. 11 Cf. David, Crystal, A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Third Edition, Blackwell, 1992 (DLP), and to R.L.Trask, A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics, Routledge, 1996 (DGTL). 12 This is the only definition of intensification in the dictionaries consulted. The definitions and examples have been drawn from Chambers English Dictionary , W & R Chambers Ltd, 1990 (CED); Chambers Thesaurus, W & R Chambers Ltd, 1991 (CT); Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary, Harper Collins Publishers, 1994(CCD); Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Third Edition, Longman Dictionaries, 1995 (LDCE); Websters New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition, William Collins & World Publishing Co., Inc., 1976 (WNWD).
9

of suprasegmental phonetics,13 or as a marker of emotive meaning, alongside emphasis and accentuation. In David Crystal, intensity 14 is solely discussed as a physical, acoustic feature of sounds, measured in decibels, in contrast with loudness/volume, an auditory phonetic feature of sounds. Accentuation15 is mentioned merely as a phonological component that words and syllables take or do not take, i.e. accent/stress, whereas emphasis and intensification are not approached. R. L. Trask does not include any entries on intensity and accentuation and defines emphasis 16 as [a] very general term for any phenomenon which serves to draw particular attention to some element in a sentence or utterance, either to place that element in focus or to contrast it with some other element. English, not unlike other languages, exhibits a range of grammatical means for expressing emphasis, such as particles, distinctive word order and clefted constructions. Overlapping definitions of intensity, emphasis, accentuation, and related terms, apart from pointing to a synonymy relation holding between and among them, reveal the difficulty that lexicographers encounter in drawing clear-cut demarcations between the meanings of these interrelated fuzzy concepts: (a) intensity: 1. the quality of being intense: a) extreme degree of anything (i.e. stress, force or energy); b) great energy or vehemence of emotion, thought or activity; 2. degree or extent; relative strength, magnitude, vigor, etc. (WNWD);17 intensity is synonymous with accent, emotion, excess, extremity, fervency, fervour, fierceness, force, intenseness, keenness, passion, power, strain, strength, tension, vehemence, vigour, (CT): The debates are renewed with great intensity. (force) (CCD); The intensity
David Crystal includes intensity in the entry for loudness (op. cit., p. 207). Ibid.. 15 idem, p. 2. 16 R.L.Trask, op. cit., p. 89. 17 In Romanian dictionaries, intensity is defined as,,[]nsuirea de a fi intens; grad de trie, de putere, de for. (Dicionarul explicativ al limbii romne, Academia R.S.R. Institutul de Lingvistic din Bucureti, Editura Academiei R.S.R, 1975, p. 434, DEX).
14 13

of feeling against the regime was apparent. (LDCE); (b) emphasis: 1. force of expression, thought, feeling, notion, etc.; 2. special attention given to something so as to make it stand out; importance; stress; weight. (WNWD); (c) intense18 means extreme in degree; (of person, manner, etc.) deeply emotional, or affecting to have deep feeling (CED); acute, ardent, energetic, fervent, forceful, forcible, great, heightened, intensive, keen, passionate, powerful, profound, strong, vehement (CT); (1)acute, severe; Something that is intense is very great in strength, amount or degree (CCD); having very strong effect or felt very strongly (LDCE), eg: The effects of the drug are intense and brief intense heat/effect/pain (CCD); (2) extreme, deep: Intense emotions or experiences are very strongly and deeply felt (CCD); having feelings or opinions that are extremely strong, serious etc. We may experience a period of intense concentration and study. (LDCE), eg: an intense resentment intense unhappiness and anguish. (CCD). (d) to intensify19 means either (v.t.) to make more intense or (v.i.) to become intense.(CED); add to, aggravate, boost, concentrate, deepen, emphasize, enhance, escalate, exacerbate, heighten, increase, magnify, quicken, redouble, reinforce, sharpen, strengthen (CT); If you intensify or if it intensifies, it becomes greater in strength, amount, or degree (CCD); If an activity, effort, feeling etc. intensifies, or if you intensify it, it increases in degree or strength (LDCE), eg: That process has been greatly intensified by the breakdown of , the pressures suddenly intensified. (CCD), Police have now intensified the search for the lost child. (LDCE); (e) to accentuate means: 1. to pronounce or mark with an accent or stress; 2. to emphasize, heighten the effect of. (WNWD);
18

Cf. David Crystal, op. cit., p. 180. In semantics, the term intensive is used to refer to structures where there is a close semantic identity between elements of structure, such as between subject and complement (eg: he is a fool), between object and complement (eg: They called him Fred) or in appositions (John the butcher) 19 Cf. CT, p. 343, lessening is the opposite of intensification, whereas damp down and die down are the opposites of the verb to intensify.

to mark, play or pronounce with accent; to make prominent, emphasize; to emphasize to make emphatic, to lay stress on. (CED) Approaches to the semantico-grammatical category of intensification in Romanian bring up further elements for discussion. Elsa Lder,20 for instance, distinguishes between syntactic/extralexemic gradation, which explicitly manifests in the adjective and adverb classes through the degrees of comparison, and the morphologic/lexical/intralexemic phenomena of gradation, which is often an implicit characteristic of the derivational processes of affixation. 21 She acknowledges intensification, quantification, amplification, alteration, augmentation and diminution among the complex supplementary phenomena of grading, alongside the commonest system of grading represented by the grammatical category of comparison. Iorgu Iordan and Vasile Robu differentiate between degrees of comparison and degrees of intensity, 22 defining the latter as the grammatical category which regulates the formal behaviour of adjectives and of some adverbs, showing, by means of morphemes, the degree of the quantitative or qualitative features of the significant.23 Dumitru Irimia comments on the dual, semantic and deictic, nature of the grammatical category of intensity, which has led to the development of two categorial varieties: objective/ comparative intensity and subjective/emotive intensity. 24 The definitions above illustrate two directions in
20

Elsa Lder, Procedee de gradaie lingvistic, Editura Universitii Al. I. Cuza, Iai, 1995. 21 idem, p. 6f. Gradaia sintactic/extra-lexematic include gradele de comparaie ,,de la cel mai general pn la particular. In domeniul gradurii morfologice/intralexematice intr acele derivri de cuvinte care constau din cuvntul-baz i afixul modificator, cum ar fi diminutivele, augmentativele, i, n parte i colectivele, deci lexii care stau ntr-un raport cu baza lor.. 22 Vasile Robu and Iorgu Iordan, op. cit., p. 404. 23 idem, p. 341. 24 Cf. Dumitru Irimia, Gramatica limbii romne, Editura Polirom, Iai, 1997, p. 91.

10

the conceptualization of intensification. Advocates of the traditional prescriptive approach to the category of comparison in adjectives perceive intensification as a unidirectional process of amplification which is, accordingly, plotted along unidirectionally open scales that have a zero - or starting point and extend infinitely in one direction:25

Figure 1.1 Unidirectionally open scales of Intensification/Amplification

In their great majority, however, linguists are of the opinion that the bi-directional process of intensification/amplification/ augmentation/upgrading, or intensification proper, and of deintensification/attenuation/downtoning/diminution, respectively, are subsumed within the wider concept of intensity. They are concurrently defining parameters of a bi-directionally open intensification scale, characterized by a turning point T, which is not to be understood as a zero-value, and from which the scale extends infinitely in opposite directions:26 The amplitude of variables of this concept, such as acceleration, alteration, escalation or exacerbescence, can be conventionally measured either along degree scales or quality scales.

Arthur Mettinger, Aspects of Semantic Opposition of Meaning, Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1994, p. 86 Following Jan Rusiecki, Adjectives and Comparison in English. A Semantic Study, Longman, London, 1985, we shall also refer to them as unary, one open end bounded scales. 26 Arthur Mettinger, op. cit., p. 86

25

11

Figure 1.2 Bidirectionally open scales of Intensification and Downtoning/Deintensification

Along the former, the features express various degrees or different amounts of the properties denoted by the dimension, whereas along the latter the features are evaluated as the positive and the negative specification of a dimension, respectively (cf. good-bad along the dimension QUALITY).27 Figure 1.3 roughly illustrates some variables in terms of the two kinds of scales: INTENSIFICATION
De-intensification 0 Intensification (-) alteration (-) attenuation (+) acceleration (+) alteration (+) attenuation (-) acceleration (-) escalation (-) exacerbation/exacerbescence Figure 1.3

Note that while acceleration, attenuation and alteration can define either pole of the intensification scale, i.e. they stand for either (+) intensification or (-) intensification/de-intensification, the negatively loaded lexemes escalation and exacerbation/ exacerbescence, meaning embitterment, rapid increase in scale or intensity, worsening, aggravation of a situation (i.e. irritation, violence etc), occur only in the range of (+) intensification/ amplification, eg: ... a steady escalation of violence (CCD); aid withholding only brought about an exacerbation of the situation.
27

idem, p. 87.

12

This bipolar representation of intensity features illustrates one of the most important principles governing the structure of languages, namely binary opposition. The tendency to polarize28 or dichotomize29 experience, judgements and feelings in terms of the (+/) two-valued thinking is inherent in human nature. The most evident manifestation of this principle at the vocabulary level is the relation of opposition holding between lexemes. Researchers assume that every word that is pronounced calls forth its opposite in the consciousness of the speaker and hearer,30 such that good elicits bad, and vice versa.31 This may also account for the conceptualization of black: white, important: unimportant; male: female, husband: wife or love: hatred, happiness: unhappiness; right: wrong as pairs of opposites in human consciousness. The properties denoted by adjectives are often scalar, gradable, intrinsic to a class to which the inflectional category of
David Crystal, op. cit., p. 267. Polarity is a term used by some linguists for the system of positive/negative contrastivity found in a language. It may be expressed syntactically (not in English), morphologically (eg: happy: unhappy) or lexically (eg: high: low). 29 Dichotomy is defined as a difference between two things, especially things that are opposite to each other, which is so great that you cannot imagine how they can be reconciled. (CCD, p. 389) ; a separation between two things or ideas that are completely opposite: a dichotomy between his public and private lives. (LDCE, p. 372). 30 Apud John Lyons, Semantics, Volume 1, CUP, 1977, p. 270. This association of pairs of opposites is a salient feature of both adjective corpora and word association tests on adjectives. Reports on L2 and EFL, on the other hand, point to the students eagerness to acquire the opposite pair of any lexical item they have learnt.. 31 Apud George A. Miller, and Christiane Fellbaum, Semantic networks of English. In Levin, B. and S. Pinker (eds.), Lexical and Conceptual Semantics, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1995, p. 210. The importance of antonymy first became obvious from results obtained with word association tests. When the probe word in a word association test is a familiar adjective, the response commonly given by adults is the antonym of the probe. Thus, when the probe is good, the common response is bad; when the probe is bad, the response is good. This mutuality of association is a salient feature of the data for adjectives It is acquired as a consequence of these pairs of words being used together frequently in the same phrases and sentences..
28

13

grade applies,32 and which contains numerous pairs of gradable opposites. The distinction between gradable and nongradable/ ungradable opposites was traditionally dealt with in terms of an either-or feature of adjectives, known as gradability, which is intrinsic to gradable adjectives and which nongradable adjectives lack. 33 Since this rather peremptory delimitation of adjectives has failed to account for the vacillating behaviour of some adjective classes in terms of grading, linguists have concluded that it is meaning rather than syntactic features to be made responsible for the type of comparability and gradability in adjectives. John Lyons, 34 Dwight Bolinger,35 Carita Paradis,36 Marcia Haag,37 Jan Rusiecki 38 and Downing and Locke, among others, view gradability/grading as fundamentally a semantic feature cutting across the syntactic subcategorization of adjectives,39 and completely detached from the bondage of hard and fast grammar rules. For Lyons,40 grading is one of the sense relations holding between sets of lexemes.
Rodney Huddleston, English Grammar: An Outline, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p. 108. 33 Gabriela Pan Dindelegan, in ,,Sintax i semantic clase de cuvinte i forme gramaticale cu dubl natur (adjectivul, adverbul, prepoziia, forme verbale nepersonale), Universitatea Bucureti, 1992, p. 22, has pointed out that Romanian grammars usually divide adjectives into two semanticosyntactic classes, i.e. linear/gradable adjectives and non-linear/nongradable (adjective lineare/gradabile i adjective non-lineare/negradabile). 34 Op. cit., p. 271. 35 Dwight Bolinger, Adjective Comparison: A Semantic Scale. In Journal of English Linguistics 1, 1967, 2-10, p. 4: All indications are that comparability is a semantic feature coextensive with having different degrees or susceptible of being laid out on a scale. 36 Carita, Paradis, op. cit. and Carita Paradis, Compromisers A Notional Paradigm. In Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 13., 1994, 157-167. 37 Marcia Haag, Continuous and discrete adjectival scales. In Lingua 103, 1997, p. 113-126. 38 Jan Rusiecki, Adjectives and Comparison in English. A Semantic Study, Longman, London, 1985. 39 idem, p. 3. Arthur Mettinger regards gradability as a phenomenon belonging primarily to the province of semantics. (op. cit., p. 85) 40 John Lyons, op. cit., p. 271ff.
32

14

George A. Miller and Christiane Fellbaum41 count gradation among the semantic relations organizing lexical memory for adjectives, alongside antonymy and synonymy. David Crystal defines gradability as a term used in grammar and semantics to refer to an analysis of the sense relationship between lexical items in terms of the possibility of comparison.42 Carita Paradis approaches gradability in terms of cognitive semantics, as a mode of construal, whose values have a mental scale representation. She assumes that people conceptualize a system of various types of gradability43 and claims that all gradable words involve a feature which we perceive as variable in intensity or extent, and which therefore can be attenuated or reinforced either by scalar or totality modifiers.44 Arthur Mettinger uses the term gradability to denote syntactically observable phenomena such as the insertability of gradable adjectives into syntactic frames of the more than/less than type, superlative or equative constructions, and exclamatory sentences, and their combinability with intensifiers.45 The term scalarity, on the other hand, is used to denote the semantic properties accounting for the syntactic behaviour of the respective lexical items. Not directly observable, these scalar properties must be inferred from, for example, adjective collocability with degree adverbs.46 While scalarity is a property characterizing semantic dimensions, gradability characterizes each member of a pair of opposites and, therefore, there is no one-to-one correlation between (various degrees of) gradability and scalarity.47 The basic semantic relation among adjectives is antonymy. There are several types of relations that fall within the scope of antonymy. John Lyons holds that antonyms, in their narrow sense of
41

G.A. Miller and C. Fellbaum, op. cit., p. 212. They are of the opinion that [A]lthough gradation is conceptually important, it does not play an important role in the adjective lexicon. 42 David Crystal, op. cit., p. 157. 43 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 57 44 idem, p. 43. 45 Arthur Mettinger, op. cit., p. 85. 46 ibid.. 47 idem, p. 93.

15

gradable/scalar adjectives, are always fully gradable and that the use of a gradable antonym always involves grading implicitly if not explicitly.48 Gradability, therefore, implies the existence of a scale in the semantic structure of the adjective a scale which grades the relevant dimension.49 Thus, while asserting the proposition Our house is big, we are not ascribing the property bigness, or size, to the referent of our house, but we are implicitly comparing the house with something else and asserting that it is bigger.50 The utterance may then be understood to mean Our house is bigger than the normal house or Our house is big for a house.51 Grading may also be semi-explicit, as in Our house is bigger, where some comparative construction will be used, without explicit mention of the standard of comparison, which will usually have been previously introduced in the context.52 John Lyons assumes that the lexicalization of polarity in two morphologically unrelated gradable antonyms enhances in some way the distinctness,
John Lyons, op. cit., p. 273; Richard Srbu, Antonimia lexical n limba romn, Editura Facla, 1977, p. 145: ,,Antonimele gradabile snt acele lexeme care dispun de sensuri ce admit anumite gradri. Asemenea antonime denot proprieti relative ale obiectelor i fenomenelor realitii, deci nsuiri care pot exista ntr-un grad mai mic sau mai mare la un obiect n comparaie cu alte obiecte, realiznd ntr-o paradigm un raport de contrarietate, admind i termeni intermediari. 49 Jan Rusiecki, op. cit., p. 3; Bolinger notes that [A]ll indications are that comparability is a semantic feature coextensive with having different degrees or susceptible of being laid out on a scale. (Cf. idem, p. 20n) 50 John Lyons, op. cit., p. 274. Similarly, D.A.Cruse argues that, antonyms, even when not explicitly comparative in form, are always to be interpreted comparatively. Thus, Its long means longer than X, where X is some implicit reference point on the scale of length. The adjective tall, in the clause A tall man entered the room, on the other hand, is likely to refer to someone taller than the average adult male human. (Lexical Semantics, CUP, 1986, p. 206) 51 The standard of comparison may have been explicitly introduced in the context of this utterance. Such a formulation, however, complies with some generally accepted norm, a norm which will be variable across different languages (or cultures) and across different groups within the same society. (John Lyons, op. cit., p. 274) 52 ibid.
48

16

or separation, of the two poles. Contrasting qualities are thereby felt as of a relatively absolute nature and the logical norm between them is not felt as a true norm, but rather as a blend area in which qualities graded in opposite directions meet53 along the intensification scale. This is the case of old and young that define the scale of age, or of good and bad that define the scale of goodness.54 Regarded as fundamentally a semantic feature of adjectives and adverbs, grading/gradability is also found to cut across other word classes such as nouns and verbs. Commenting on the pervasiveness of meaning by degree, Edward Sapir, in a study on grammatical comparison, assumes that [E]very quantifiable, whether existent (say house) or occurrent (say run) or quality of existent (say red) or quality of recurrent (say gracefully), is intrinsically gradable... house A is higher but house B is roomier, while existent C is so much smaller than either A or B that it is less of a house than they are and may be put in the class toy or at best shack.55 While occurrents like running differ with respect to speed, excitement of runner, length of time, and degree of resemblance to walking, the range of red exhibits mores and lesses with respect to intensity, size of surface or volume characterised as red, and degree of conformity to some accepted standard of redness. Similarly, gracefully can imply a whole gamut of activities which may be arranged in a graded series on the score

The fact that most of the common gradable antonyms in English and in other languages are morphologically unrelated reflects a more complete lexicalization of polarized contrasts. (Apud idem, p. 277). 54 In gradual oppositions the contrast between the terms of the opposition lies in their possessing different values of a single property. (Cf. D. A. Cruse, op. cit., p. 221n). 55 J.R.. Martin, Macro-Proposals: Meaning by Degree. In Discourse Description. Diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992, p. 359-378. There are, on the other hand, inherenly graded lexical sets, such as hut, hovel, palace, castle, mansion, pad, shanty, etc, which are concerned with the evaluation of experience as opposed to those concerned with the classification of experience, as in flat, apartment, school, church, theatre, hotel, etc.

53

17

of gracefulness.56 The concept of scale, one of the most primitive concepts in language,57 seems to have been overused in language analysis. In grammatical analysis, for instance, linguists have devised nominal scales to illustrate number contrast in nouns or verb scales for tense contrast in verbs.58 In contradistinction to psychological, associative scales, semantic scales (eg: of goodness, of truthfulness etc.) have been established on the basis of the gradability phenomena observable in actual language use. 59 Some of the studies have dealt with devising and interpreting intensity/intensification scales for the analysis of degree variation of gradable items. Grading systems, which may concern the clause, the nominal group, the verbal group or the lexis, arrange comment, evaluation and attitude by degree, generally along a scale with high, median and low values (with various possibilities for fine tuning among these).60 Among the
56 57

idem, p. 366. Jan Rusiecki, op. cit., p. 3. 58 The most common tense scales contrast the progressive and the nonprogressive tenses and the past tense and the present perfect tense. 59 Cf. Arthur Mettinger, op. cit., p.7. Beside semantics, the treatment of antonymy as a systemic linguistic phenomenon has concerned researchers in related fields such as psychology, language acquisition, naming and categorization philosophy and logic. Some attempts at measuring the psychological aspect of meaning, as an important variable of human behaviour, have been made by devising bipolar adjectival scales. In The measurement of meaning, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957, Osgood et al establish a seven-step scale by combining each member of an antonymous adjective pair with the linguistic quantifiers extremely, quite and slightly, in both directions from a neutral meaningless origin to a maximum degree. These psychological scales are, however, of little interest to the semanticist who is basically interested in the meaning relations holding between the members of pairs of antonyms. (apud ibid.). 60 J.R.. Martin, op. cit., p. 367. Grading systems usually respond to the How? - type degree questions, and their relative values contrast with the absolute values of measurement systems. As far as the morphologic level is concerned, the pluralization of nouns, the case system or the tense system of English have all been regarded as prototypical cases of intensification in this dissertation. By contrast with the neutral, unmarked simple tense aspect of verbs, for instance, the progressive aspect will, due to

18

eight clause-level systems under discussion in J.R.Martin,61 the commitment system, for instance, which codes the degree of commitment with which some action is undertaken,62 is realised through modification of verbs and of manner adverbs. Thus, a degree question like How thoroughly did he do it? may have various graded realisations: (doing) really doing kind of doing hardly doing (not doing) [Well I sort of kind of liked him to some extent.] Since they are intrinsically gradable, a large set of manner adverbs, which are also referred to as attitudinally oriented adverbs,63 (eg: desperately, half-heartedly, grimly, whole-heartedly, drastically etc.), can also be used for grading in the commitment system: (desperately) really desperately rather desperately somewhat desperately (not desperately)64 As far as the nominal group is concerned, its two relevant grading systems deal with quantity and quality. With nouns, quantification is not, however, realised through exact measurement and counting, but with ongoing rough and ready assessments of quantity,65 through non-numerical quantifiers and partitive systems: (birds) many birds (jam) a lot of jam (the beer) most of the beer

semantic implications, be regarded as marked for intensification. 61 idem, p. 366ff 62 idem, p. 370 63 idem, p. 371 64 idem, p. 373 65 idem, p. 372

19

several birds some jam half of the beer a few birds a little jam a little of the beer (no birds) (no jam) (none of the beer) [Id like a little of this beer, just a bit, a drop.] As regards the quality grading system, that is, intensification, it allows for degrees of quality size, shape colour, etc, being particularly associated with attitudinal Epithets, which can code positive or negative affect.66 Thus, the answer to a question such as How fit is he? may take the form of an intensification scale of evaluative adjectives and emotive nouns: (fit) (an idiot) really fit such an idiot rather fit quite an idiot somewhat fit a bit of an idiot (not fit) (not an idiot) [He was just such a complete absolute idiot.] The markers of intensification in the scale model appear to be related to one another in a scalar fashion, from modifiers which indicate a highly reinforcing value to items which indicate an attenuating position: completely>very>fairly>slightly. The internal structure of the category of degree modifiers is, in this respect, comparable to the scalar structure of quantifiers, such as all>many>some>a few>no, or to expressions of frequency, such as always>often>sometimes>rarely>never. 67 Quantifier scales are considered to be the most strictly scalar ones, whereas less strictly scalar relations might be phenomena that include items that are ordered in a linear fashion such as ranks, eg: military ranks, and gradable antonyms, such as hot and cold.68 Cognitive linguists believe that lexical scales are generally unjustifiable in the analysis of the complex and fuzzy nature of
66

ibid.. Nevertheless, intensity can also be used to grade Things when these code positive or negative affect.. 67 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 22. 68 idem, p. 23.

20

intensifiers, since they cannot pin-point the differences and the similarities between certain modifiers,69 which range from highly reinforcing to attenuating lexical items on a (mental) intensification scale, and can therefore be hardly viewed as a scalar set.70 A good example may, in this respect, be a popular scale of emotional approximation (not to be found in any dictionary or table of measures) for estimating the comparative degrees of success in catching a train, in which the logical ordering of almost and not quite is still a moot point: Not nearly, nearly, almost, not quite, all but, within an ace, within a hairs breadth oh! by the skin of my teeth, just, only just, with a bit of a rush, comfortably, easily, with plenty to spare.71 The recurrent feeling of the inadequacy of language to express thought, particularly because of its lack of precision, alongside the converse feeling that such vagueness is in fact an advantage72 for writers, have concerned most linguists. Lyons agrees that [f]or most practical purposes we can usually get along quite well by describing things, in a first approximation as it were, in terms of a yes/no classification, according to which things are either good or bad, big or small, etc. (relative to some relevant norm). When we deny that something is good or assert that it is not good, without qualifying our statements in any way, or supplying any further information relevant to this dichotomous yes/no classification, we let our interlocutor(s) infer that we are satisfied

ibid.. Carita Paradis doubts the role of scales in semantic analysis, for the following two reasons: (1) they do not necessarily consist of a finite set of members and (2) there are difficulties in delimiting the membership of a scale. 70 The degrees of intensification of a quality constitute a cline (continuum) rather than a scale of fixed points. (Angela Downing and Philip Locke, op. cit., p. 522; Cf. also Carita Paradis, 1997). 71 Apud Jay David Atlas, Comparative Adjectives and Adverbials of Degree: An Introduction to Radically Radical Pragmatics. In Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1984) 347-377, D. Reidel Publishing Company. The example was provided by Graves and Hodge in The Reader Over Your Shoulder: A Handbook for Writers of English Prose. 72 idem, p. 5.

69

21

with a first approximation.73 The proposition X is not good does not of itself imply X is bad. The speaker who did not wish to be committed himself to the implication could make it clear that a first approximation was insufficiently precise by rephrasing it as X is not good, but hes not bad either: hes fair/pretty good/just about average.74 There is one deep-rooted belief in language study that good language usage involves (among other things) clarity and precision and that vagueness, ambiguity, imprecision, and general woolliness are to be avoided.75 In contradistinction, lack of precision has of late been regarded as one of the most important features of the vocabulary of informal conversation.76 Yet, degrees of precision and vagueness are not normally given much attention in oral communication unless they appear inappropriate. Moreover, one of the ways for writers to demonstrate their competence is through their use of a degree of vagueness,77 which is right for the purpose of their writing. What matters, however, is that vague language is used appropriately.78 Syntagms such as Words with blurred edges79 or wordslike blurred photographs,80 or fuzzy words, are indicative of the attention that linguists have given to a certain category of words as well as of attempts to categorize and label them. Rhetorically commenting upon words like blurred photographs, Wittgenstein invites us to share his dilemma: Is it even always an advantage to replace an indistinct picture by a sharp

in terms of which gradable antonyms are interpretable as contradictories. (John Lyons, op. cit., p. 278). 74 Ibid.. 75 Joanna Channell, Vague Language, OUP, 1994, p.1. 76 idem, p.8. 77 Interest in vagueness in language use and meaning has arisen in a number of disciplines: literary criticism, linguistics, psychology, philosophy. Much of it suggests that vagueness is present in a great deal of language use, and that therefore a complete theory of language must have vagueness as an integral component. (idem, p.5). 78 idem, p.3. 79 Stephen Ullmann, Semantics, Oxford: Blackwell, 1962. 80 Apud Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 6.

73

22

one? Isnt the indistinct one often exactly what we need?81 That Wittgenstein already knew the answer and that a prescriptivist would answer in the negative we must not doubt. Yet, many a structuralist, (radically) radical semanticists and (radically) radical pragmatists, will keep on digging, not for the answer, but for the words with vacillating meaning and the company they keep and state that vagueness in language is neither all bad nor all good.82 The fact that language is deceptive83 is undoubtedly a consequence of its being a mirror and conveyor of vague thoughts and ideas materialized in structures or at word level. 84 Many linguists agree that some of the most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy. 85 To make it suitable to the situation and the linguistic context, writers and speakers alike tailor their language by varying the precision and vagueness as intrinsic concepts of our taken-for granted world. 86 This is primarily achieved by the use of sets of fuzzy words, or phrasal structures that make conversation appropriately imprecise.87
Ibid.. Cf. idem, p. 5. 83 Apud idem, p.1. Beside being subtle, English also allows a clever person one alert to the ambiguities of English - to play tricks with mock precision and to combine vagueness with politeness. English is perfect for diplomats and lovers. 84 In Joanna Channells opinion, claiming that vagueness is not a concept which applies to language, but rather to the ideas that language expresses. In communication, vagueness is inherent in the structure of our ideas rather than in the language system, is another way of attempting to make the analysis of language less complicated, by shifting the problem away from linguistics and into psychology. (idem, p. 8). 85 ibid.. Some of the most frequent fuzzy words in communication are hedges such as sort of, kind of, technically speaking, etc.. 86 ibid.. Vague Language, to our knowledge the only major study on linguistic vagueness, provides a description of vague language through reference to copious examples of language in use, thereby contrasting to the more theoretical than descriptive approaches illustrated by a limited number of (usually) invented examples to substantiate particular theoretical analyses. ( idem, p. 20). 87 idem, p.9.
82 81

23

Commonly known as approximators, compromisers, hedges and diminishers, they are subsets of the larger class of degree adverbs/ intensifiers and constitute a productive means for the expression and regulation of interpersonal relations within verbal interaction, 88 between interactants who choose to attenuate the harshness of their message. 89 David Crystal and D. Davy hold that the existence of these particular words and expressions lend support to the contention that vagueness is both intrinsic, and important, in the language system of English on a scale related to the formality of the occasion.90 It is therefore in informal speech that speakers manipulate their language in this way all the time91 although they can, if they choose, to be more precise.92 However, whenever a need for precision and a scientific use of language does arise, the vocabulary can be sharpened, both in its internal relations and the application.93 Dictionaries define the concept of degree94 as either [A] grammatical category used to specify the extent of a comparison between adjectives and adverbs (DLP),95 or [T]he grammatical category by which adjectives and adverbs vary in form to express the presence of their associated characteristics to a greater or lesser extent, as illustrated by big/bigger/biggest slowly/more slowly/most
Allan, R James (op. cit., p. 193). As indicators of speaker attitude from a pragmatic viewpoint, most means of lexical imprecision in verbal interaction are valuable vehicles for the establishment and maintenance of interpersonal relations, with the social function of encoding an expression of solidarity or affiliation between interlocutors. (idem, p. 191). 89 Joanna Channell (op. cit., p. 6) claims that, due to the more inherently pragmatic nature of vague expressions, by contrast with many others (some of which are looked upon as almost semantically empty), the study of these expressions is the province of both semantics and pragmatics. 90 Apud idem, p. 8. 91 idem, p.9. 92 idem, p.8. 93 Apud idem, p. 15. 94 CT (p. 147) lists the following synonyms and terms related to degree: gradation, grade, extent, intensity, limit, measure, point, proportion, quality, quantity, range, rank, rate, ratio, scale, standard, step. 95 David Crystal, op. cit., p. 95f.
88

24

slowly. Further distinctions along the same dimension may be expressed lexically by degree modifiers, as in very big and rather slowly. (DGTL)96 Since degree is an intrinsic feature of intensity in all its aspects,97 natural languages have lexicalized degree in syntagms such as degrees of comparison/temperature/acidity/ alcoholism/drunkenness/popularity/plausability/similarity/certainty/ formality, etc.98 To refer to areas of language where there are no clear-cut boundaries between sets of analytical categories, linguists use the term gradience. Initially referred to as a characteristic of phonetic continua, and used in the analysis of sets of possible contrasts, such as falling and rising intonation patterns, gradience has come to be employed in the analysis of semantic scales, eg: the continua of colour terms and of gradable antonyms. 99 The most complex semantico-grammatical analysis in terms of gradience100 has been carried out in Quirk et als grammars, where grammar components are explored in terms of degrees of similarity and contrast. The
R.L.Trask, op. cit., p. 74. Duration in time and dimension in length, speed, etc. in the extralinguistic world have been lexicalized in adjective comparison and intensification, eg: later: earlier; very/extremely/too late/early; quite/rather late/early; a little bit later: earlier; longer: shorter; very long: short; quite long: short; almost there; faster: slower; very fast: slow; terribly/so/too fast: slow; a little bit faster: slower etc. 98 Carita Paradis (1997, p.11) has pointed out that manifestations of degree are conspicuous elements in human communication, and that they are even more conspicuous in speech than in writing, since speakers have not only lexical means at their disposal but also prosodic means of reinforcement and attenuation. 99 With gradable antonyms, the term gradience is used as a rival term for grading/gradability. 100 Quirk et al 1978, 1985; M.A.K. Halliday and McIntosh, Angus-Strevens, Peter, The Linguistic Science and Language Teaching. Longman, Green and Co., London, 1964. Cf. Bcklund,Ulf, The Collocation of Adverbs of Degree in English. In Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia, 13, Uppsala, 1973, p. 2, it is impossible to draw a precise boundary between the grammatical and the lexical levels; the relation between them is a cline, where formal patterns shade gradually from the grammatical to the lexical.
97 96

25

scalar measurement is carried out through a gradient/scale, which relates two word-classes, such as the noun and the adjective or the degree adverbs and quantifiers, where lexemes such as criminal, original, London or a bit, a little, a lot, much, are difficult to circumscribe. The analysis assumes that [A]t the ends of the scale are items which belong clearly to one category or to another; intermediate positions on the scale are taken by in-between cases items which fail, in different degrees, to satisfy the criteria for one or the other category. This approach is consistent with the authors idea that grammar is to some extent an indeterminate system, whose categories and structures often do not have neat boundaries.101 Gradience is also a useful term in the analysis of the fuzzy area between quantification and intensification. The rather arbitrary division drawn between quantification, as the expression of objective mathematical evaluation, and intensification, as a qualitative non-numerical subjective evaluation, should, in our opinion, be ignored, since intensification of a feature implicitly involves a dimensional quantitative and/or qualitative appreciation or depreciation. They will instead be viewed as largely overlapping categories. It is this dual class membership that recommends most of these items as degree and quantity blends, or intensifiers. Mirroring the heterogeneity of the category, the markers of intensification are far from representing a system. They may, on the whole, be categorized as central and peripheral discrete lexicogrammatical items, on account of their high and relatively low frequency of occurrence. The former, carriers of intensification par excellence, consist of the subclass of modifying, implicitly intensifying adverbs commonly referred to as intensifiers or degree adverbs/adverbs of degree/degree modifiers/degree adverbials; adverbial intensifiers, adverbs of intensity. 102 There is a general tendency in the literature to follow in broad lines Quirk et als classification of intensifiers. The division of intensifiers into two sets and several subsets, i.e. amplifiers (maximizers and boosters) and
101 102

Quirk et al 1985, p. 90. The term intensifier is an umbrella-term interchangeably used with that of degree adverb.

26

downtoners (approximators, compromisers, diminishers and minimizers), is a line which, with a slight modification in the downtoner set,103 we shall also take. Apart from intensifiers, other adverb classes with potential emphatic-intensifying values, and sometimes displaying various semantic functions in different semantico-syntactic patterns, have been considered, eg: emphasizers (certainly (very), frankly (absolutely), indeed (greatly), really (very), simply, surely), focusing subjuncts (exactly, precisely, (not) only, merely) and style disjuncts (frankly, honestly, truly, strictly), etc. Peripheral markers of intensification include intralexemic104 means, intensifying adjectives,105 nouns and verbs, such as (blithering) idiot, (complete) fool; increase: decrease, maximize: minimize, amplify: diminish. etc. and emotive word-formation, more exactly affixation (i.e. prefixation, diminutive and augmentative suffixation), eg: outrun, overcook: undercook, overemphasize: underemphasize; honey, piggy; spoonful, princelet etc. Vague expressions and idiomatic expressions, as well as other lexical and stylistic means (simile, hyperbole, litotes, hendiadys; metaphor; repetition, etc) are also among the secondary vehicles of intensification. Having set up some of the guidelines for the analysis of intensification, we shall next address degree modification, a major issue in the semantic categorization of the fuzzy adjective class.

Following Carita Paradis1997, we hold that there is hardly any need for the sharp division between diminishers and minimizers that Quirk et al make. Both paradigms will therefore be referred to as the diminisher paradigm in this thesis. 104 Cf. Elsa Luder, op. cit. 105 Intensifying comparative structures like the comparative of gradation and the comparative of proportion included.

103

27

2. THE SEMANTICS OF GRADABILITY IN THE ADJECTIVE CLASS The main issue of this section has been the disposition of adjectives to satisfy the criterion of gradability. This encompasses two, usually overlapping aspects: the acceptance of modification by intensifiers/degree adverbs and the ability to take comparison. 2.1 Degree Modification of Adjectives Degree modification of adjectives by comparison and intensification, respectively, are the most conspicuous manifestations of gradability in a language system. While the former is accomplished synthetically, by inflection, and/or periphrastically/ analytically, by phrasal structures, from the adjective and, respectively, adverb base, the latter consists in the modification of adjectives, adverbs and of other word classes by degree adverbs/intensifiers.106
106

Rodney Huddleston, op. cit., p.109: At the language-particular level, the main distinctive properties of adjectives involve function and degree modification and inflection for grade. In agreement with Romanian and foreign semanticists, Gabriela Pan Dindelegean, op. cit, p. 20f, has pointed out ,,specificul semantic al adjectivului, constnd n calitatea de predicat vag (sau nedeterminat) n sensul c, pentru cele mai multe adjective (mai puin extensionale) interpretarea lor, n afara unui context dat este imposibil, i de predicat linear (sau gradabil), ,,n sensul c interpretarea lui presupune stabilirea, n cadrul unei clase de comparaie, a unei dimensiuni semantice (nlime, greutate, grosime, frumusee fizic, confort etc.) i a unui standard, n funcie de care snt ordonate (sau linearizate) obiectele clasei. Nedeterminarea i linearitatea/gradarea sunt ,, trsturile semantice specific adjectivale, trsturi legate ntre ele, cci cea de-a doua depinde de prima i este o modalitate de rezolvare a nedeterminrii. Dezambiguizarea contextual a unui predicat vag ,,se realizeaz prin dou procedee sintactice: (a) asocierea adjectivului cu un nume i implicarea numelui chiar i atunci cnd, n construcii eliptice, el lipsete; (b) asocierea adjectivului cu un modificator comparativ sau gradual, deci utilizarea

28

2.1.1 Comparison of Adjectives Gradable lexical items, particularly adjectives and adverbs, can take degree complements, which are most often comparative clauses and comparative phrases. 107 Biber et al108 consider six major structural types of degree complement, of which the first two can be realized by either a phrase or a clause, according to the following patterns: (1) adjective-er + than + phrase/clause, eg: Trunas only [a tiny bit taller]than me, or more/less + adjective + than + phrase/clause, eg: I did not want to go there if they are [poorer] than we were. (2) as + adjective + as + phrase/clause, eg: The last tinkle of the last shard died away and silence closed in [as deep] as ever before.Its a good place I mean, [as good] as you can get. The remaining four types are realized exclusively by clauses: (3) so + adjective + that-clause, eg: The murder investigation was [so contrived] that it created false testimony. (4) so + adjective + as to-clause, eg: And if anybody was [so foolhardy as] to pass by the shrine after dusk he was sure to
acestuia n construcii comparative sau graduale. Trstura (b) este ,,un caz particular de specificare a extensiunii unui adjectiv, asigurnd, n i mai mare msur dect (a), limitarea clasei de comparaie: fie, n cazul costruciilor comparative, limitarea la dou obiecte, unul luat ca punct de referin pentru cellalt, fie o restrngere a graniei de extensie n sus sau n jos fa de extensia standard, n cazul construciilor graduale (vezi: puin uimit, uor mbtrnit, abia perceptibil, n raport cu mhnit peste msur, foarte mhnit, mult reduse, adnc interiorizat). It has also been pointed out that ,,[T]oate adjectivele intensionale, predicate vagi, dependente de un nume i ncorpornd ceva din semnificaia numelui, dup folosire n context nominal se ,,linearizeaz, blocul sintactic n ntregime devenind gradabil (vezi: cel mai bun violonist dintre, un politician mai nelept dect). This analysis tallies with Alexandra Cornilescu approach in Concepts of Modern Grammar, Editura Universitii din Bucureti, 1996, p. 217-227. 107 Douglas Biber et al, Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Biber et al), Pearson Education Limited, Longman, 1999, p. 526. 108 ibid, p. 527

29

see the old woman hopping about. (5) too + adjective + to-clause, eg: For larger systems the bundles of energy were [too numerous] to be countable. (6) adjective + enough + to-clause, eg: The stairs wouldnt be [strong enough] to hold the weight. The degree complement construction can generally be omitted, leaving its content to be inferred. This would be the case of so + adjective, which gets an almost exclamatory force: What was his mother like before she was so shapeless and his father so fat?109 Quirk et al110 discuss comparison of gradable adjectives and adverbs in terms of three types of relations: (a) to a higher degree, expressed by comparative and superlative morphemes, either inflected (old er, -est) or periphrastic forms (beautiful more beautiful most beautiful); (b) to the same degree, expressed by as/so old/beautiful as; (c) to a lower degree, expressed by less, the least old/beautiful. Higher degree comparisons in English are made on a threeterm inflectional contrast between absolute,111 comparative and
109 110

idem, p. 527f Quirk et al, 1985, p. 458f 111 Also referred to as the base-form of the adjective, [T]he positive or absolute degree implies no comparative quality, and contrasts with such terms as COMPARATIVE and SUPERLATIVE. (David Crystal, op. cit., p. 269). Jan M.G. Aarts and Joseph P. Calbert (op. cit., p. 35f) hold that scalable properties of adjectives are expressed by relating them to a given norm. This norm is the average if the adjective denoting the property is used in the positive degree in a non-comparative context, as in John is tall/short, it is contextually bound if the adjective is used in a comparative context, as in John is taller/shorter than Peter. [my emphasis] Vasile Robu and Iorgu Iordan (op. cit., p. 405) acknowledge conceptul de grad positiv ca ,,baz tematic primar pentru realizarea gradelor celor dou ,,subsisteme de forme graduale, i.e. comparaie i intensitate: ,,Gradul

30

superlative forms for many adjectives and a few adverbs, the absolute being realized by the base form of the item.112 Comparison, in its broad sense, includes comparisons of equivalence, sufficiency and excess113 as in Jane is as [healthy] as her sister (is). Don is [sensitive] enough to understand your feelings. The message is sufficiently [clear]. (i.e. as clear as is necessary) Marilyn was too [polite] to say anything about my clothes. (more than enough)

positiv poate fi considerat forma adjectivului care atribuie obiectului de referin o nsuire neutr fa de intensitate, adjectivul fiind nemarcat n sintagma dat, deci neimplicnd vreo modificare a constantei lui semantice; avnd n vedere c celelalte grade snt marcate cu formani care implic i adaosuri de seme ale intensitii, gradul positiv apare nemarcat, situaie care, n mod obinuit, se consider c are marca zero n sistemul de opoziie dat. 112 David Crystal, op. cit., p. 269. Vasile Robu and Iorgu Iordan (op. cit., p. 404ff) have provided a framework for the category of intensification in Romanian, discriminating between degrees of comparison and degrees of intensity, as follows: ,,Gradele de intensitate se exprim prin sintagme nchise implicate ntr-o relaie sintactic, iar ,,gradele de comparaie se exprim prin sintagme deschise care, pe lng relaia cu termenul regent, implic structural i o relaie imediat cu al doilea termen de referin comparativ. Gradele de comparaie snt: comparativul de egalitate , indicat prin la fel de, tot aa de etc. ; comparativul de superioritate, indicat prin mai ; comparativul de inferioritate, indicat prin mai puin dect; comparativul superlativ indicat prin cel mai sau cel mai puin. Gradele de intensitate snt: gradul intensitii minime, indicat prin foarte puin, foarte slab etc; gradul intensitii sczute, insuficiente, indicat prin putin, slab etc, gradul intensitii suficiente, indicat prin destul de, suficient de etc., gradul intensitii mobile, care poate fi progresiva, cnd este indicat prin tot mai, din ce n ce mai etc, sau regresiva cnd este indicat prin, tot mai puin,, din ce n ce mai puin etc; gradul intensitii maxime, indicat prin ism sau prin foarte, extrem de etc; gradul intensitii depite, excesive, indicat prin arhi-, prea etc. (ibid.) 113 Quirk et al, 1985, p. 1127f

31

In its narrow sense, comparison concerns a standard measurable in terms of degree that is expressed by means of comparative forms in the matrix clause, together with than in the subordinate clause.114 Thereby, in comparative structures, a proposition expressed in the matrix/superordinate clause is compared with a proposition expressed in the subordinate clause with respect to some standard of comparison. This type of comparison is called comparison of nonequivalence. The comparative element/comp-element is the clause element in the matrix clause which specifies the standard of comparison (e.g as healthy, more healthy, healthier, less healthy). The basis of comparison is most of the time explicit, i.e. overtly expressed in the comparative clause (Janes sister):115 more [healthy] [healthi]er less [healthy]116

Jane is

than her sister (is).

The basis of comparison, or the second term of a comparison, needs not, however, be overtly expressed. If it appears clearly from the context what this second term is, it may be left out and is, thereby, implicit, i.e. covert/implied from the context.117 Consider
idem, p. 1128 ibid. 116 Less indicates a tendency to the negative pole of the standard of comparison. (ibid.) 117 Cf. Dumitru Irimia (op. cit., p. 89f), intensitatea obiectiv (comparativ), i.e. objective (comparative) intensity, materializes in a process of comparison, ,,desfurat explicit n structura sintactic a textului: ,,Mai verosimil dect adevrul e cteodat un vis sau rmas implicit n sintagma gradului de intensitate: ,,Cnd ura cea mai crud mi s-a prea amor. n primul caz se exprim amndoi termenii comparaiei sau rmne subneles primul termen. n cel de-al doilea caz, termenul al doilea al comparaiei rmne neexprimat. ,,Coninutul categorial al intensitii obiective rezult din interpretarea lingvistic a raportului dintre dou sau mai multe obiecte din punctul de vedere al manifestrii unei insuiri comune sau din interpretarea unui obiect din perspectiva aceleiai insuiri,
115 114

32

Mike is [taller] than Ted. Mike is [taller]. she may not be [safe],... ... she will be no [safer] [than she is now] for your knowledge!118 There are also comparative structures with either an intensifying or de-intensifying effect: (1) be more than capable/pleased/sorry, etc, is a hyperbolic expression, used to emphasize that someone is very capable/pleased/sorry: He is more than capable, if the worst comes to the worst. The store is more than [happy] to deliver goods to your home. Mike: Make fun of me again, because I want to be ecent. (ON/MM: 4) Josie: Youre worse than [decent]. Youre [virtuous].
situat intre coordonate temporale si spaiale diferite. (idem, p. 89) ,,Coninutul categoriei intensitii subiective rezult, pe de alt parte, ,,din interpretarea lingvistic a intensitii unor insuiri din perspectiva aprecierilor subiectului locutor. (idem, p. 91) Intensitatea obiectiv se realizeaz n patru termeni: gradul de intensitate echivalent, exprimat prin la fel de, tot aa de etc, gradul de intensitate superioar, exprimat prin mai; gradul de intensitate inferioar, exprimat prin mai puin ( cu precizarea ca morfemele de la acest grad si de la cel anterior pot fi dublate de unul din morfemele tot, mereu, din ce in ce, atunci cnd intensitatea este progresiv); gradul superlativ, cu dou variante, de superioritate, exprimat prin morfemul complex variabil cel mai, i de inferioritate, exprimat prin cel mai puin. Intensitatea subiectiv se realizeaz in doi termeni corelativi (intensitatea relativ, intensitatea superlativ ) i un termen neutru (pozitivul). Intensitatea relativ se exprima prin morfemele cam, destul de, etc; intensitatea superlativ are dou variante( de superioritate, marcata prin ism, prin arhi i prin foarte, att de etc; de inferioritate, marcat prin foarte puin) la care se adaug o a treia, superlativul excesiv, marcat prin prea. (idem, p. 105-8) 118 Erik Jorgensen, Some Notes on Negated Comparatives (+ Than). In English Studies, 1980/61, p. 544. We think not-comparatives to be formally negated and the no-comparatives, formally negative.

33

(ON/MM: 4) Josie: Dont be a bigger jackass than you are already. (ON/MM: 4) (2) be more than a little angry/sad etc is used to emphasize how angry or said you are: We are more than a little [concerned] about the state of his financial affairs. (3) be little more than is used to say that sb or sth is less important that they seem: It was little more than [a scratch]. Superlative structures also get pre- or post-modified by degree adverbs, frequency adverbs and other intensifying items and structures: Josie: It didnt stop me from saying you were [the damnedest] crook ever came out of Ireland. (ON/MM: 4) 2.1.1.1 Intensifying Comparative and Superlative Structures Inflectional and phrasal comparative and superlative structures can also undergo modification by degree adverbs/intensifiers. The most common ones are two repeated or co-ordinated comparative structures with an intensifying role in English: the comparative of gradation and the comparative of proportion. 2.1.1.1.1 The Comparative of Gradation and the Comparative of Proportion The Comparative of Gradation denotes gradual increase or decrease/an ever increasing/decreasing degree of the adjective quality119 and it is made up of two identical comparatives conjoined
119

In Vasile Robu and Iorgu Iordan (op. cit., p. 407) the comparative of gradation is referred to as gradul intensitii mobile/crescnde/ progresive care se poate actualiza progresiv sau regresiv, cu adverbialele

34

by and, i.e. comparative + and + comparative. Used especially in fiction, this is an expressive way of saying increasingly + adjective.120 Typically, the repeated adjectives function predicatively, following the copular verbs get, grow and become: She is getting [better and better]. (increasingly better) People who go to acid house parties are getting [younger and younger]. ((Biber et al) Life became [tougher and tougher]. The noise grew [louder and louder]. His own need for food grew [slighter and slighter].121 (Biber
et al)

Her visits to the country to see her son became [rarer and rarer]. (Biber et al) In the process false personality has to be made gradually [weaker and weaker]. (Biber et al) Sandy is getting [less and less discreet]. Consequently, as the stakes become [bigger and bigger] in the playing of the game, the scruples will become [smaller and smaller]. (Biber et al) For phrasal comparatives, there is a related and more frequent

tot maidin ce n ce maimereu mai tot mai i mai, pentru intensitatea progresiv (crescnd), la care, dac se adaug cantitativul puin tot mai puindin ce n ce mai puin. , se obine valoarea regresiv (descrescnd) a intensitii mobile: ,,Umbra morii se ntinde tot mai mare i mai mare, ,, amicul este din ce n ce mai puin vesel. They hold, for instance, that n enunul btea un vnt din ce n ce mai puternic, sintagma din ce n ce mai puternic este compatibil cu o singur relaie cu termenul regent = (un) vnt; ntreaga cantitate de informaie privind valoarea intensitii crescnde, progresive, pe care formula adverbial din ce n ce mai o atribuie adjectivului puternic, se consum, prin incluziune, n interiorul acestei relaii deplin nchise din punct de vedere sintactic, adic este explicabil imediat. O asemenea valoare o vom numi gradul intensitii crescnde (sau progresive). (idem, p. 404) 120 Cf. Biber et al, op. cit., p. 536 121 idem, p. 536f. All examples from Biber et al are marked (LGSWE)

35

structure122 in which more is repeated and conjoined to itself with and: They are becoming [more and more difficult]. So things are getting [more and more fraught]. Eventually itll get [more and more computer wise]. There are also examples of mixed cases: She became [smaller and smaller], then [bigger bigger], [more and more puzzled] and [curiouser curiouser]. The game became [more and more dangerous] [thrilling]. The dog became [less and less nervous] and [more more docile]. and and and and

The Comparative of Proportion indicates parallel increase or decrease in time of two qualities. It is a double comparative structure used to show that two different things/actions happen at the same time, thus becoming related: the + comparative + Noun/Pronoun + Verb + the + comparative + Noun/Pronoun + Verb: The older he grew, the wiser he became. The more complex the exercises are, the better you will earn. The sooner I get this work done, the sooner I can go home. (LDCE) The faster he walked, the more nervous she became. The more we are together, the merrier we shall be. The longer a love-affair goes, the deeper and deeper it gets. And the deeper it becomes, the more difficult it will be for him to climb out of it. In Mr. Eagers mouth it resembled nothing so much as an acid whistling fountain which played ever higher and higher, and quicker and quicker, and more and more shrilly, till abruptly it was turned off with a click. (F/ PI: 83)
122

Biber et al, p. 537

36

The comparative structure the + comparative + the + comparative is used for the sake of conciseness, when the two conjoined clauses contain the verb to be, which is either completely or partially omitted: The fewer the better The more the merrier The longer the nights the shorter the days are The deeper the well the colder the water More haste less speed. The expression the sooner the better is used to say that it is important that something should happen/be done very soon/as soon as possible: The sooner you answer Jacks letter the better. (LDCE) The sooner we get out the better. (CCD) You need a holiday and the sooner the better. (CCD) Double superlative structures have an intensifying force: The least said, the soonest mended. 123 The more we study, the more we know. The more we know, the more we forget. The more we forget, the less we know. The less we know, the less we forget. So, why study? 2.1.1.1.2 Premodification of Comparative and Superlative Structures There are other more or less common intensifying comparative structures in informal spoken English, some of them being similar to the comparative of equality and superiority: (1) Ever so + [Adjective] and ever such + [Adjective] + Noun has the role of a booster, meaning very, and is used to emphasize what we are saying, especially when we are expressing enthusiasm or gratitude:124
123

Alice Bdescu, Gramatica limbii engleze, Editura didactic i prdagogic, Bucureti, 1963, p. 151 124 CCD, p. 484

37

They are ever so [kind]. (CCD) Thank you ever so [much] for your help. (CCD) They are ever such [nice] people. (CCD) Its ever such a [nice]/[cold] day. (CCD) (2) [comparative (hotter/taller/thinner)] than + ever means hotter, taller, thinner than before, to emphasize that something still has a particular quality to a great degree: Its [cold]er than ever today. Magda was pale and thin, but her eyes were [bright]er than ever. (3) as + adjective (boring/cheerful/friendly) as ever means as boring/cheerful/friendly as in the past: The news is as [awful] as ever. (4) intensifier ((by) far/much)+ [comparative]+ than or [comparative]+ intensifier: much [better]. (by) far [better] than last week. [better] by far.125 [better] than she used to. Its (very) much more [difficult] than before. [easi]er than I thought. Its somewhat [easi]er rather [better] a lot/lots126[short]er
125

Its

than anyone expected it to be.

By far highlights the idea of superlativity.

38

The food was far [better] than I expected. 127 It sounds far [more appealing]/[dangerous]. Its by far the most [confusing] thing I ever heard! Their car is a great/good deal/a lot/much/somewhat/a bit/a little [cheap]er than ours. Its a great/good deal/a good bit (informal) more/less [difficult].128 Only much and far can be used as intensifiers of premodifying adjectives. Compare: That was a much/far [easi]er job. That job was much/far/a great deal [easi]er. Mind also the superlative reading of the following comparative structures: There is no more impressive writer on either side of the Atlantic. You are more to me than anything in the world. There is nothing, nothing like the beauty of home life. 129 2.2 Classes of Adjectives Quirk et al130 and Biber et al131 describe the class of adjectives in terms of four complementary morphological and semantic features. The typical adjective can have two modes of construction, i.e. (a) the attributive use, and (b) the predicative use, (c) can be modified by very and (d) is able to show comparison. These typicality criteria, which apply to certain adjective classes only, 132
126 127

informal Far, as an intensifier of comparatives, is assertive and cannot be used in negative clauses, eg: *The food wasnt far better than I expected. 128 Quirk et al 1985, p. 473. Italics have been added. 129 Apud Mihai Mircea Zdrenghea, A Course in the Grammatical Structure of English, University of Cluj-Napoca Press, 1989 130 Quirk et al, 1985, p. 403ff 131 Biber et al, op. cit., p. 505ff 132 Jan Rusiecki, op. cit., p.1

39

subdivide the adjective class into central and peripheral adjectives. The former are the most adjectival items 133 or prototypical134 adjectives, which either have all core defining characteristics of adjectives, or satisfy the first two criteria. The latter function in only one position: either attributively or predicatively. Since adjectives that undergo comparison usually can also be modified by very, and vice versa,135 criteria (c) and (d) have been grasped as sides of the same coin, namely gradability/scalarity, 136 and adjectives that satisfy them are referred to as gradable. This classification fits Quirk et als framework of three semantic scales that are applicable to adjectives, i.e. gradable: nongradable, inherent: noninherent and stative: dynamic. 137 The fact that a number of adjectives do not undergo comparison has generally been considered an idiosyncratic behaviour that requested no further explanation. Yet, for the last forty years or so, there have been linguists who have provided syntactic and semantic arguments for the non-gradability as well as the occasional gradability of some sets of adjectives. Collins138 and Biber et al139 distinguish two conceptually similar semantic groups of adjectives.140 Collins qualitative/
133 134

Quirk et al., op. cit., p. 437 Biber et al, op. cit., p. 508 135 Cf. Carita Paradis 1997, p. 44 136 John Lyons, Jan Rusiecki and Quirk et al, op. cit., share the opinion that the majority of attributive-only adjectives are non-gradable, whereas the predicative-only adjectives are, in their great majority, gradable. 137 Op. cit., p. 74 and 434 138 Collins Cobuild English Grammar (CCEG), 1996 London: Collins, p. 65ff 139 Biber et al, op. cit., p. 508f 140 In A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991, R.M.W. Dixon groups lexical words into a number of semantic types, each of which has a common meaning component, and a typical set of grammatical properties. One of the grammatical properties of a type is its association with a grammatical Word Class, or Part of Speech. He associates ten semantic types with the grammatical class Adjective in English: 1. DIMENSION, eg: big, great, short; 2. PHYSICAL PROPERTY, eg: hard, strong; 3. SPEED, eg: quick, fast, rapid,

40

characterizing adjectives tally with Biber et als descriptors in that they are prototypical gradable adjectives. They denote a quality that something or somebody has141 and are said to be gradable, in that there can be more or less of the quality in question. By definition typically nongradable, the primary function of Collins classifying adjectives, and Biber et al s classifiers or classifying/restricting adjectives is to identify the particular class that something belongs to,142 more precisely, to delimit or restrict a nouns referent by placing it in a category in relation to other referents.143 Further subdivisions of adjectives in Biber et al are colour, size/ quantity/ extent, time, evaluative/emotive and miscellaneous descriptors and relational/classificational/restrictive, affiliative, topical/ other classifiers.144 Concerned with a description of factive complementation in English within a Generative Semantic framework, Neal R. Norrick investigates factive predicates which take complements in either subject or object position.145 Obj-comp factive adjectives occur with complements in direct object position and can be of two types:

slow; 5. COLOUR, eg: white, black, golden; 6. VALUE, eg: (a) good, bad, lovely; (b) odd, strange, important; lucky; 7. DIFFICULTY, eg: easy, difficult, tough; 8. QUALIFICATION and 9. HUMAN PROPENSITY, both with several types and 10. SIMILARITY. This classification is, however, of little/no interest to the present study. 141 CCEG, p. 65 142 ibid. 143 Biber et al, op. cit., p. 508 144 idem, p. 508f. Classifiers can be more or less descriptive in meaning: relational classifiers (such as additional, final, similar) have little descriptive content, while many topical classifiers (such as chemical, medical, political) provide descriptive content while also limiting the reference of the head noun. 145 Neal R Norrick, Factive Adjectives and the Theory of Factivity, Max Niemeyer Verlag, ed, Tbingen, 1978, p.3. The relevant complement types in English are that-clause, infinitive (including for-to) and gerund complements. A factive complement is one derived from an embedded sentence presupposed to be true The main predicate (verb or adjective) in the matrix sentence of a factive construction is called a factive predicate.

41

emotive (obj-comp factive) adjectives146 and evaluative (obj-comp factive) adjectives. 147 The former predicate emotional states of their subjects, whereas the latter represent the speakers value judgements about their subjects.148 There is a whole range of emotions which can be predicated of individuals by emotive adjectives, whose object complements can be infinitives, for-to complements, that-clause complements, gerund complements, etc: aghast, amazed, angry, appalled, appeased, awed, bedazzled, beguiled, bereaved, bewildered, bitter, bored, confused, delighted, depressed, discouraged, disgusted, distressed, frightened, glad, grateful, grieved, happy, interested, irritated, joyful, joyous, jubilant, mad, merry, miserable, morose, moved, obsessed, overawed, overjoyed, overwhelmed, pleased, proud, puzzled, regretful, resentful, remorseful, sad, sorry, stunned, stupified, surprised, terrified, thrilled, touched, troubled, upset, vexed, wistful, worried, wounded, etc: Al is [angry] to have lost his job. Jack is [grateful] for Jill to have gone up the hill. Al is [jubilant] that Kid lost the bout. Fran is [proud] of (his) resembling Liberace. Flo is [regretful] about the bringing up of the box from the damp storage cellar.149 Also gradable, the class of evaluative adjectives includes items such as agreeable, amiable, awful, awkward, bad, brave, bright, brilliant, brutal, careful, childlike, clever, clumsy, corrupt, cruel, cunning, decent, eccentric, evil, feeble, foolish, horrible, immoral, kind, lucky, nice, polite. The adjective lucky, for instance, occurs with the following patterns: Joe is [lucky] to own a summer cottage. Sue is [lucky] that her rich uncle died.
idem, p. 32. In Neal Norrick, both emotive obj-comp adjectives and emotive obj-comp verbs are referred to as emotive predicates. 147 idem, p. 38ff 148 idem, p. 33 149 idem, p. 33f
146

42

It is [lucky] that Fred made the drinks. It is [lucky] for us that Fred made the drinks. We are [lucky] that Fred made the drinks. Fred is [lucky] that he made the drinks. Little attention has been given to the nature and functions of the subclass of emotive adjectives.150 This handful of adjectives, whose grammatical function is associated with their semantic role, can serve as either classifier or descriptor. In contrast to central adjectives proper, which are inherent in that they characterize the referent of the noun directly, attributive only in function noninherent adjectives are central adjectives that have achieved a secondary intensifying meaning when they are restricted to attributive function.151 Adjectives like old and poor are typical of this class. Compare: [1a] Do you know who that very [old] woman is? [1b] Who cares that the woman is very [old]? [1c] You are [old] enough to be allowed entrance to the proceedings. [1c] He passed me that very [old] camera. [1d] That camera is very/rather [old]. [1e] Take my old camera! [2a] Im seeing a very/an [old] friend of mine tonight. [2b] Hong Kong was a shoppers paradise in the [old] days. [2c] Tell me about the good [old] days. [2d] How are things with you, [old] chap? [2e] I got a letter from good [old] Lewis. [2f]Yeah. Same [old] stuff. (LGSWE) [2g] The [old] pig! (LGSWE) [2h] Great fat [old] cow! ((ON/MM)
150

Biber et al, op. cit., p. 509. Emotive adjectives, classified as epithets in Angela Downing and Philip Locke, op. cit, p. 409; 449ff, will be dealt with in the opening section of Chapter 5, 5.1 included. 151 Biber et al (op. cit., p. 516), [S]emantically, the most frequent predicative adjectives of conversation tend to be evaluative and emotive, eg: good, lovely and bad.

43

where the central descriptive adjective old, denoting age, is inherent in [1a] and [1b], as the opposite of young, and in [1c] and [1d], as the opposite of new, and can undergo pre- and postmodification by degree adverbs. In [1e] and [2a], on the other hand, old, in its noninherent use, is the opposite of new, i.e. newly acquired. Therefore, old in an old friend of mine [a friend of old, a longstanding friend] is restricted to attributive relation and cannot be related to My friend is old The person referred to is not being identified as old: it is his friendship that is old. 152 In its non-inherent use old has developed an emotive meaning, either meliorative, as in examples [2a] through [2e], or a derogatory one as in [2f], [2g] and [2h].153 Poor behaves similarly. Its predicative use almost exclusively refers to lack of financial resources, while in its attributive use it either reads (1) lacking financial resources or (2) not good, bad, unsatisfactory, feeble, deficient. Jan M.G. Aarts and Joseph P. Calbert consider that the phrase poor actor yields two readings, i.e. one with actor1 and one with actor2. 154 While with actor1, poor is predicated of the normal way, expressing that the referent of actor is in a state of penury; in the reading with actor2, the manner of the activity typically associated with actor1 (acting) is qualified as

152

Quirk et al 1985, p. 428. A similar example commented upon is the wrong candidate, where wrong does not refer to the wrongness of the person but to the mistake in identifying the person as a candidate. The reasons for this restriction are not always clear, since there are also adjectives, which can also occur in a non-inherent use in predicative position. Thus both a new student and a new friend are non-inherent, yet only the former can be used predicatively: That student is new. *My friend is new. (idem, p. 429) It should also be noted that Outside such well-established phrases as old friend, new friend, the contrast old/new requires the adjective to be stressed: Ill take my 'old car tonight. 153 [M]odification of a noun by means of a non-inherent adjective can be seen as an extension of the basic sense of the noun, i.e. a firm friend is a friend whose friendship is firm, and a perfect stranger is a stranger who is perfectly strange. (idem, p.435) 154 Jan M.G. Aarts and Joseph P. Calbert, op. cit., p. 51ff

44

poor.155 Thus, while with poor actor1 reads a penurious person who also happens to have acting as his profession, poor actor2 reads someone who acts in a poor manner or poorly. In its non-inherent attributive use, poor also metaphorically conveys feelings of deep compassion. 156 Consider [1a] People who live in [poor] countries have a much lower life expectancy. [1b] These cuts will affect the [poorest] members of society. [1c] We were so [poor] we couldnt afford to eat more than one meal a day. [2a] They had very [poor] housing conditions. [2b] The quality of the photograph was very [poor]. [2c] She was a very [poor] swimmer and even a [poorer] businesswoman. [2d] I did not expect them all to be in this poor [shape]. [2e] They insisted on the countrys very [poor] economic performance. [2f] He had very [poor] memory, [poor] eyesight, [poor] lungs, [poor] everything, but in spite of [poor] health, he was able to continue working.
ibid. Poor is rendered in Romanian by its Romanian counterpart, the adjective srac, which similarly functions in its inherent and non-inherent uses. Its high context-sensitivity is usually rendered by the deadjectival synonymous nouns srac, srman, amrt, nefericit, prpdit in their basic, inflected for gender forms, eg: sracul, sraca, sracii, sracele, and by derivatives in prepositional phrases, eg: sracuul de mine/tine/el; amrtul (acela) de etc. Cf. Zorela Crea (Un exemplu de echilibru semantic: cuvntul SRAC. In Limba romn 5 1980, p. 447-72), coninutul semantic al cuvntului srac se bazeaz pe ideea de lips (total sau nontotal). Semnul lipsit de este constana semantic a cuvntului srac, invarianta care face legtura ntre toate sensurile cuvntului i-i menin echilibrul semantic. The adjective srac reads differently in the following contexts: sracul biat (lipsit de noroc, mulumire, fericire); experien srac, cteva fire srace de ap (lipsit de suficiet cantitate); limba romn, inexpresiv i srac (lipsit de suiciente mijloace de expresie); lumin srac (lipsit de suficient intensitate) etc. (idem, p. 463)
156 155

45

[2g] [Poor] girl/man. [2h] [Poor] little thing/bastard/angels! [2i] The [poor] creature! [2j] [Poor] old Dennis, he cant do a thing right! [2k]Then you gonna fall on four knees and pray to God for the way you treated your poor dear mother. (JT/ CD: 211) The adjectives old, in examples [2b] through [2h], and poor, in examples [2g] through [2k], have an intensifying function, like many other adjectives which can be used as intensifiers when they are restricted to attributive position. 157 Since emotion is primarily expressed through peripheral, gradient features, the connotative meaning of these adjectives can best be deciphered in the harmony of their conjoined lexical and prosodic meanings.158 A distinctive feature to be noted with these intensifying structures is the clustering of emotive adjectives in premodification and postmodification of old and poor. Quirk et al identify a subclass of intensifying adjectives, with either a heightening or a lowering effect on the noun head that they modify, which are further subclassified as emphasizers, amplifiers and downtoners.159 Emphasizers are adjectives that have a general heightening effect and are generally attributive only: a [certain] winner, a [clear] failure, a [definite] loss, [plain] nonsense, [pure] [sheer] fabrication, an [outright] lie, a [real] [undoubted]hero, the [simple] truth, [sheer] arrogance, a [sure] sign, a [true] scholar.160 Amplifiers are adjectives that scale upwards from an assumed norm. They are central adjectives if they are inherent and denote a high or extreme degree: a [complete] victory/The victory was [complete]; [great] destruction/The destruction
Quirk et al 1985, p.430, point to the severe restrictions that attributive only intensifying adjectives have on the noun they modify. Consider a walloping great/big house in the country (very big) and a great/big baby (very babyish), a big fool (very foolish), a great big fool (extremely foolish) and a great friend (very friendly). 158 Cf. Carita Paradis 1997, p. 11 159 Quirk et al, 1985, p.429f 160 idem, p. 429
157

46

was [complete].161 In the following examples the adjectives are non-inherent, that is, complete refers to the completeness of the folly and firm to the firmness of the friendship,162 etc: a [complete] fool/stranger/*The fool/stranger is [complete].; an absolute stranger/*The stranger is [absolute]; an [extreme] enemy/*The enemy is [extreme], a [firm] friend/*The friend is [firm], [bloody] idiot/*The idiot is [bloody], [utter] fool/*The fool is [utter], [utter] folly/*The folly is [utter] the adjectives are non-inherent, that is, complete refers to the completeness of the folly and firm to the firmness of the friendship.163 When amplifiers are used as emphasizers, however, i.e. when they primarily convey emphasis rather than degree, adjectives are only attributive. The adjective total, for example, is biased for amplification and denotes a high or extreme degree as an amplifier in its inherent central use in [total] destruction (The destruction was [total], the destruction of everything). In [total] nonsense (*The nonsense was [total]), on the other hand, total, in its non-inherent attributive only use, has an emphasizer function, denoting a general heightening effect. 164 Downtoners are central adjectives that have a lowering effect, usually scaling downwards from an assumed norm.165 There is a relative scantiness of members in this subset, which includes the adjectives slight and feeble: [slight] effort, [feeble] joke. Most intensifying adjectives, many of which are emphasizers, have undergone a process of adverbialization: He is a true [scholar]. He [is] truly a scholar. It was a clear [failure]. It [was] clearly a failure. It is utter [folly] to do that. It is utterly [foolish] to do that.
ibid. ibid. 163 The asterisked examples indicate that these adjectives can only be used attributively, in their non-inherent use. 164 ibid.. The co-ordinated amplifying adjectives in the following clause nevertheless enhance the note of revenge: Dianas revenge is total and complete. (Discovery Channell) 165 idem, p. 430
162 161

47

There are also many homonymous intensifying adjectives that occur both attributively, in their inherent use, and, often with a shift of meaning, predicatively, in their non-inherent use: I drank some pure [water]. [clean = central adjective] ~ The water [is] pure. That is pure [fabrication]. [sheer = emphasizer] ~ *The fabrication [is] pure.166 The dual descriptive-classifying status has also been achieved by some adjectives regarded as essentially classifying in premodification of the noun head. Nongradable par excellence in their attributive only classifying function, they turn up gradable descriptive in appropriate contexts,167 as shown below: Classifying a [firm] handshake a [perfect] alibi a [true] report
166 167

Descriptive a [firm] friend a [perfect] stranger a [true] scholar168

ibid. Since they do not occur in predicative position, these adjectives have also been labelled nonpredicate adjectives or pseudo-adjectives, depending on the features that they exhibit, subclassified as denominal nonpredicate adjectives, which behave more like nouns, eg: a [chemical]/[civil] engineer, a [criminal] lawyer, [dramatic] criticism, and deadverbial nonpredicate adjectives, which behave more like adverbs, eg: a [total] stranger, an [utter] fool, a[sheer] fraud, a [true] poet, a [complete] surprise, a [regular] champion, a [perfect] idiot, a [real] friend, a [prhyme] suspect, the [primary] target, etc. (cf. Ioana tefnescu, Lectures in English Morphology, Universitatea din Bucureti, Bucureti, 1978) 168 According to Quirk et al [M]odification of a noun by means of a noninherent adjective can be seen as an extension of the basic sense of the noun. Thus a firm friend is a friend whose friendship is firm, and a perfect stranger is a stranger who is perfectly strange. While it is often possible to derive a noun from an inherent adjective, eg: her soft touch ~ the softness of her touch, with a noninherent adjective no such derivation is possible, eg: a firm handshake ~ the firmness of the handshake vs a firm

48

[modern] athletics [modern] algebra [criminal] law a [criminal] court/lawyer a [medical] school a [musical] comedy [original] sources the [original] manuscript a [nervous] breakdown the [nervous] system an [emotional] vote our [emotional] needs their [religious] status a [wooden] stick

a very [modern] athletics track a rather [modern] look a rather[criminal] look/activity/assault an extremely [musical] child/instrument a highly [original] style quite an [original] idea a very [nervous] person quite a [nervous] manner a very [emotional] child a very [religious] young man a very [wooden] actor 169 (clumsy, stiff, inexpressive)

Most of the typically classifying adjectives in the left-hand column have achieved a gradable reading, functioning as inherent qualitative adjectives in collocations with the nouns in the right column. It has been suggested that what makes the reading of the adjective gradable or nongradable depends on the noun it modifies. We must therefore be familiar with both the denotation of the adjective and with its relation to the noun it qualifies, in order to uncover the nature of the adjective.170 Carita Paradis brings up this point for discussion in terms of B. Warrens model of the relationship that holds between the adjective and the noun to which it
friend ~ * the firmness of the friend; a true report ~ the truth of the report vs a true scholar ~ * the truth of the scholar. There are, however, exceptions to this generalization, eg: a wooden actor ~ the woodenness of the actor. (op. cit., p. 435) 169 Categorial in its primary sense, wooden turns gradable in a metaphorical, secondary sense. Quirk et al (1985, p. 436) suggests This actor is being wooden tonight [dynamic use of stative adjective], whereas Carita Paradis (1997, p. 46) suggests the acceptability of the downtoning structure the chair is a bit [wooden]. Selectional restrictions will traditionally be extended to comparative structures of the type?The chair is less [wooden] and ?The less [wooden] chair. 170 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 44

49

applies. There seems to be an opaque relation that the language user at some level has to be aware of, in order to fully understand the phrases a [sad] girl or a [nervous] breakdown and their potential to be graded. B.Warren's model of the meaning of adjectives involves a paraphrase of the noun phrase in question, whereby two semantic elements are revealed, one overt referential (sadness) and one covert relational (experiencing).171 The meaning of sad in a [sad] girl, can be spelled out as x experiences sadness, in terms of B. Warrens two components, i.e. referential content(sadness) and relator (experiencing). 172 It is from this point of view that we can also interpret the potential gradability of nervous. The adjective is found to be polysemantic in that it differs in at least one of the two main semantic parts of adjectives, i.e. in the referential content and /or in the relator173 in a [nervous] breakdown and a [nervous] man. Nervous, in a [nervous] breakdown (spelled out as x is caused by nerves), is classifying and reference-modifying, in that it restricts the application of breakdown (i.e. a breakdown among other types of breakdowns), not *a very [nervous] breakdown. By contrast, nervous in a [nervous] man (spelled out as x experiences nervousness) is non-reference modifying (i.e. it does not restrict the application of man, but it gives extra information about the person in question), which allows for a very [nervous] man. 2.2.1 Gradable nongradables Irrespective of the approach, the primary aim of any discussions on gradability in grammar textbooks has been to account for idiosyncrasies in the grading of certain subclasses of adjectives known as nongradables par excellence. Some of the most clarifying standpoints for the study of gradability in the adjective class have been taken into account.174
171 172

idem, p. 45n ibid. 173 idem, p. 46 174 Elsa Lder, op. cit., p. 50: Graniele dintre comparabil i necomparabil snt mai puin stricte dect par ele n gramaticile normativemprirea comparabil/necomparabil este posibil doar pe criterii pur semantice, nu pe

50

Alexandra Cornilescu views adjectives as denoting properties or rather property sets.175 Therefore, the sense (or intension) of adjectives like round, white, fluid is a property (i.e. roundness, whiteness, fluidity) which picks up a set/class of objects that constitutes the referent (or extension) of the adjective, namely the set of round things, the set of white things, the set of fluid things. 176 In their attributive use adjectives identify their (externalizable) argument variable with the internal variable of a noun, so that the same variable is referred to by both the adjective and the noun. Called -identification, this semantic operation underlies the relation between adjectives, as modifiers, and nouns, as modifees. Thus round ball will designate the set of entities which are both round and balls, i.e. [round ( ) ball ( )].177 Adjectives used predicatively are quite similar to verbs. They may subcategorize for particular types of objects (interested in, amazed at, crazy about etc), and they take arguments, externalizing one of them as subject of the nominal predicate, as in The ball is round and The man is kind to his neighbour. As far as comparability is concerned, scalar adjectives/ implicit comparatives like good, fast, long, difficult, nasty, interesting, the most typical of the gradable adjectives, are found to have no fixed value and cover a range of the quality involved. in terms of more or less. 178 Two or more referents can be compared with one another both in the comparative and the superlative by means of a scalar adjective. Even when they are not explicitly comparative in form, scalar adjectives are relative and interpreted comparatively.179 For example, It is long reads longer than X or
baza comportamentului gramatical-sintactic al adjectivelor. In comparaie pot intra toate adjectivele care exprim nsuiri care, la rndul lor, pot fi ntrite sau diminuate. 175 In Alexandra Cornilescu (Concepts of Modern Grammar, Editura Universitii din Bucureti, 1966, p. 217), a property set is defined as the set of all those objects which satisfy some property. 176 Cf. ibid. 177 idem, p. 218 178 idem, p. 51 179 John Lyons, op. cit., p. 274

51

longer than I like it to be, where X is some implicit reference point on the scale of length. 180 Judgements of the range for scalar adjectives can either be based on some generally accepted norm, or be subjective and speaker-oriented, the range varying with the referent and/or the standard that the speaker bases his judgement on. As it would, for example, be the notion of fast car for different people and under different circumstances.181 Extreme adjectives and limit adjectives, on the other hand, can be regarded as marginal in point of gradability. Extreme adjectives, or implicit superlatives, such as excellent, huge, minute, terrific, disastrous, brilliant are conceptualized as occupying an extreme position, that is, the outer parts of a mental scale.182 There seems to be a hyponymy relation holding between scalar adjectives, in their function as implicit comparatives, and extreme adjectives as implicit superlatives. On the scale of merit, for instance, GOOD1, which applies to the positive half of the evaluative scale, is a superordinate of adjectives denoting positive evaluation, such as fair, fine, nice, great, excellent, super, gorgeous, magnificent, etc, and BAD1, which applies to the negative end of the scale, is the superordinate of unfair, nasty, wicked, terrible, etc. Excellent, a hyponym of good, and terrible, a hyponym of bad, denoting positive and negative evaluation, respectively, occupy the positive and the negative extremes of the scale with the implicit comparatives good and bad in between:183 [GOOD1] excellent good2 satisfactory fairly bad2
180 181

extremely good2 good2 fairly good2

[GOOD] excellent good1 satisfactory

extremely good2 good2 fairly good2 fairly bad2

Cf. Carita Paradis 1997, p. 51 Cf. ibid. 182 idem, p. 54 183 ibid.

52

bad2

bad2

bad1

bad2 terrible extremely bad2 [BAD]

terrible extremely bad2 [BAD1] (a) Paradis 1997, p. 55

(b) Paradis 1997 (modified)

Figure 2.1 The combined scale-hyponymy relation of good and bad

Figure 2.1 illustrates the superordinate relation of GOOD] and BAD1 vis--vis the other adjectives, excellent, good, satisfactory, bad, terrible, which are shown to apply to much more restricted ranges on the imaginary scale. Since a hyponym will mean everything the superordinate means plus something more, the modified instances of good and bad, in extremely good2/bad2 and fairly good2/bad2 cover different ranges on the scale as compared to the corresponding items on the left. This is indicative of the possibility for language users to choose their expressions from either of the two systems184 in the case of judgements of merit. This scale-hyponymy relation may be modified in that [GOOD] and [BAD] are the superordinates of good1 and good2 and of bad1 and bad2, respectively, where good1 and bad1 are hyponyms that are liable to undergo comparison, while the hyponyms good2 and bad2 only take degree modification by intensifiers. The comparability of extreme adjectives has been a controversial issue, since they indicate an extreme, (almost) fixed degree, conceptually incompatible with the semantic feature of comparability, which is coextensive with having different degrees or associated to items that are susceptible of being laid out on a scale.185 The analysis of the categorization of adjectives with respect to gradability has pointed out some similarities and differences that account for the type of gradability that they have a bias for. Thus,
184 185

idem, p. 55 idem, p. 56

53

scalar adjectives and extreme adjectives, on the one hand, are predominantly evaluative-attributive, i.e. the application to a certain referent is subjective, in that the speaker determines how they should be applied to some noun and some situation.186 Limit adjectives, on the other hand, are typically criterial in nature, i.e. the application to a certain referent is not based on a subjective position, because the adjective either applies in a certain situation or it does not.187 Much more indeterminable vis--vis gradability than scalar adjectives and limit adjectives, the class of extreme adjectives can be considered a mix of the two major groups.188 They are similar to scalar adjectives in that they are conceptualized according to a scale, but they differ in that they do not represent a range of a scale, but rather an ultimate point. Extreme adjectives are similar to limit adjectives in that they do not represent a range, but they differ in that they are not associated with a limit of criterial nature. They are typically strongly evaluative. Extreme adjectives are not conceptualized in terms of more or less, nor in terms of either-or, but rather have traits of both.189 The second criterion for the categorization of adjectives, namely the ability for an adjective to occur in the question How x is it? has but naturally revealed a propensity for inherently scalar adjectives to fill the x slot. The scalar answer that this question elicits indicates a certain range of degree that is more specified than the adjective itself: How old is the man? He is very [old]; How [difficult] was the exam? - Quite [difficult]; How [long] is his hair? - It is rather [long]. Both extreme adjectives and limit adjectives are awkward190 in the question How x is it? The reason
Cf. idem, p. 63 ibid.. D. A. Cruse (op. cit., p. 198f) notes that [O]f all the varieties of opposites, complementarity is perhaps the simplest conceptually. The essence of a pair of complementaries is that between them they exhaustively divide some conceptual domain into two mutually exclusive compartments, so that what does not fall into one of the compartments must necessarily fall into the other. There is no-mans-land, no neutral ground, no possibility of a third term lying between them 188 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 63 189 ibid. 190 idem, p. 56 and 58
187 186

54

for the former is that, as implicit superlatives, they already indicate the extreme point on a scale whereas the latter are not normally viewed in terms of a range, but in terms of either-or. The third criterion regarding the possibility of adjectives to fill the x slot in How x! exclamatory expressions is met by both scalar adjectives (How [good] of you! How [fast]/ [interesting]!) and extreme adjectives (How [terrific]/ [huge]! (toa very high degree). It has been suggested that a scalar adjective in How x!expresssions is implicitly modified by a booster: How very/terribly [nice]! Since there is no high or extreme degree of limit adjectives in terms of a scale, this class of adjectives reject exclamatory expression with How-operator: *How [true]! *How [identical]! *How [dead]! 191 As regards the fourth criterion, that is the type of lexical relation of oppositeness involved, there is a logical difference between scalar adjectives and extreme adjectives, on the one hand, and limit adjectives, on the other, with respect to their conceptualization in relation to their opposites. Scalar adjectives and extreme adjectives have an antonymic relation to their opposites. Scalar adjectives are interpreted as inherently comparative vis--vis their antonyms within an antonymic mode of construal,192 where the members of the pair are contrary opposites: good: bad, fast: slow, difficult: easy, long: short, nasty: nice, interesting: boring. Carita Paradis shares in this respect D. A. Cruses view of antonyms as fully gradable adjectives, the members of a pair denoting degrees of some variable property. 193 When intensified, they move in opposite directions along the scale representing degrees of the relevant variable property (very good and very bad are more widely separated on the scale of merit than fairly good2 and fairly bad2).194 In cognitive terms, scalar adjectives are implicit comparatives in that mentioning one term automatically evokes the opposite. Since they occupy a range along a scale, the relationship of the opposite
191 192

idem, p. 51ff idem, p. 52n9 193 D. A. Cruse, op. cit., p. 204 194 ibid.

55

scalar pair short and long is conceptualized along the scale of length as short1, which ranges over the part of the scale of length that represents shortness , and long1, which correspondingly ranges over longness.195 The two parts of the scale of length have been further specified and restricted by the use of degree modifiers, both reinforcers and attenuators. The unmodified short2 and long2 are conceived of as occupying a range in the middle of the scale of shortness and longness respectively. Their subranges have been conceptualized in a mirror-like image. While very long2 and fairly short2 each occupies the upper part of the respective scales, fairly long2 and very short2 occupy the lower part of the scale of longness and shortness, respectively:196
short1 long1

(very short)2

short2 (fairly short2)

(fairly long)2

long2

(very long)2

Figure 2.2 The conceptualization of the scalar adjectives short and long

Extreme adjectives differ from typical scalar antonyms in that they do not represent a range on a scale, and in that they are not fully comparable, but they are similar to scalar adjectives in that the members of a pair of extreme adjectives are also contrary elements.197 The type of oppositeness involved can be accounted for by D.A. Cruses concept of pivotal region198 or Edward Sapirs zone of indifference.199 It is assumed that the terms of a pair of antonyms are symmetrically disposed around a neutral region of a scale, called the pivotal region. Therefore, the two adjectives in the pair do not
195 196

Carita Paradis 1997, p. 53 Cf. ibid. 197 Cf. idem, p. 58 198 D.A. Cruse, op. cit., p. 205 199 Cf. Carita Paradis 1997, p. 52

56

strictly bisect a domain: there is a range of values of the variable property, lying between those covered by the opposite terms, which cannot properly be referred to by either term.200 This entails that a statement containing one member of an antonym pair stands in a relation of contrariety with a parallel statement containing the other term.201 In semantic terms this can be described as It's neither good, nor bad and Its neither excellent, nor terrible.202 Limit adjectives appear so far to be the least typically gradable type of adjectives, since they are not comparable, they do not exhibit different degrees, and they cannot be used in exclamatory expressions. Absolute in meaning and dividing the conceptual domain of truth in two distinct parts, a limit adjective like true, for instance, stands in a lexical relation of complementarity or true incompatibility to its opposite, false, since something that is true cannot be false, and vice versa.203 D.A. Cruse identifies complementary adjectives by using two diagnostic tests. First, a statement containing one member of a complementary pair stands in a relation of contradiction to a parallel statement containing the other term. If we deny that one term applies to some situation, we effectively commit ourselves to the applicability of the other term; and if we assert one term, we implicitly deny the other. For instance, John is not [dead] entails and is entailed by John is [alive]. Second, complementaries can also be diagnosed by the anomalous nature of a sentence denying both terms: ?The hamster was neither dead nor alive.204 Conceptualized in an either-or mode of construal, limit adjectives such as dead, true, sober, identical and possible do not
200

ibid.. Cf. D. A. Cruse, op. cit., p. 205, the only lexical items referring to the pivotal region are tepid and lukewarm, between hot and cold. 201 D. A. Cruse, op. cit., p. 204 202 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 56 203 Cf. idem, p. 61. There are pairs of opposites that do not belong to the same class of adjectives, such as sober, a limit adjective, and its opposite scalar adjective drunk, which have been labelled hybrid antocomplementary adjectives, since they are neither fully-fledged antonyms nor fully-fledged complementaries. 204 Cf. D.A. Cruse, op. cit., p. 199

57

select scalar degree modifiers,205 and cannot, therefore, theoretically be compared to different standards: ?fairly [dead]/[possible], ?extremely [true]/[identical].206 A great many adjectives biased towards being limit adjectives are, however, susceptible to being laid out on a scale,207 i.e. they can be reinforced and attenuated with respect to the limit they are associated with: very [true], very [possible], pretty [sober], etc.208 Other such adjectives harmonize with totality modifiers, which are associated with completeness: perfectly [true], completely [dead], very [dead], almost [possible]/[true], quite [sufficient]/[true]. The possibility of limit adjectives to be approximated by almost seems to account for the existence of a limit that has to be transgressed in order for the adjective to apply.209 Compare: Very [alive]210: ? very [dead] Moderately [alive]: ? moderately [dead] More [alive] than before: ? [dead][er] than before Slightly [open]: ? slightly [shut] Moderately [open]: ? moderately [shut] More [open] than before: ? more [shut] than before and Very [clean]: [quite] dirty very [safe]: quite [dangerous] Fairly [clean]: fairly [dirty] fairly [safe]: fairly [dangerous] [Clean]er: [dirti]er [saf]er: more [dangerous]
205 206

idem, p. 58 idem, p. 57f. They differ from scalar adjectives and extreme adjectives in that they are not associated with a scale but with an either-or limit of criterial nature, such as death, truth and sobriety. (Cf. LGSWE, p. 526) Although adjectives such as dead, true, unique and perfect have inherently superlative or absolute meanings, in which case, degree marking can be considered redundant and even innappropriate, degree marking is not at all unusual in conversation. 207 idem, p. 57 208 ibid. 209 idem, p. 58 210 Unless postmodified by much, as in very much [alive], this collocation is doubtful.

58

In an attempt to substantiate his claim that gradability is a squishy category, Kazuo Kato211 analyses a corpus of polar adjectives, often referred to as nongradables par excellence. He assumes that dead, married, pregnant, impossible and perfect are nongradable in null contexts, where they occur with their primary either-or (denotational) meaning.212 In appropriate contexts, however, they seem to develop a secondary, scalar, more or less peripheral meaning.213 Kazuo Kato agrees with Edward Sapir in that this gradable meaning may be accounted for by the phenomenon of polar grading, which causes a polar term to be stretched a little, so as to take in the uppermost (or nethermost segment) of the gradable segments of reality.214 For instance, married, which has a strong either-or bias towards nongradability, will be contextually coerced into a scalar reading by premodification with degree modifiers. Booster very and the degree operator too invalidate the limit reading of married and prompt a scalar reading in very [married] and in too [married]: it made me feel more [married]Hes [married] all right. Very [married] We live very [married] Am I too old? Too fast? Too [married]?215 On hearing the above, a prescriptivist, unless he chooses to rebuke the speaker for using bad English, would at best remark: Im afraid your English is somewhat unorthodox. D. A. Cruse, instead, is of the opinion that John is more [married] than Bill and John is very [married], although interpretable, are nonetheless odd, and would probably be taken as jocular in style.216 The nongradable primary meaning of married, i.e. (being) united to one another in wedlock
211

Kazuo Kato, Gradable Gradability. In English Studies, 67, 1-6, 1986, p. 174-180 212 idem, p. 177. Kazuo Kato distinguishes prototypical meanings from the so-called denotation in that the former has a more-or-less character rather than the discrete either-or characteristics, while the latter is sharply contrasted with connotation and does not seem to admit of blurry edges. (Cf. idem, p. 178n) 213 ibid. 214 idem, p. 177 215 idem, p. 176 216 ibid.

59

(OED),217 to be in legal union as husband and wife/in a state of matrimony (WNWD), contrasts with the second, congenial to grading meaning, 218 that is pertaining to or characteristic of married persons or matrimony (OED). The allegedly non-gradable character of dead could, in Kazuo Katos view, be only accounted for by a rationalistic scientific concept of death that grammarians are imposing on the ordinary language, which often slips away from the grip of Procrustean reasoning.219 Examples of gradable dead are also plentiful in Kazuo Kato, eg: George Casselman turned up very, very [dead] [Dead]?- VeryEach was quite capable of leaving John the Tailor enormously [dead] he looked so [dead] (he looked so dreadful) It is surely the [dead]est place any of us have ever seen Its about the [dead]est writing I ever saw a very [dead] iris crushed against the cover of the typewriter On a very warm day like this everything looks ten times [dead]er.220 John Lyons, who regards gradability as an essential criterion in grouping opposites and the occasional explicit grading of ungradable opposites as a fact of normal language behaviour,221 holds that in the following dialogue it is not the ungradability of dead: alive in the language system that is being challenged, but the various secondary implications, or connotations of alive are presumably being graded: A: Is X still [alive] then? B: Very much so./And how! A: Lets not awake the dead.

217 218

The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989 (OED) ibid. 219 Kazuo Kato, op. cit., p. 176 220 idem, p. 174f. A similar example is found in Biber et al: Ill just - trim the very [dead] ends off the side there. (CONV) (op. cit p. 526) 221 op. cit., p.278 He, however, points out that [R]ecognition of the possibility of grading normally ungradable antonyms does not imply that there is not a sharp distinction to be drawn between gradable and ungradable antonyms in a language system. (idem, p. 279)

60

B: Im pretty much [alive].222 (TV-movie) This opinion tallies with that of Curmes, who holds that [W]hile we today in general avoid pleonastic comparison, such as more [abl]er and most [[careless]est], we do not feel such forms as more [perfect], most [perfect], [dead]er, [dead]est, more [unique], etc, as pleonastic, since we have in mind degrees of approach to something perfect, dead or unique.223 Gradable pregnant is, in the following examples, associated with the extreme stage in the process of pregnancy, that is in a very advanced stage of pregnancy: It all began with the baby chickens they came first while I was very [pregnant]... A thin young man in a thin leather jacket gets out of the driving seat, and goes around to the passenger door to draw forth a very [pregnant] woman.... On the proceeds he bought the Jaguar, which had been sold by a British army officer whose wife had grown too [pregnant] to fit into it 224 ...Belinda looked very [pregnant].225 By a little stretching, the nongradable adjective impossible, meaning not possible, turns gradable and means extremely difficult; hard to bear or very unpleasant in the following sentences: Writing became more and more [impossible] Yet, the more [impossible] it was for her to know where he
Jan Rusiecki, op. cit, p. 20n7, thinks that formulaic figurative locutions such as John is more dead than alive do not invalidate the statement of the non-gradability of the adjective dead, since this adjective cannot be used freely in typical comparative sentences, eg: * John is more dead than Peter or *John is more dead now than he was an hour ago. There are similar examples of figurative comparative constructions with gradable adjectives, eg: He is more good than bad. (i.e. It is more accurate to say that he is good than that he is bad.), She is more keen than wise. (i.e. She is keen rather than wise.) He is worse than bad/useless. A formulation such as She is more than happy (i.e. She is happy about it to a degree that is not adequately expressed by the word happy.), on the other hand, is synonymous to very happy. 223 Apud Kazuo Kato, op. cit., p. 175 224 idem, p. 177 225 Marcia Haag, op. cit., p. 114
222

61

was the calmer she became. Youre the most [impossible] person Ive ever met! How [impossible] to be married to anyone else! And how [impossible] it would have been to introduce Peter to her new world. 226 Edward Sapir is of the opinion that, while, logically, more [perfect] and most [perfect] might be interpreted as more nearly [perfect], psychologically they denote rather better and best in an upper tract of good.227 Biber et al hold that redundant and even inappropriate though degree marking by comparative or superlative, or modification by intensifiers may sound with inherently superlative adjectives such as dead, true, unique and perfect, this process is not at all uncommon in conversation. That will also be the case with several instances of gradable unique and perfect attested in the written registers: an eligible selfcontained gentlemans residence, very [unique]. (FICT)... the most [unique] transportation and distribution system for time sensitive inventories. (NEWS)... Its quite likely that the population will be so [unique] that the project is not feasible. (ACAD)... He had truly never expected to find his ship so [perfect], so clean and cared for, and ready. (FICT)... That it was more [perfect] to exist than not to exist, and that to exist as a matter of necessity was the most [perfect] of all. (NEWS)... The plates have more [perfect] planar partings. (ACAD)228 For Marcia Haag, even though their meanings should render them nongradable, lexemes pregnant and perfect have continuous scale, similar to that of the lexeme yellow. In a continuous scale, distinctions are made along a continuous grade from the point 'notA' with no upper bound. The adjective yellow, for example, appears
Kazuo Kato, p. 176 Cf. Kazuo Kato, op. cit., p. 177. A superlative form of mere, used only in a rhetorical sense, has been identified in hanging by the merest thread, i.e. to be in an extremely dangerous situation. (Biber et al 1999, p. 507) 228 idem., p. 526
227 226

62

to be continuously graded from a point not yellow through any number of iterations of yellower without bound: The light grew very [yellow], extremely [yellow], and then [yellow]er and [yellow]er, until it was absolutely the [yellow]est of all, then it grew [yellow]er still.229 The fact that such a scale is not tied to real-world measurement of any physical phenomenon, seems to account for the ostensible mismatch between the semantic denotations of pregnant and perfect and their ability to be graded. On a scale of perfection perfect, very [perfect], more [perfect] and most [perfect], all mean flawless; lacking nothing. The difference between the [perfect] wife and the most [perfect] wife is perhaps one of emphasis, since both wives are flawless, given their description by perfect.230 Note also the gradable instances of the emotive adjectives hostile and noble: Hes like being incredibly [hostile]. Its absolutely [noble]. Two attitudes seem to have led to the labelling of these lexemes as nongradables. One is that of the native speakers who, whenever asked to generate sentences with a particular word, tend to produce examples using the most prototypical meaning of the word rather than more peripheral meanings. The other is the linguists tendency to rely on data derived from introspection alone, which can hardly be sufficient for getting at linguistic facts.231 Dwight Bolinger 232 believes that comparative and superlative structures with extreme adjectives can be accounted for by the fondness of exaggeration that pulls many of the adjectives representing these extremes off their perches and comparing them {i.e. comparing their non-extreme meaning} then becomes possible: a more [perfect] union.
229 230

idem, p.. 114-115 ibid. 231 Kazuo Kato, op. cit., p. 178 232 Bolinger, Dwight, Adjective comparison: a semantic scale. In Journal of English linguistics, 1.2-10, 1967, p. 4

63

The lexicalization in English and Romanian, as well as in other languages, of the same set of gradable-nongradables should be regarded as a case of language universal rather than of internationalization of language. 233 Examples compiled from Romanian dictionaries and grammar books may illustrate this parallelism. The adjectives adevrat(), cstorit(), mritat(), complet(), desvrit(), edificator, mort/moart, nsrcinat, ntreg/ntreag, perfect(), posibil() etc,234 occur in both comparative and intensified structures: e ct se poate de [adevrat], nici c se poate mai [adevrat] adevrul cel mai [adevrat], foarte/prea [adevrat]; nici c se poate mai [cstorit()]; [mort] dea binelea; destul de [complet], un referat mai [complet], o informare mai [complet]; cel mai [desvrit] prieten; nu-i prea [ntreg] la minte; 235 mai [ntreg] la minte dect toi; cel mai [ntreg] la minte dintre toi; snt ct se poate de [ntreg] la minte; ... nici c se poate mai [ntreg] la minte; E foarte [posibil]; E puin [posibil] ca ; nu prea e [posibil] s; mai mult dect [posibil]; Eti cea mai [imposibil] creatur din viaa mea; E cam [imposibil] de realizat; E [aproape] imposibil. Marcia Haag provides examples of gradable viral and total in collocation with quite/not quite, nearly and altogether: This infection looks quite [viral] to me. (all the way A) But there's something not quite [viral] about that infection. (falling short of a point A) And this infection is nearly [viral] in its presentation. (close to A) This other infection is altogether [viral]. (all the way A)
The syntagm internaionalizare a limbii has been inspired by Lder, who uses it in the context of an ever-growing impact of mass-media on language evolution. (op. cit., p. 108) 234 In Vasile Robu and Iorgu Iordan, op. cit., p. 405, the adjectives in this category are referred to as adjectives that have semnificaii incompatibile cu variaiile de intensitate, being used only in the positive degree. Whenever compared or intensified, these adjectives get secondary meanings (sensuri secundare). 235 ibid.
233

64

The not-quite [total] destruction of my vehicle inconvenienced me. (falling short of a point A) The destruction of my project was altogether [total]. (all the way A) The nearly [total] ruin of my business depressed me. (close to A)236 Comparison is implicitly conveyed by a set of comparative and superlative adjective forms from Latin, which have been lexicalized as adjectives in the positive degree in the vocabulary of many languages: inferior: superior, inferior: posterior, junior: senior, major: minor, maximum: minimum, supreme, optimum. These Latin loans with the status of international words do not take degree modification in English, but are occasionally reclassified as gradable in Romanian: Pentru unele dintre ele se manifest tendina de le reinclude n opoziia de grad, de a le marca cu formani de comparaie ori de intensitate; tendina se explic prin aceea c gradele constituie o categorie gramatical implicnd, de cele mai multe ori, afectivul; de aceea ntlnim formulri ca mai [superior], mai puin [superior], cel mai [inferior] (om de cea mai inferioar spe!), condiii foarte [optime], cea mai [strlucit] confirmare. 237 2.3 Conclusions A first conclusion that seems to emerge from this brief survey of traditional grammar, structural semantics and cognitive linguistics approaches to the semantics of gradability in adjectives is that pairs of gradable opposites that denote scalar semantic dimensions must be regarded as basic patterns of intrinsically intensified lexical items. The relation of oppositeness holding between lexical items in
236 237

Marcia Haag, op. cit., p. 122 Vasile Robu and Iorgu Iordan, op. cit., p. 405, ,, chiar dac aceste forme nu snt standardizate , ele apar frecvent n vorbirea de toate zilele, crend premizele refacerii normei. They do not (or should not) have degrees, ,,pentru c snt ele nsei alte grade dect pozitivul, i, dac vorbitorii le trec din nou prin opoziia de grade, nseamn c semele de comparaie sau de intensitate pe care le conin au slbit ori s-au neutralizat prin uzur.

65

the structure of vocabularies also accounts for the adjective class having been chiefly conceptualized in pairs of opposites. The values of features denoted by adjectives are abstract representations of measurement that are known as degrees. Linguists assume that degrees constitute a cline rather than a scale of fixed points, i.e. they are ordered as a mental scale along some dimension. They differ in that while degrees of scalar adjectives denote intervals, degrees of non-scalar adjectives denote digits or points on the intensification scale. Contrary to prescriptivist approaches, which view adjectives as gradable or non-gradable, modern linguistics has taken into account four complementary semantic and syntactic typicality criteria, set up by Quirk et al, in the classification of the adjective class.238 Syntactic functions of adjectives have been found to impose selectional restrictions on the use and meaning of adjectives. While central adjectives have the ability of functioning both attributively and predicatively, peripheral adjectives are either attributive or predicative in function. Furthermore, central adjectives such as old and poor can perform both an inherent descriptive function and a non-inherent emotive function. Unlike inherent central adjectives, which characterize the referent of the noun directly,239 the grammatical function of non-inherent central adjectives, labelled emotive/evaluative adjectives, is associated with their semantic role, i.e. they have achieved a secondary intensifying gradable meaning when they are restricted to attributive function. It is this finding that may account for the idiosyncrasies in the grading of certain subclasses of non-gradable adjectives par excellence, which have been referred to as gradable non-gradables in the present study. Gradability, therefore, is no longer grasped as an either-or feature of adjectives, but as a squishy category or, in cognitivist terms, a mode of construal. By satisfying all criteria of classification of adjectives, scalar adjectives (big: small, difficult: easy, good: bad, long: short) are implicitly fully gradable. The use of one member of a pair automatically evokes its antonym linguists assume the existence of a
238 239

See 2.3.2 Biber et al, p. 516

66

scale in the semantic structure of a gradable adjective.240 Moreover, the unbounded more-or-less mode of construal of scalar adjectives makes them relative in meaning, therefore context-dependent, i.e. the truth conditions of sentences containing gradable opposites may vary from context to context. Edward Sapir holds that the logical norm between them is not felt as a true norm but rather as a blend area in which qualities graded in opposite directions meet.241 That would be the case of old and young, which define the scale of age, or of good and bad, which define the scale of goodness. Extreme adjectives and limit adjectives are regarded as marginal in terms of gradability. As implicit superlatives, extreme adjectives (excellent, huge, minute, terrific, disastrous, brilliant) indicate an extreme, (almost) fixed degree, conceptually incompatible with the semantic feature of gradability. A case in point is the analysis in terms of hyponymy relation of the extreme adjectives excellent and terrible, which occupy the extremes of the mental scale of merit as hyponyms of the pair of scalar adjectives good and bad that cover, as hyperonyms, in-between areas along the same scale.242 Unlike scalar adjectives and extreme adjectives, which are subjectively applied to a certain referent, limit adjectives (dead, fair, identical, possible, sober, sufficient, true) are conceptualized in terms of the unbounded either-or mode of construal, that is, they either apply in a certain situation or they do not. Extreme adjectives have traits of both scalar and limit adjectives. They are similar to scalar adjectives in that they are conceptualized according to a scale and differ in that they represent an ultimate point rather than a range of a scale. Extreme adjectives are also both similar to limit adjectives, in that they do not represent a range, and differ, in that they are not associated with a limit. Due to a great deal of flexibility in the semantic make-up of adjectives and freedom in the use of the adjective system, the analysis in terms of the above three types of gradability could not whatsoever account for the grading of non-gradables. To perform
240 241

D.A. Cruse, op. cit., p. 204 Apud Lyons, op. cit., p. 277 242 See p. 49f

67

this, cognitive linguists have introduced the concept of contextual modulation. Without altering the meaning of the adjective base, contextually modulated adjectives may, in appropriate contexts, be coerced to take on a particular reading, which deviates from the established or biased meaning of the adjective.243 Adjectives such as dead, married, perfect, pregnant, etc. may map onto two different types of gradability modes of construal, i.e. a limit/either-or mode and a scalar/more or less one. It is this mode of construal, or conceptualization of the members of each type of adjective pair, that selects the type of degree modification. Some of the selectional restrictions on intensifier and adjective collocations will be examined while dealing with the literature on intensifiers and the description and categorization of intensifiers on semantic principles.

243 idem, p. 59. This coercion seems to be more common in the direction from limit to scalar.

68

3. INTENSIFIERS Adverbs can either be part of an element of the clause as modifiers, most commonly modifying an adjective or another adverb, or they can function themselves as circumstantial element of the clause, that is, as adverbials,244 enhancing or diminishing the truth value of that clause. In other words, adverbs may perform their modifying function either as epithets, or incidental components of sentences,245 and as complements, or essential components of sentences. It is not, however, uncommon for the same adverb to function as both modifier/epithet and as adverbial/complement, sometimes with considerable variation in meaning: To put on a grey shirt once more was strangely [pleasing].246 Strangely, it is this very aspect that has been neglected. Micks been acting [very] strangely lately. Her voice was strangely [familiar]. Strangely [enough], I wasnt really that disappointed.247 In view of their basic syntactic function of modifiers of adjectives and adverbs, the syntactically optional class of intensifiers248/adverbs of degree249/degree adverbs/degree intensifiers251/degree modifiers 252/degree words250/degree specifying words253 has been split off from the large general class of adverbs. They have, however, rarely been classified in terms of
244 245

Harold Palmer, Grammar of Spoken English, CUP, 1976, p. 249. Since they do not substantially change the meaning of the modified element, and have a casual, almost paranthetical, footing in the sentence, adverbs as epithets may be easily added or taken out. (Cf. idem, p. 250) 246 ibid. 247 LDCE, p.1426 248 Quirk et al. 1978, 1985 249 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 8 250 Dwight Bolinger 1972 251 Sidney Greenbaum, Verb-Intensifier Collocations in English, Mouton. The Hague.Paris, 1970 252 Carita Paradis 1994, p.158 253 Marcia Haag, op. cit., p. 113-126

69

morphological class, i.e. as adjective, adverb and verb intensifiers, or as adjective degree modifiers, adverb degree modifiers and verb degree modifiers,254 for the mere reason that there have been traced more similarities than differences among the members of this adverb class. They are similar in that they are notionally related, i.e. they all indicate a certain graded value of the item they apply to and are different in that they indicate different values of some feature of the item they modify.255 Few purely adjectival and adverbial degree modifiers, and even fewer purely verbal ones, have been identified. 256 There are instead dozens of dual purpose ones to set against these,257 such as absolutely, entirely, hardly, quite, rather, which go with a whole range of different phrases in different syntactic contexts. 3.1 The Literature on Intensifiers. Intensification Frames Intensification has been conceptualized as either a unidirectional process of amplification or, most commonly, a twofold, bi-directional process of amplification and/or attenuation of a feature.258 There is, accordingly, consensus regarding the use of two basic sets of lexical items as markers of this process. Intensifiers scale the meaning of the modified element on an abstractly conceived intensity scale either upwards, as amplifiers/ reinforcers, or downwards from an assumed norm,259 as downtoners/attenuators. Both the amplifier set and the downtoner set have further been analysed with variable values of subsets on the
D.J.Allerton, op. cit., p 16. Due to the fact that some words, (such as very (good), relatively (weak)) occur exclusively or predominantly as modifiers of adjectives (and also of adjective-based adverbs) while others (such as greatly (appreciate) seem to be specialized in the role of modifiers of the verb within the verb phrase. 255 Carita Paradis, 1997, p. 21 256 Fairly, pretty, very, for instance, are specialized as modifiers of adjectives. 257 D.J.Allerton, op. cit., p. 16 258 As shown in the Prolegomena. 259 Cf. Quirk et al. 1985, p. 445
254

70

intensification cline. 260 It was not until the turn of the nineteenth century that linguists began to enquire into the nature and status of intensifiers. And before long they came to realise that it is by the company they keep rather than through hard and fast grammatical rules that these lexical items will best be known. Published on the eve of the 20th century and considered to be still rewarding literature for an interested reader,261 Intensives and Downtoners262 and Die Gradadverbien im Englischen263 approach intensifiers diachronically. The former provides a detailed and clarifying semantic treatment264 of a series of intensifying adverbs (fully, pretty, quite, rather, right, so, very) on a nineteenth century English literary corpus. The latter comprises, in alphabetical order, an enormous sample of adverbs which are predominantly adverbs of manner as well.265 Since the major aim of his work is to show the historical development of adverbs of degree, Eugen Borst illustrates his findings with a corpus ranging from late ME to the end of the nineteenth century. 266. Unlike C. Stoffel and Eugen Borst, who distinguish between intensives and downtoners, Gustav Kirchner 267 treats them indiscriminately, as gradadverbien. 268 In an attempt to catalogue English intensifiers, and aware of the continuous change and
Apart from a short survey of previous work on the subject, the primary aim of the second part of this chapter is a diachronic-synchronic approach to intensifier paradigms. 261 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 8 262 C. Stoffel, C., Intensives and Down-toners. Anglistische Forschungen 1, Heidelberg, 1901 263 Eugen Borst, Die Gradaverbien im Englischen, Anglistische Forschungen 10, Heidelberg, 1902 264 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 8 265 ibid. 266 ibid.. Bcklund acknowledges his idebtedness to Borst: A great deal of information from this work has been used in my treatise to complement that which can be gathered from my own material. 267 Gustav Kirchner, Gradadverbien im heutigen Englisch , Halle (Saale), 1955 268 Gustav Kirchner claims that many adverbs fulfil both functions.
260

71

accretion of adverbs of degree, he supplements Eugen Borsts list with over one hundred items, a great number of which chiefly express manner. Dwight Bolinger observes that although many verbs and nouns are regularly intensified manifestations of degree and intensity are commonly associated with adjectives and adverbs, not so commonly with nouns and verbs. Thereby he naturally assumes that [i]f adjectives are not consistently intensifiable, perhaps the other lexical or content categories are not consistently unintensifiable. Expressing the strong belief that in the grammatical process of intensification lexical identities, or shared components, can be traced across all four major categories: adjective, adverb, noun and verb, his main concern is to ascertain some shared semantic features across the verb and the noun classes. 269 He identifies four classes of intensifiers according to the region of the scale that they occupy,270 i.e. boosters, compromisers, diminishers and minimizers, thereafter to be acknowledged, with some variation, as subtypes of intensifiers in the literature. The syntagm degree adjective is used to cover both adjectives and adverbs, while the term intensifier stands for any device that scales a quality, whether up or down or somewhere between the two. 271 Dwight Bolingers option for an invented corpus did not always felicitously serve his purpose. Concerned with the fundamental kinship between the intensification of verb phrases and the intensification of noun-phrases, as well as the kinship between the intensification of adverbs and the intensification of adjectives, Bolinger resorts to operations of shifting such as: Wasting time is so bad. Such time-wasting is bad. They twisted my arm so that I had to give in. With such (with all that) arm-twisting I had to give in. walking so slow = such slow walking
269

1972, p. 15. Since most of the facts to be brought out are already well known in connection with adjectives and adverbs 270 ibid 271 idem, p. 17

72

talking so pleasantly = such pleasant talking speaking out so angrily = such angry speaking out Ulf Bcklund attaches unprecedented attention to the context in the broadest sense of the word, as an essential means to understand the denotations and connotations of adverbs of degree. His collection of data spans over three stylistic strata.272 It is supplemented with answers of eight educated informants interviewed about cases of particular interest and a brief account of the relevant context where necessary.273 Several examples illustrate the same pattern, as a rule. The primary aims of Bcklunds two-part study have been set up in Introduction, itself a valuable contribution to the topic,274 in that it undertakes to: (a) establish the ranges of adverbs of degree, i.e. what different elements they can collocate with; (b) take into account both the internal and external (or situational) context, in order to set up a semantically based subcategorization of the greatest possible delicacy, i.e. with great depth in detail for those adverbs which have a frequency of occurrence sufficiently high to permit that; (c) examine the distribution of the adverbs in the three stylistic strata. (d) make an inventory of all adverbs of degree and a comparison between them as to their frequency of occurrence; 275 The first and at the same time ampler part of the study discusses the following adverbs of degree arranged in ten chapters on semantic principles:
idem, p. 11: (1) the prose of newspapers and magazines, (2) conversational prose in British and American newspapers and magazines and (3) the narrative prose of novels and stage directions. 273 ibid. 274 Unfortunately, Ulf Bcklunds Introduction, which is noteworthy for his keen observations about previous work on the topic, makes no reference to Dwight Bolingers study Degree Words, published a year before, in 1972 275 idem, p. 10
272

73

I. Adverbs Expressing the Complete or Partial Absence of the Concepts Denoted by their Heads (almost, nearly, practically, virtually);276 II. Adverbs Expressing the Minimum Degree or the Degree just above the Non-presence of the Concepts Denoted by their Heads (barely, hardly, scarcely grading upwards and just, grading downwards);277 III.Adverbs Expressing a Low Degree (a little, a bit, a trifle, a shade, mildly, slightly, somewhat);278 IV. Adverbs Expressing a Low Degree of a Positive Idea (little);279 V. Adverbs Expressing a Moderate Degree (quite, rather, pretty, fairly, reasonably, moderately, relatively, comparatively);280 VI. Adverbs Expressing an Increasing Degree 281 (increasingly); VII. Adverbs Expressing a High Degree (very, bloody, damn, jolly, mighty precious, right; awfully, dreadfully, frightfully, horribly, terribly, terrifically, most; highly, extremely, exceedingly, remarkably; abundantly, cruciatingly, excessively, extraordinarily, intensely, supremely; enormously, immensely, outstandingly, vastly; immeasurably, tremendously; well; infinitely; singularly; furiously; greatly; heavily; largely; considerably, a good /great deal, (by) far, infinitely, a lot, a damn sight)282 VIII. Adverbs Expressing the Highest Degree (altogether, completely, entirely, fully, totally, utterly, wholly; absolutely, all, perfectly; blind, clean, dead(ly), downright, plain; genuinely, positively, purely, really, thoroughly, trully);283 IX. Adverbs Meeting the demand of a Subsequent Verbal
276 277

idem, Chapter I, p. 19-36. idem, Chapter II, p. 37-46. 278 idem, Chapter III, p. 47-66. 279 idem, Chapter IV, p. 67-8. 280 idem, Chapter V, p. 69-155. 281 idem, Chapter VI, p. 156-7. 282 idem, Chapter VII, p.158-193 283 idem, Chapter VIII, p. 194-237

74

(enough, sufficiently);284 X. PRO-Forms in the Function of Adverbs of Degree. 285 The second part is a dictionary of adverbs of degree arranged in an alphabetical order. The types of grammatical heads they collocate with286 and the stylistic distribution of these heads (Np.: newspaper language; C: conversational language: N.: narrative language) have also been marked. A number of 23 tables tabulate the relative frequencies of these adverbs. Never before Ulf Bcklund had psycho-linguistic and semantico-pragmatic aspects been taken into account in approaches to intensifiers. Previous work made a mere diachronic description of the adverbialization of some adjectives, with additional notes on intonational patterns (quite and rather).287 Ulf Bcklund uses an elaborate metalinguistic frame to encapsulate semantic and pragmatic features of adverbs of degree and their collocating heads, that is, positive, negative and neutral adjective heads, static and dynamic adjective heads, apex-words, call-words, definiteness and indefiniteness, dynamicalness and mathematicalness. 288 Ulf Bcklund censures C. Kirchner for both his disregard of psychological and stylistic factors and a much wider interpretation than it should have been the case, given the concept

idem, Chapter IX, p. 238-240 idem, Chapter X, p. 241-6 286 idem, p. 10. The heads of the collocations are grouped into the following six categories: Adjectives, Adverbs, Comparatives, Prepositional Phrases, Too + Adjectives and Adverbs and Superlatives. Verb and noun collocations have only been taken into consideration as a valuable complement in the discussion of quite and rather, just as numerals have been included in the collocations of almost and nearly. Bcklund also gives due attention to the syntactic feature of Front-position dealt with briefly, at the end of the treatment of each adverb, as a semantic feature applying to most collocations of adverbs of degree. 287 C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 38ff; Bolinger, 1972, p. 223ff 288 Most of the terms are employed in Bcklunds study <Almost> and <Nearly> Dynamic and Static Meaning. In Cahiers de Lexicology 47/1985-2, vol. XLVII, p. 65-120
285

284

75

of Gradadverbien.289 He also disagrees with Kirchners labelling as fashion words adverbs such as tremenduously, absolutely, terribly and jolly, on decline in his list. Moreover, adverbs specified by Kirchner as having originated in American, are found in the British part of Bcklunds material290. Bcklund also mentions Greenbaums study on verb-intensifier collocations291 as the fourth in a series of monographs which deals specifically with adverbs of degree.292 The avowed aim of this experiment is to find out tendencies and restrictions in the collocability of the intensifiers badly, completely, entirely, greatly, (very) much and utterly, as well as of two emphasizers/emphasizing adjuncts 293 certainly and really. The study is meritorious in that it is based on various tests (Evaluation Test, Compliance Test and Completion Test) that a large number of informants have undergone. The large number of examples on which the statistical conclusions have been drawn cannot however compensate for Sidney Greenbaums disregard of pragmatic analysis, the situational context having been left out of account.294 The classification of intensifiers has in the course of time been refined along similar semantic lines, with a few exceptions. By placing meaning firmly in the context of grammar, Angela Downing and Philip Lockes systemic-functional model of grammar, deserves due attention for the exploration of grammar in a discoursal context.295 Their approach to the Modification of the
Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 9. Similar to Borst, a great number of adverbs in Kirchners study chiefly express manner. 290 ibid.. 291 Sidney Greenbaum, op. cit. 292 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 8 293 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 447 294 The Completion Test is most valuable in that it can establish the principal collocate for each adverb, i.e. the adverb appearing in at least ten percent of the responses. (Ulf Bcklund 1973, p.5) Greenbaum holds that the collocations yielded in this test also suggest the possibility in some cases of extrapolating from the data to establish semantic sets of lexical items that can collocate in a particular syntactic relationship with a given item or sets of items. (op. cit., 79) 295 Angela Downing and Philip Locke, op. cit., p IX
289

76

Attribute296 differentiates between the markers of the category of comparison, labelled grading (of the Attribute), and those of the category of intensification (of the Attribute), which is perceived as a kind of grading.297 The six basic forms of grading are summarised in six levels. The first five levels roughly correspond, in a descending order, to what are commonly known as the degrees of comparison, i.e. absolute superiority (the easiest, the most difficult), comparative superiority 298 (easier, more difficult), equality (as easy/ difficult as), comparative inferiority ( less easy/difficult) and absolute inferiority (the least easy/difficult). Grade 6, of sufficiency, (easy/difficult enough, adequately furnished) is regarded as a small subsystem in itself, consisting of three terms: excess, sufficiency, insufficiency expounded by the degree adverbs too, enough and not enough, respectively. As Table 3.1 illustrates, the authors concern lies in the patterning of attributive and predicative structures with these adverbs in premodification or postmodification of adjectives and count and non-count nouns. It should be noted that only the predicative structure is used for the expression of excess with uncountable and plural nouns:299
Sufficiency Excess Sufficiency Insufficiency Excess predicative This knife is too sharp. Is this knife sharp enough? This knife is not sharp enough. The weather was too wet. These knives are too sharp. attributive This is too sharp a knife. This is a sharp enough knife. This is not a sharp enough knife. *It was too wet weather. *These are too sharp knives.

idem, p. 520 ff idem, p. 522 298 idem, p. 521. Attention has been drawn to (1) the reading in a positive sense of the potentially misleading syntagms the upper classes, the lower classes, higher education, my inner life, the outer walls and (2) the meaning of formations of superior degree such as uppermost, innermost, outermost, foremost, hindmost and topmost. 299 Adapted from idem, p. 522
297

296

77

Table 3.1 The grade of sufficiency (adapted)

The degree of excess can sometimes be expounded by the lexical item over (AmE overly) used as the first element of a compound adjective, or by other lexical adverbs in ly, such as overanxious, overly cautious, exaggeratedly pessimistic: I like things overly [organized]. (TV movie) Intensification is described in terms of three degrees: high, medium and attenuated. These degrees are said to constitute a cline rather than a scale of fixed points and are realised exclusively by lexical items rather than varied structures.300 The tokens that express high intensification are grammatical adverbs (most, more than, very), lexical adverbs (all, quite, how), adjectives, which are illustrated in both their attributive and predicative position and, exceptionally, nouns. A medium degree of intensification is rendered by the degree adverbs quite, pretty, rather and fairly,301 corresponding to four sub-degrees in order of descending intensification.302 Emphasis is put on the harmonious interplay between the semantic role of these modifiers and their intonational contours in informal speech, where reinforcement by stress and intonation render the intended degree of intensification. Modification by attenuation refers to a slight degree of the Attribute or its entire absence303 and it is broadly expounded by two sets: slightly, somewhat, mildly, to some extent, a little, a bit, 304
300 301

ibid. They are known in the literature as compromisers (Quirk et al., 1978; 1985; Nevalainen and Rissanen, op.cit.) or moderators (Carita Paradis, 1994; 1997) 302 Angela Downing and PhilipLocke, op. cit., p. 523 303 idem, p. 525 304 This set roughly corresponds to the subclass of diminishers, of the downtoner class, in Quirk et al.1978 and 1985. Vasile Robu and Iorgu Iordans framework is broadly similar to that of Downing and Locke, op. cit., p. 407: Gradul intensitii minime constituie prima treapt marcat fa de baza zero i are formanii adverbiali foarte puin , foarte slab ,

78

and the discourse particles kind of and sort of305 in the set of compromisers. Slight attenuation can also be conveyed by premodifying or postmodifying non-assertive polar interrogative and conditional clauses by using at all (Are you at all worried? Are you worried at all? if its at all possible. );306 negating a high degree by means of not very, not quite, not entirely, not particularly, not fully, not too, not altogether, not nearly.307 Submodification and recursive modification are other two systems of modification by means of which modifiers of degree are graded or intensified by a submodifier (sm), eg rather less [interesting], hardly [good] enough, not nearly [clever] enough, quite [old] enough.308 In Angela Downing and Philip Lockes opinion, submodification of the Attribute reflects two converse types of intensification which are characteristic of many English speakers,309 namely (a) That of attenuating the negative value of an Attribute:
extrem de puin etc., n care adverbialele slab i puin snt precedate de adverbele cantitativ-calitative ale limitei ultime foarte, extrem (de), grozav (de), uluitor (de) .a.m.d., n general aceleai cu care se realizeaz gradul intensitii maxime aflat la polul opus. Datorit restriciilor de natur semantic, intensitatea minim poate fi marcat la un numr limitat de adjective, cum snt cele care semnific dimensiuni spaiale i participiile obiectiv-tranzitive: foarte puin dispus foarte slab orientat, extrem de puin orientat etc. Gradul intensitii sczute, insuficiente, on the other hand, se marcheaz cu adverbialele cantitative puin, slab, insuficient, nesatisfctor: puin cunosctor, slab pregtit, insuficient orientat, edin slab organizat. 305 They belong to the set of compromisers, the type of phrasal constructions known in the literature as discourse particles, softening connectives or hedges. 306 Attenuator at all belongs to the subclass of minimizers, of the downtoner class. (Quirk et al. 1978 and 1985) 307 These intensifiers can also express reservation. (Angela Downing and Philip Locke, op. cit., p. 525) 308 It will be noted that the submodifier of the modifier enough is placed immediately before the adjective. (idem, p. 530) 309 ibid.

79

His work is really not quite [accurate] enough. (b) That of reinforcing a positive value: She wore the most absolutely [gorgeous] dress. The submodifier-head-qualifier structure (smhq), which occurs in both spoken and written discourse, has been illustrated in Table 3.1a below, together with the submodification of descriptive modifiers in ly, a combination which tends to be avoided in writing more than in speech.310 As also illustrated in same table, a minimal degree of attribution, often implying a certain degree of the opposite Attribute, can be rendered by semi-negatives and non-assertives, glossed as minimizers in Quirk et al,311 eg: none too [happy], (not) any too [successful], hardly [likely], scarcely [believable], barely [necessary] and barely/hardly/scarcelyat all.
sm far much much quite not all none none just not nearly too more the less the most all that the more the more the less as as m h servile productive remarkable useful attractive intriguing justifiable enjoyable complicated nice quite very most so sort of kind of rather somewhat really absolutely extremely extraordinarily really sm m seriously deeply unusually oddly mysteriously threateningly sentimentally strangely soaking stark badly attractively absurdly h wounded grieved late aggressive silent dark inclined preoccupied wet naked written presented long

Table 3.1a

310 311

Adapted from idem, p. 529 Quirk et al. 1985

80

The negative structures not at all, not in the least and not in the slightest are said to express absence or denial of the Attribute.312 The emotive use of the degree operator too is rendered by expressions such as: too awful for words! and its maximizing use in I shall be only too pleased to help you (very pleased). Table 3.1b comprises attested examples of subsubmodification, and even subsubsubmodification of submodifiers in AdjGs, i.e. the submodification by subsubmodifiers (ssm) and by subsubsubmodifiers (sssm), an over-elaborated and emotive structure:313
sssm The report is not The concert was Those are She was ssm all quite much quite sm that unusually too the most m tremendously deeply easily stunningly h convincing. moving. forgotten handsome truths. woman noun

really

Table 3.1b

A quite familiar type of submodification is the repetition, in familiar speech, of certain short adverbs to modify and submodify adjectival heads,314 eg very very [good], more and more [dificult], much much [better], far far [longer], less and less [interesting]. Last but not least, recursive modification of the Attribute consists in the use of two or more paratactically or hypotactically related adverbial modifiers. This type of structure can be found in certain florid styles of writing and would prove excessively ornate if used too much in a single text.315 Angela Downing and Philip Locke provide the following attested examples:

Angela Downing and Philip Locke, op. cit., 525f; Vasile Robu and Iorgu Iordan: Adverbul deloc neag total calitatea, echivalnd-o cu antonimul adjectivului respectiv: nu e deloc frumos = e urt; un om deloc dispus la concesii = inflexibil. (op. cit., p. 407) 313 Adapted from idem, p. 529f 314 ibid. 315 ibid.

312

81

 absurdly, incomprehensibly and untypically long... the most stylish, the most gorgeously, adorably, artificial, slightly patronising jokey tone... His latest novel has been unusually, in fact surprisingly, though quite deservedly successful. Within a span of ten years or so, Randolph Quirk and coworkers316 published a series of seminal comprehensive grammars.317 An essential delimitation that they have made is between semantic roles and grammatical functions of intensifiers. They distinguish seven main categories of semantic role318 and four broad categories of grammatical function. 319 Of the former, only two are of interest to the study of intensifiers, namely the modality role (emphasis, approximation and restriction) and the degree role (amplification, diminution and measure). The grammatical realisation of their semantic roles makes intensifiers map onto the category of narrow orientation intensifying subjuncts.320 Quirk et al provide a coherent theoretical framework for the analysis of the category of intensification.321 Concepts such as degree, gradability, intensification and emphasis as well as the lexico-grammatical items marked for these features (intensifiers/ adverbs of degree, emphasizers) are dealt with. Two general sets of intensifiers, i.e. amplifiers and downtoners, have been acknowledged. They are further subdivided into maximizers and boosters, which scale the feature of the modified head upwards, and approximators, compromisers, diminishers and minimizers,
Quirk et al. 1985 The Quirkian model has, with a few exceptions, become an inspiring source for all the writers on the topic. 318 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 479ff 319 idem, p. 501ff 320 idem, p. 589ff. Since they fall in between modifiers and adjuncts, subjuncts are subject to fewer restrictions, having a syntactically subordinate role in comparison with other sentence elements. Emphasizers and focusing subjuncts are the other members of the class of narrow orientation subjuncts. 321 Carita Paradis 1997 and Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen 2002, acknowledge their indebtedness to Quirk et al.s framework of adverb functions.
317 316

82

which scale downwards from an assumed norm. 322 Intensifying adjectives, as pointed out before, have been classified into three semantic subclasses, relative to the noun they modify, i.e. emphasizers, amplifiers and downtoners.323 An important point in their discussion is the analysis of the cooccurrence restrictions placed on intensifiers by the semantic features of their collocating heads. It has been argued that intensifier subtypes provide nothing more than a rough guide to semantic distinctions, because the varying effects of intensifiers represent a semantic gradient, which is obscured by a clear-cut division into classes; some intensifiers are sometimes used for different effects; speakers vary in their use of intensifiers.324 Carita Paradis examines semantico-pragmatic aspects of notional paradigms.325 She acknowledges her indebtedness to three models of the internal structure of the class of degree modifiers: the scalar model, Quirk et als branching/classifying model and D.J. Allertons classification.326 Her model is structured on five different paradigms of modifier, the members of which express more or less the same degree and which can be distinguished according to the region of the scale they occupy. 327 The
322

Quirk et al 1985 (p. 590) argue that these subtypes provide nothing more than a rough guide to semantic distinctions. This is because (i) the varying effects of intensifiers represent a semantic gradient, which is obscured by a clear-cut division into classes; (ii) some intensifiers are sometimes used for different effects; and (iii) speakers vary in their use of intensifiers. 323 The two general sets of intensifiers correspond to two adjective sets, i.e. amplifiers and downtoners, already commented upon in 2.3.2 324 Quirk et al 1985, p. 590 325 Carita Paradis 1994, 1997 326 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 26. Her model recognizes the same levels of degree as Quirk et al do, except for minimizers. Allertons model is of interest to this paper inasmuch as it represents an inspiring source for Carita Paradis. 327 idem, p. 68

83

grading force of these members forms a scale, or rather a cline, ranging from strongly reinforcing modifiers to strongly attenuating modifiers.328 The scale referred to is a mental model, on which the degree modifiers form a continuum from maximum force to minimum force. The basic difference between Carita Paradis and the three models she has drawn on is that in her cognitive model modifiers are constrained by the semantic features of the collocating adjective on two dimensions: totality and scalarity.329 Moreover, since both among scalar degree modifiers and totality modifiers there are items that reinforce and others that attenuate the value of the modified head, 330 degree modifiers have been broadly classified as reinforcers (maximizers and boosters) and attenuators (moderators, approximators and diminishers).331 In agreement with previous intensifying frames, in Carita Paradis maximizers exhibit the strongest degree of reinforcement, followed by boosters. Moderators and approximators are just slightly attenuating, whereas diminishers have a stronger attenuating force.332 Carita Paradis discards from her frame the awkward and misleading functional term intensifier, on account of intensification being a concept which implies reinforcement, whereas [t]he class of degree words referred to by both D.J. Allerton and Quirk et al consists not only of reinforcers but also of attenuators.333 Instead, she uses the syntagm degree modifier, as an umbrella term for all forms and functions of the degree words.334 Her thesis explores, on a cognitive approach basis, the semantic constraints which govern the relationship between a
ibid. ibid. the occurrence of the different types of degree modifiers is ultimately conditioned by gradable features in the adjective. 330 idem, p. 28 331 idem, p. 27. This classification is shown in Table 2.1, on Totality modifiers and scalar modifiers combined with levels of degree, and commented upon in section 2.3.3. 332 idem, p. 27 333 Carita Paradis 1997, p 14 334 idem, p. 15
329 328

84

series of degree modifiers and their adjectival heads in terms of the principle of semantic harmony.335 She identifies an intimate relationship holding between degree modifiers and their heads, the former being semantically licensed by a gradable feature in the modified head.336 It is the mode of construal, i.e. type of gradability, that accounts for the sameness of the members of intensifier paradigms. The differences between them are to be found in the backgrounded content domain, whether in terms of a slight difference of their force or with respect to the attitudinal interpretation of the word.337 3.1.1 Defining and Labelling Intensifiers There is little consistency regarding the categorization and the labelling of degree words both by class and by function. The difficulties associated with these methodological issues have been attributed to the complexity and fuzziness338 that characterize intensifiers as members of the adverb class, and which, undoubtedly, mirror the heterogeneity of the adverb class as a whole. A first observation refers to difficulties in defining the notion of degree in itself and also in relation to quantification and modality. There are word-class labels in the literature, such as adverbs of degree, degree adverbs,339 gradadverbien,340 which co-occur with functional labels of the type modifier, adjunct, subjunct, intensifier and the conflated labels intensivadverbien, 341
335

Paradis study acknowledges a marked omission in the standard grammars of English and caters for a real-life need within the field of language pedagogy. (Gunter Lorenz, Book review, Carita Paradis, Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English, Lund, Lund University Press, 1997. In International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3:2, 1998, p. 332-4, http://www.sz.uni-erlangen.de/abteilungen/personen/grlorenz/Caritareview.html, 336 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 15 337 ibid.. 338 idem, p. 12 339 Dwight Bolinger 1972, Bcklund 1973, Downing and Locke, op. cit 340 Eugen Borst, op. cit., Gustav Kirchner, op. cit. 341 Gustav Kirchner, op. cit.

85

intensive adverbs, 342 intensifying adverbs,343 adverbs of intensity. 344 While Allerton uses the term intensifier for a subgroup of the class of adverbs of degree, namely modifiers of adjectives/adjectivals,345 in Quirk et al the label intensifier is an umbrella term for all kinds of degree words.346 The term adverb of degree is used in Allerton as both an umbrella term and a term for certain verbal adverbials, i.e. modifiers of verbs. Carita Paradis, on the other hand, uses degree modifier as a term that covers all kinds of lexical items that specify the degree of another element, irrespective of form and grammatical function.347 Gunter Lorenz makes one amendment regarding the reasons which prompted Carita Paradis to make a rather arbitrary choice of labels for the classification of intensifiers. He agrees with the latter in that the terms intensifiers and intensification are misleading, but considers the term degree modifiers at best uninspired, on account of the Quirkian label intensifiers, being semantically akin to the name of another paradigm, namely that of emphasizers. Thereby by merely retrieving the standard list of adverbs of degree, Paradis draws a narrow, arbitrary line through a fuzzy category and misses an opportunity to add another dimension to her study.348 For Gunter Lorenz the issue is not merely one of terminology. By using it, Quirk et al implicitly acknowledge the functional similarity of the two syntactic classes; when modifying gradable words, such as adjectives, emphasizers may have a scaling effect very similar to that of intensifiers.349 We share Gunter Lorenz viewpoint that [t]his gradience
342 343

C. Stoffel, op. cit. Dwight Bolinger 1972; Angela Downing and Philip Locke, op. cit. 344 William Labov, op. cit. 345 D.J. Allerton, op. cit. The term adjectivals is used to denote adjectives proper, participles used as adjectives and gradable adverbs, most of which are derived from adjectives. 346 Quirk et al 1985,. 347 Carita Paradis 1997 is discontented with the fact that neither Halliday nor Collins make use of a label to indicate the kinship between degree modification of adjectives and degree modification of verbs. (p. 15) 348 Gunter Lorenz, op. cit., p. 333 349 ibid..

86

between the two paradigms is probably most tangible in the case of really: although really still acts as emphasizer in most positions, in front of adjectives it clearly has a scaling function (cf. really good/interesting, etc.). Moreover, Paradis own corpus confirms the fact that unlike other emphasizers, which tend to behave like maximizers, really has become grammaticalized to booster (cf. truly magnificent vs really good) and is currently going the way that very went - from truth-emphasizer to adjective intensifier par excellence.350 3.1.2 Form and Meaning of Intensifiers From a structural point of view, intensifiers have roughly been classified as: -ly suffixed forms: absolutely, badly, completely, fairly, fully, nearly, utterly;351 suffixless /zero derivation forms: enough, pretty, rather, very; compounds: somewhat, downright; noun phrases: a bit/ heap/ lot/ mass/ scrap/ shade/ touch of; phrasal fragments/discourse markers: sort of, kind of. 352 Carita Paradis considers that the entries in Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (CCD) do not seem to be based on a consistent analysis of lexical relations.353 The superordinate of terribly, for instance, is very and frightfully is its synonym. Extremely, on the other hand, is referred to as the superordinate of very, and very as the superordinate of terribly, awfully, most and rather. There is hardly any reason in considering very a superordinate of terribly, awfully and most but not of frightfully and jolly. Similarly, very is a superordinate of rather but not of pretty. Things are quite different in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDCE), where rather and very are given as synonyms of pretty. Absolutely, completely, perfectly, entirely, utterly, one of the
ibid.. It is not uncommon to regard -ly suffixation as an inflectional rather than a derivational process, in which view -ly adverbs constitute a grammatical category, not a lexical one. (Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 360) 352 ibid. 353 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 17
351 350

87

entries for quite, and totally, on the one hand, and very, terribly, extremely, awfully, frightfully, most, highly and jolly, on the other, qualify as members of the notional paradigms of maximizers and of boosters, respectively. The relation of synonymy that holds between the members of a notional paradigm should not, however, be trivialized.354 This type of synonymy involves both similarities and differences in their semantic make-up, as shown by their collocational patterns. Moreover, one can hardly approach the study of at least some of the intensifiers, without giving due attention to the semantic, pragmatic and intonational context. Diachronic studies show intensifiers as polysemous, homomorphous, poly-functional lexico-grammatical forms, which have entered the language as open-class lexical items and have undergone a process of grammaticalization from proper content words to lexically bleached words of a more functional character.355 As a result of this long and still on-going process, intensifiers have turned into vague, context dependent356 lexical items whose semantic flexibility is manifest in their disposition to occur in more than one notional paradigm.357 Specialists argue that this apparent messiness or fuzziness
In the sense that this relation does not involve complete interchangeability. 355 Carita Paradis 1994, p.158. Cf. Ulf Bcklund, 1973, p. 7; 300 n, the label function words/empty words/frame words is applied to adverbs of degree in a restricted sense. They are used in contradistinction to full words or lexical words and denote words largely devoid of lexical meaning which are used to indicate various functional relationships among the lexical words of an utterance. 356 Drawing on Hallidays functional grammar, Traugott describes the process of grammaticalization in terms of a semantic-pragmatic model of lexical change. She suggests that semantic change normally proceeds towards more subjective functions, i.e. from propositional to textual/ expressive functions. (Carita Paradis 1997, p.71f.) 357 Carita Paradis 1994 (p. 158). C. Stoffel (op. cit., p. 33) speaks about the sense weakeaning in adverbs. Bcklund (op. cit., p. 33) claims that, during the process of semantic change, the adjective gradually loses its semantic content, and expands its collocations to words or word-groups of dissimilar semantic content.
354

88

may be indicative of the fact that the system is either making unnecessarily delicate distinctions or that it is leaking badly. Or, quite the contrary, it may suggest that the system is alive and well, such that context-induced changes of force may indeed be indicative of changes in progress within given individual adverb items.358 In cognitive terms, what might account for the different functions of compromisers is the already mentioned process of semantic bidirectionality,359 or feature coping, as suggested by Gunter Lorenz. 360 3.2 Classes of Intensifiers Due to the fuzzy nature of intensifiers as degree words, lexicographers often treat them as (absolute) synonyms. 361 The analysis of large corpora of the degree modifier and adjective collocation has revealed that the conceptualization of the members of each type of gradable adjective is decisive for its choice of degree modifiers.362 It is suggested that adjectives that are conceptualized in terms of an unbounded range on a scale, eg: nice, or in terms of an extreme point, eg: amazing, or a limit, eg: sufficient, select different types of degree modifiers.363 Thus, the scalar adjective nice selects scalar degree modifiers which are capable of indicating a subrange on the scale of' niceness eg: very [nice], fairly [nice]. The adjectives amazing and sufficient, which involve reference to something extreme and absolute, on the other hand, require totality modifiers of the maximizer paradigm which can reinforce the extreme point or the
Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 361 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 60ff 360 Gunter Lorenz, Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpusbased approach to the delexicalisation and grammaticalisation of intensifiers in Modern English. In: Wischer, I., Diewald, G. (Eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2001, p. 49-68. Cf. also Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 363. 361 Cf. William Croft 1993, op. cit, p. 165, synonymy per se does not exist, and that every distinction of form in every language is used and interpreted by speakers as a distinction in meaning (semantic and pragmatic). 362 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 41 363 ibid.
359 358

89

absolute limit, eg: absolutely [amazing], quite [sufficient].364 Carita Paradis claims that there is a relatively stable interpretation of degree modifiers, except for the flexibility of the members of the paradigm of moderators/compromisers in terms of attenuation and reinforcement, and a potential instability in particular in the superlative booster most.365 Thus, scalar adjectives primarily select scalar degree modifiers, whereas extreme adjectives and limit adjectives select the totality modifiers of the maximizer paradigm but the superlative booster most is selected by limit adjectives only. Cooccurrence restrictions between certain adjectives and degree modifiers are described in terms of attitudinal features in the adjectives, i.e. positive, negative and neutral adjectives. Carita Paradis model of the relationship between degree modifiers and adjectives predicts that the selection of degree modifiers by adjectives is based on a principle of harmony between the mode of construal of the adjective and the degree modifier.366 It was suggested that most adjectives are biased towards one type of gradability but may take on another reading through contextual modulation. Adjectives, such as lost, sufficient, nice, have a very strong bias towards one reading, whereas others are more ambiguous: clear, certain, different. Since the strength of the bias restricts the flexibility of the adjective with respect to different degree readings, it follows that the less strongly biased adjectives are likely to be found with both scalar and totality modifiers. 367 Carita Paradis study of degree modifier and adjective collocation takes the degree modifier as the starting-point and focuses on its restrictive force. Therefore, once a degree modifier is selected the conceptualization of the adjective is made explicit. The degree modifier explicitly points to the interpretation in terms of totality and scalarity of the adjective it applies to.368 The assumption that degree
364

ibid.: It is possible to say absolutely amazing, while 'absolutely nice is strange. Likewise, quite sufficient is a perfect match, while ?very sufficient is awkward. Fairly old is fine, but ?almost old is unnatural. 365 idem, p. 77 366 ibid. 367 ibid. 368 ibid.

90

modifiers form more or less stable paradigms, with some variation within the respective paradigms, has been assumed for most of the modifiers. Compromisers/moderators, for instance, have a bias towards being downtoners/attenuators, but other degree readings are possible depending on the type of adjective they combine with, the pattern of intonation and other contextual factors. 3.2.1 Amplifiers/Reinforcers Amplifiers may express either a high degree or the highest degree of intensification. The feature of amplification of a quality is commonly assigned to a number of over twenty intensifiers 369 subdivided into two sets: maximizers and boosters. The former denotes the extreme of the scale of intensification and includes absolutely, altogether, completely, considerably, entirely, extremely, frightfully, fully, horribly, immensely, perfectly, purely, quite, remarkably, thoroughly, totally, utterly, wholly, in all respects and most (in its intensifying use). The latter denotes a high point on the scale and comprises badly, bitterly, deeply, enormously, far, greatly, heartily, highly, intensely, largely, much, severely, so, strongly, terribly, violently, well; a great deal, a good deal, a lot, by far; exclamatory how; the intensifying use of more). Of the two, especially the latter is seen as an open-class liable to renewal and expansion.370. Frequency counts of large spoken corpora show a strong tendency towards overuse of amplifiers/reinforcers/intensives/ intensifiers proper in colloquial English. And yet, the items that amplify or scale up a quality, are far from having been favoured by researchers. That may reflect their perception as well-behaved members of the lexicon, which have little to offer in contrast to the copious semantics and pragmatics of downtoners. A deeper insight in their synchrony and diachrony has, however, more often than not
Quirk et al 1978, p. 444 ff; 1985, p. 589 ff. Quirk et al 1985, p. 590: Both subsets, but especially boosters, form open classes, and new expressions are frequently created to replace older ones whose impact follows the trend of hyperbole in rapidly growing ineffectual.
370 369

91

turned to be a challenging and no less rewarding enterprise. 3.2.1.1 Maximizers The members of the maximizer paradigm, except quite, have a clear content component meaning completeness. As early as the second half of the fourteenth century the usual symbol to denote intensity before adjectives and adverbs was ful. In Piers the Plowman and in Chaucers works, for instance, it does duty in most of those cases where Modern English from 1500 downwards has used the intensive very. Exceedingly common in Chaucers time, ful merely expresses the high degree of a quality, in the sense of very in present day English. Only later, in Shakespeares works, the adverb full, will be used both as a mere intensive and as a synonym of the modern adverb fully (completely).371 QUITE While apparently lacking transparency in meaning, quite seems, according to diachronic studies, to have originally had a completeness component in both its amplifier and compromiser functions. The etymon of quite is the adjective of Romance origin quit, which was introduced in early Middle English with the meaning freed, released.372 During Chaucers time, it developed an extra meaning, i.e. entire, entirely. Later on, in Shakespeares work, in the great majority of cases the function of expressing completeness or absoluteness of a quality, or the very highest degree of which a quality is capable, is undertaken by the adverb quite. From the beginning of the 18th century, it was used both with the meaning of entirely, and with that of a modal modifier meaning actually, really. In time, the newly achieved modal meaning weakened to rather, to a moderate degree.373 Paradis speaks about differences among maximizers on the attitudinal dimension, that is, completely, entirely, totally and quite appear to be more matter-offact, whereas absolutely, perfectly and utterly are more subjectively
371 372

C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 13f idem, p. 38ff 373 ibid.

92

oriented.374 Quite (exactly, just; amazing, phenomenal, to a very great extent or to a greater extent than average; rather, relatively), the most common maximizer, is rather neutral, weak and non-demanding375 in its maximizing function, harmonizing with the common-core type of adjectives in spontaneous speech. It mostly collocates with limit adjectives, like certain, correct, convinced, different, normal, obvious, ordinary, right, relaxed, true, safe, sufficient, sure, true, but it is not uncommon with extreme adjectives such as shattered, crowded, astounding, extraordinary. Quite with modulated scalar adjectives, on the other hand, restricts the interpretation of the adjective to a limit reading,376 eg: quite [cool/good]. It is due to this complex reinforcing and attenuating nature that quite is regarded as one of the most flexible and subjective in interpretation intensifiers. Its meaning is most contextdependent, and therefore a function of semantic-pragmatic factors and intonational contours.377 ALTOGETHER, COMPLETELY, ENTIRELY, FULLY, TOTALLY, WHOLLY Chiefly descriptive in nature, and primarily occurring with negative heads, the intensifiers altogether, fully, entirely and wholly have been labelled adverbs with low context-sensitivity or not context-sensitive, either almost exclusively (entirely, wholly) or partly (altogether, completely).378 By rendering them mutually definable, dictionary entries suggest considerable overlap in meanings of the adjective bases379 of
Carita Paradis 1997, p. 72 idem, p. 79 376 ibid. 377 It is for this reason that quite has as a rule been analysed together with downtoners, within the notional paradigm of compromisers. 378 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 196 379 Quirk et al. (1985, p 431n) have labelled whole, entire and full universal adjectives, supposedly similar to restrictive adjectives: The whole situation is ridiculous. I m in entire/full agreement with the committee.
375 374

93

completely, entirely and wholly as well as of the derivatives themselves. Semantic-pragmatic analyses have, however, pointed to some individual semantic traits discernible in their semantic makeup. Thus, according to Ulf Bcklund,380 whole may imply that nothing, or nothing salient has been left out, omitted, ignored, depreciated, alloyed or taken away, something complete and not divided or broken into parts.381 Entire may suggest something completed, finished or perfected and entirely, used to emphasize what we are saying, means completely and in every possible way. Complete means fully realized, carried to the ultimate, having all parts, items, details, components or elements, facts, etc. included and not missing. It is used to emphasize that the quality described by the head is as great or extreme as possible.382 Completely means in every way, totally. Further distinctions between the underlying adjective bases may be taken into consideration in intensifier analyses. Crabb, for instance, holds that [w]hole excludes substraction; entire excludes divisionWhole is applied to everything of which there may be a part actually or in imagination; as a whole line, the whole day, the whole world; entire is applied to such things as may be damaged or injured, or are already damaged to their fullest extent; as an entire building, or entire ruina whole orange has had nothing taken from it; an entire orange is not yet cut; and a complete orange is grown to its fullest size: it is possible, therefore, for a thing to be whole and not yet entire: and to be both and yet not complete383 The adjective total seems to be different from entire in that it primarily modifies abstract nouns and in that it has the secondary sense unqualified in extent or degree as in total darkness/ignorance/loss/stranger. Total means full, complete, not partial. It may imply that all possible constituents have been counted, weighed, reckoned or considered. Utter, on the other hand, means carried to the utmost point or degree:384 utter absurdity/darkness/denial/destruction/failure/impossibility/misery/ru
380 381

Ulf Bcklund 1973 idem, p. 196 382 idem, p. 197 383 Apud idem, p. 196 384 idem, p. 211

94

in. ALTOGETHER (entirely; completely) resembles entirely and completely in that most verbs collocating with it also express the idea of disappearance and separation: charm away, cut out, disappear, forget, leave, leave out, vanish. While fully, completely, wholly and totally are basically quantitative in nature, altogether and entirely are more likely to express quality. Unlike its congeners, i.e. completely, entirely, thoroughly and wholly, altogether collocates with amplifier too, and with comparatives and superlatives: altogether too [big] for the hall... Altogether [the most distinguished] and incomparably [the most cultivated] person whom385 Fronted and postposed altogether functions as either a sentence modifier meaning in all respects: Thats another matter altogether, or an intensifier in the sense quite, eg. My friend was [speechless] altogether. COMPLETELY (totally) means fully realized: carried to the ultimate, in accordance with the meaning of the underlying adjective, complete. The synonyms of complete are total, absolute, entire and the superordinates are perfect and whole. This meaning tallies with that of the verb complete, to make whole, entire or perfect. 386 Essentially quantitative and dynamic in nature, completely resembles fully in that it expresses the result of a process, as in a fully/completely [furnished] house. Completely is said to be, by definition, a more marked quantitative adverb, as compared to the other two adverbialized adjectives, i.e. entirely and wholly, with which it shares the collocates different and new. Unlike completely different and completely new, which express qualities already known or experienced, entirely [different] and wholly [new] seem to express

385 386

Gustav Kirchner, op. cit., p.16 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 197

95

something hypothetical, that is unknown, not experienced.387 The function of completely seems to be basically dynamic: his voice [woke] her completely. Loathing [filled] us completely. She seemed to have got completely [fed up] with it. The feelings of helplessness and of completed process expressed in the last two sentences seem to be present in many of the collocations of completely. The ideas of separation, loss and confusion prevail in collocations with completely, as in completely alone/ confused/cut off/dependent/isolated/lost/stupified, etc. Other adjective heads are predictable, natural, etc. Ulf Bcklund has detected an optimistic note in the sentence entirely [on your own] as compared to some pessimistic feelings conveyed by completely [alone/confused/lost/stupefied], and in not quite, as compared to not completely.388 Completely collocates with adjectives, verbs and prepositional phrases. It combines mainly with limit adjectives, such as different, empty, free, impotent, indifferent, lost, new, wrong. It is not unusual in collocations with extreme adjectives either: confounded, mad, and negative adjective heads are quite common, eg: incomprehensible, ungrammatical, meaningless. In LLC it was found to collocate with a modulated scalar-biased adjective, in completely hairy, which reads with hair all over.389 completely + [adjective] She was completely [alone]. (HJ) Well, what is the song then? asked Alice, who was completely [bewildered].(LC) He was completely [changed]. Like perfectly and utterly, completely can undergo submodification with operator so:

387 388

idem, p. 200 idem, p. 206f 389 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 80

96

Nothing makes mankind so [completely] miserable as that of being in constant fear. (DD) completely + [verb] Completely occurs in all positions with verbs: Completely [disappointed], he left his small town for London. She had completely [lost] her native tact on such points. (HJ) When used in postmodification, completely functions as a manner adverbial: They [upset] me completely. (HJ) completely + [prepositional phrase] We were now completely [out of danger]. (DD) It was completely [under control]. ENTIRELY (totally) In terms of intensifying force, entirely is felt to be stronger in meaning than wholly, which is mainly quantitative. Compare: entirely [new] and wholly [new] or The entire house was ablaze, that is, every corner of the house was touched by fire, and He ate the whole apple meaning nothing was left of it. Many verbs in the range of entirely denote a process or a movement, often accompanied by the idea of separation or disappearance: change, detach, separate, leave, replace, separate, stop, strip, suppress, waste.390 In Sydney Greenbaum, 391 the main verb collocate of entirely is agree. Entirely primarily collocates with limit adjectives, such as automatic, different, new, quiet, true and unacceptable. Its heads are mainly positive and neutral as in Harry was entirely [willing] to quit the town. Even in negative sentences, the heads of entirely denote something desirable, which is negated by the adverb not: not entirely happy/right/serious/sincere/without regret. Ulf Bcklund considers that the pattern not entirely + [head] and not quite + [head] have much the same sense. With negative heads, altogether and
390 391

Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 203 Op. cit , p. 91ff

97

entirely function as litotes, meaning not at all, eg: The community was not altogether [scandalized] or [shocked] but they disliked duplicity (i.e. was not at all); Their remarks were not entirely [sin`cere] (i.e. not sincere at all).392 Entirely is regarded as almost purely a focalizer here and is pronounced after a break. The following two examples from Bcklunds corpus optimally contrast the meanings of entirely and completely: Effingham had never entirely [recovered] from the shock. Hai, the girl shot in the abdomen, is completely [recovered] by now. Never [recovered] in (a), is mitigated by entirely which lends the sentence a connotation of resignation, retrieved from the subaudition: He had not recovered at all. Ulf Bcklund considers this connotation to be in keeping with the sense of entire: undivided, undamaged, of a piece.393 There is no such subaudition in (b), which made Bcklunds informants unanimously reject a possible use of completely in sentence (a), on account that it would sound unnatural.394 The mitigating force of entirely is also deciphered in the following example I think youll find Sally not entirely [without her own consolation], which is an understatement for: She is having an affair with another man395 In our literary corpus entirely was found to collocate with positive and negative heads alike. It often occurs in emphatic postmodifier position: Hogan: Oh, he was [a great man] entirely. (ON/MM: 17) Hogan: Well, well. (With a great happy sigh) This is going to be [a beautiful day] entirely. (ON/MM: 31) Josie: Holy Joseph, [Im wreck] entirely! (ON/MM: 108) Hogan: Its all settled. Were [helpless], entirely. (ON/MM: 53)
idem, p.199. They are spoken with Contour A, i.e. with strong stress on the modified head. 393 idem, p. 199 394 ibid.. 395 ibid.
392

98

Altogether and entirely share the same opposite, i.e. not at all, whereas the opposite of wholly is partly, a quantitative intensifier that implies the possibility of division. Thus, in yet she had not wholly, not altogether [disliked] it, the drama, the sheer unexpectedness, the subaudition reads She almost [liked] it.396 FULLY (very; completely; extremely; entirely, perfectly; quite) is a derivative of the old adjective full and the basic semantic principle denoted by its collocations is that of a completed process. It denotes a very high point on the scale, or the highest or fullest state of degree. Primarily used to express quantity, it shares two of its heads, i.e. convinced and independent, with wholly, another quantitative in nature intensifier, eg: I am fully/wholly [convinced] of your honesty; The two sisters were fully/wholly [independent].397 Fully collocates with either (a) concrete or (b) abstract adjective and verb heads: (a) fully dressed/equipped; (b) fully aware/conscious/convinced/responsible/awake/eligible/entitled/inde pendent/justified; ) fully answer/assess/exploit/inform/understand: All that he has of certainty will be expended when he is fully [equipped]. (concrete) He had fully [comprehended] that no personal influence could possibly save him. (abstract) fully + [adjective] She was fully [conscious] of the weight of the occasion. (HJ) The candle is not yet fully [effective] for it is not quite dark. There is a case of fully being included in the adjective qualified by as in the correlative conjunction asas: The punishment is nevertheless, to my thinking, fully [as cruel] and [as wrong] in their case. (CD) fully + [verb] Among the verbs modified by fully are: answer, assess, exploit,
396 397

idem, p. 203 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 196

99

inform, understand. In his secret heart he well knew and fully [appreciated] the distinction. Isabel fully [believe] it. (HJ) By this time you will fully [understand] sir. (CD) WHOLLY (absolutely; completely and not partly or slightly). Bcklund thinks that its similarity to entirely gives whole a more restrained and static emphatic force than the dynamic completely, totally and utterly.398 The collocates of wholly are positive and negative heads alike and collocations with wholly have emotional connotations, mostly negative in character, eg: (not) wholly adaptable/inexperienced/ingenuous/satisfactory/predictable/natural/ successful/inexperienced/indifferent/unacquainted/unaware/untrue. wholly + [adjective] The idea was not a wholly [new] one. a wholly [satisfactory] solution. This seems to me a not wholly [convincing] argument. wholly + [verb] people whom we could not wholly [trust] They [had] wholly [ceased] to be in control of it. ABSOLUTELY, THOROUGHLY PERFECTLY, TOTALLY, UTTERLY,

ABSOLUTELY (totally; quite; without reservation), a much stronger intensifier than quite, is preferred by more colourful 399 extreme adjectives and may function either as a maximizer or an emphasizer, meaning certainly (not): They are just [silly].Absolutely, I couldnt agree moreShes [excellent] though.Absolutely. Its collocates are strongly emotionally loaded 400 negative and positive adjective heads, such as appalling, barmy, barren, furious, helpless, dreadful, grotesque, nil, revolting,
398 399

idem, p. 204 idem, p. 222 400 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 79

100

revolutionary, shattering, smashed, terrifying, unbearable; delighted, fabulous, fantastic, firm, fresh, incredible, innocent, lovely, necessary, right, safe, silent, super, superb, sure, silent, still, unbelievable, wonderful. Complementary to completely, which means every part of it, absolutely serves primarily to emphasize various heads for a certain purpose, mainly to convince other people or oneself when the motives of opinion expressed are questionable in some respect:401 I am absolutely [in love with] you. (HJ) All my researches were absolutely [fruitless]. (CB) and the rage, the absolutely [powerless] rage. (TVmovie) absolutely + [adjective]402 She is [unique], absolutely [unique]. (HJ) With Mr. Heathcliff grim and saturnine, on the one hand, and Hareton, absolutely [dumb], on the other hand. (EB) Jonathan was not absolutely [perfect].403 At that earnest appeal he turned to her looking absolutely [desperate].(EB) I am absolutely [sick of it all]. In all these examples, absolutely maximizes the idea expressed by its heads, i.e. uniqueness, dumbness, perfection, desperation and
Beside the Purely Convincing Note on absolutely, Bcklund 1973 (p. 222) describes other meanings of absolutely mingled with various nuances: Insincerity or Affectedness, Criticism, a Sense of Restriction, Condescension, Hesitancy, Embarrassment, Tentative Politeness, Disappointment. The remainder express Disgust, Suspicion and Malicious Satisfaction. 402 Horia Hulban, Hyperbole: A Way of seeing the World. In Ministerul nvmntului, Analele Universitii Dunrea de Josdin Galai, Fascicula XIII, Limb i Literatur, Anul 2001, Tipografia UNIVERSITII DUNREA DE JOS, GALAI, p.7-18, 2003, p. 12, gives the following collocational range of absolutely: absolutely certain/free from/impossible/necessary/sure of/terrifying/unbelievable/wrong. 403 Bcklund 1973, p. 225
401

101

utter disgust felt by the speaker: absolutely + [adverb] We got on absolutely [splendidly]404 Honestly? Yes, absolutely [honestly].405 absolutely + [past participle] I am absolutely [blessed], said my lady.(CD) Not absolutely [proved] perhaps, but it was proved circumstantially.(TH) absolutely + [verb] He absolutely [avoided] speaking to me.(CB) I like her too well, my dear Heathcliff, to let you absolutely [seize] and [devour] her up. (EB) absolutely + [prepositional phrase] She was absolutely [without pity].(CD) I am absolutely [without] a wish on the subject.(HJ) But Troy was never more clever than when absolutely [at his wits end]. (TH) absolutely + [pronoun] Ah, I remember [nothing], absolutely [nothing]. (HJ) She knows absolutely [everything] on earth there is to know. (HJ) Far from rare, in speech absolutely functions as a dangling intensifier, a substitute for an entire sentence: To do what she likes with? Absolutely [what she likes]. (HJ) QuiteAbsolutely.406 PERFECTLY (completely, absolutely, totally, utterly) seems to resemble quite even more than absolutely. 407 The collocational range of perfectly intersects and sometimes overlaps with those of completely and totally as in perfectly/completely/totally
404 405

idem, p. 224 idem, p. 225 406 It is ellipted from Youre right, quite right, absolutely right.. 407 Bcklund 1973, p. 229

102

certain/clean/safe. Unlike completely, however, perfectly does not usually collocate with negative heads. The heads in the range of perfectly are all, except horrible, indifferent and unthinkable, positive or commendatory in their denotations, but the sentences are to a large extent sarcastic in nature.408 Dictionary entries equal it to quite, i.e. in a perfect manner, to a complete or adequate extent, quite. Perfectly preferably combines with limit adjectives such as adequate, amiable, appropriate, aware, calm, capable, certain, content, convinced, correct, decent, genuine, healthy, indifferent, legitimate, logical, natural, normal, obvious, okay, plain, right, safe, serious, silent, sure, symmetrical, true. It also collocates with a few extreme adjectives: splendid, horrible, terrible. There are also a couple of modulated adjectives with a basic scalar bias, such as good409 and happy, which combine with perfectly. The interpretation of good is roughly optimal, acceptable.410 The following example contains an explicit comment on what perfectly [happy] means: well they have got a map # and they've got a perfectly [good] map m`ap reader* she appears to be p`erfectly [happy] # I mean she can't be a hundred percent happy # nobody `is # but she appears to be h`appy # 411 perfectly + [adjective] Mrs. Touchetts behaviour was, as usual, perfectly [deliberate]. (HJ) What can give me greater pleasure than to see you perfectly [independent]. (HJ) I am [perfectly] aware of that. This is [perfectly] true.
408 409

idem, p. 226 Paradis 1997, p. 80. The interpretation of good here is roughly optimal, acceptable. 410 ibid. 411 idem, p. 80f

103

perfectly + [adverb] You know perfectly [well] that perfectly + [verb] But at the same time she perfectly [remembered] Henrieta. (HJ) Jones would not quit the place before he had perfectly [reconciled] all differences between the master and the man. (HF) I have perfectly [understood] the idea. In postmodification of nongradable verbs, perfectly is usually interpreted as an adverb of manner: I can perfectly [see] why you are anxious about. (HJ) Perfectly can be submodified by the booster so: He had his face so perfectly [under control]. (HJ) Front position of perfectly: Do you think she is [capable] of it, then? - Perfectly. (HJ) TOTALLY (fully; not partially) and utterly are perceived as expressing the strongest emphasis possible,412 the latter being the strongest of the two. It resembles altogether, entirely and wholly in the sense throughout, in its totality, but it differs from them in the same way the underlying adjectives differ from one another. Totally mainly collocates with limit adjectives: different, impossible, last, right, unknown, wrong and with the odd extreme adjective bewildered and tortuous. It resembles completely in that they both collocate most often with different and wrong and that almost half the number of adjectives which are modified by totally have negative prefixes,413 eg inarticulate, unreliable. Also, several of the collocating adjectives are negatively loaded: dishonoured, buggered, obscene, orgasm-minded. totally + adjective I had been totally [ignorant] of the mans real character. (CD)
412 413

Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 210 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 81

104

Green and red are totally [complementary] colours. Most of the adjective collocates of totally are negated by the morphemes un- and in-, which are not always negative in meaning: unacceptable, unfit, disappointed, miserable, irresistible, etc: I am totally [unacquainted] with the habits of birds. (CD) The lady was totally [insensible].(CD) She is totally [irresistible]. totally + [verb] He has totally [ruined] you by this system of education. (HF) Many English writers [have] totally [failed] in describing the manners of upper life. (HF) Love [has] totally [deprived] me of reason. (HF) totally + [prepositional phrase] These are matters totally [beneath] a female who is acknowledged to be far above numerous little foibles. (CD) UTTERLY (absolutely, totally, completely) and totally have a predominantly negative character. The unmistakable connotation of emotions carried to the extreme,414 intrinsic in utterly, makes it, however, the stronger and more dynamic in character of the two maximizers. Borst415 points out that utterly predominantly combines with negative concepts: utterly deficient / destitute / empty / impossible / impracticable / imprudent / opposite, just as adjective utter mainly collocates with nouns with a negative tinge: utter absurdity/clarity/destruction/impossibility. In LLC utterly usually combines with adjectives of a more indeterminate character: bewildered, filthy, new, pointless, powerless, trivial, vigilant. Carita Paradis exemplifies with the adjective pointless, which may be indeterminate between a limit and an extreme interpretation and

414

Ulf Bcklunds informants have all agreed that utterly is the strongest intensive in English and that it has an essentially derogatory connotation. (1973, p. 214ff) 415 Eugen Borst, op. cit., p. 123

105

filthy between extreme and scalar.416 Its most common collocates in LLC are the positive heads grateful and extraordinary.417 Similar to quite in this respect, utterly may serve as a breeding-ground for shifts.418 In accordance with the semantic-pragmatic model for lexical change, utterly seems to be losing some of its maximizer bias and become more booster-like.419 Linguists agree that there is a negative touch to the adjectives utterly applies to: cut off, different, deficient, destitute, empty, enormous, fictional, gone, impossible, imprudent, indefensible, miserable, new, radical, ravished, reprehensible, silent, untempered, untrue, visible.420 This is also true about the negative verb heads that utterly colocates with, eg: destroy, detest, fade, reject, submit, shrink, etc. It is this strong emotive bias that has made utterly be perceived as extremely derogatory in meaning, conveying emotions carried to the utmost point or highest degree; absolutely, total: He is utterly [dishonourable, debased and profligate]. (CD) I say my friends, pursues Mr. Chadband utterly [rejecting and obliterating] Mr. Snagsbys suggestion. (CD) They utterly [detest, abominate and abjure]. (CD) Utterly seems to be stronger and more dynamic in character than totally. The difference in context-sensitivity between completely, totally and utterly is illustrated by collocations with empty, which progressively convey a feeling of desolation. Bcklund suggests that The emotion of unexpected desolation is heightened by totally, whereas, with utterly, it is screwed up to its bursting point with a menacing note:421 Regent Street which was completely empty.
416 417

Carita Paradis 1997, p. 81 idem, p. 77 418 idem, p. 81 419 ibid. 420 ibid.. Cf. also Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 214ff 421 idem, p. 216

106

She knocked on a door and opened it on a totally empty room. The dark bog seemed empty now, utterly empty utterly + [adjectives] with a negative tinge is common: powerless/futile/indifferent/strange/exhausted/insensible/incapable/w orthless/impracticable/dishonourable/friendless/brainless/dissimilar etc, and less common, with a positive tinge, utterly reliable/delightful:422 Here you see me utterly [incapable] of helping myself . (CD) This is utterly [impracticable]. My reason is as well convinced that these gentry were utterly [worthless].(CD) All this time I was so conscious of my being utterly [neglected].(CD) The playthings which were offered to her were utterly [disregarded]. (CD) utterly + [past participle] [Lost], utterly [lost]! (CD) In five minutes time the little streamer is utterly [deserted]. (CD) utterly + [prepositional phrase] The deep remembrance of the sense I had of being utterly [without hope]( CD) His teeth chattered and his limbs felt utterly [without strength]. (C22) There are few instances when utterly collocates with positive heads, in which case the head turns pejorative: Wendy was so utterly [exceptional] in ways that go beyond the stereotypical modes of categorisation (SP) Front position of utterly: Utterly [cut-off] from the population around them423
422 423

Quirk et al 1985, p. 470 ibid.

107

Utterly [confounded], Mr. George a while stood looking at the knocker.(CD) THOROUGHLY (utterly), rather infrequent, and with a quantitative tinge about it, is both an adjective and a verb intensifier. The meaning of the underlying adjective in thoroughly, i.e. exhaustive, full, or proper, is not likely to have faded as it is the case with most adverbialized adjectives: eg: The vet gave the animals a thorough check-up.a thorough search; Id enjoy giving him a thorough [walloping] The component of negativity which is manifest in the collocations of utterly is also present in combinations of thoroughly with negative heads as in a thoroughly [unreasonable] personI was thoroughly [ashamed of myself], but not in Yes, I thoroughly [agree]. Thoroughly can be subject to submodifiction in the function of manner adjunct as in They did not study the language very thoroughly. Many boosters, often with a manner component, have the same or similar positive or negative collocates: Im (so) awfully/dreadfully/frightfully/terribly [sorry]. I m extremely/terribly [pleased] to see you. Its awfully [nice] of you to join us on such an extraordinary occasion. Theyve been dreadfully [busy]. Everything has gone horribly [wrong]. She was immesurably [sad]. Im in an incredibly [privilleged] position. ALL, in both its (pre)determiner and adverb functions, can emphasize and intensify424 various gradable and nongradable clause elements, eg: all + [adjective] (alone/new/dark etc)/[adverb]/[preposition] (about, along,425 around, over,426 round, through) means completely:
All can either have the role of an amplifier or of a downtoner. All along means either (a) all the time from the beginning while something was happening or (b) from one side to another.
425 424

108

Im all [alone] now. (CCD) You shouldnt be sitting here by yourself, all [alone]. (LDCE) Im all [confused] now! (LDCE) Those go-go girls have gotten you all [excited]. (CCD) The room suddenly [went] all [dark]. He spilled coffee all [over himself]. (CCD) There were bits of paper all [over the floor]. (LDCE) He has cuts all [over his legs]. (LDCE) Antique clocks from all [over the world] are on display. (LDCE) People came from all [over the country]. (LDCE) Theyre putting up new offices all [over the place]. (LDCE) I knew all [along] that the relationship wouldnt last. (LDCE)427 Maybe this is what they were trying to achieve all [along] (LDCE) all [along] the front of the central region. (CCD) I forgot all [about] him. (CCD) He was living all [by himself] in an old house on the river. (CCD) (2) all + [the + comparative] (easier/healthier/more effectively etc) The structures all [the more] and all [the better/easier] mean how much more or better or easier than before or than would normally have been otherwise,428 eg You must work all [the more quickly] now. (CCD) We can understand your feeling. All [the more because] we are Africans ourselves. (CCD) If its not there, then all [the better]. (CCD) The job was made all [the easier] by having the proper tools. (LDCE)
426 427

i.e. everywhere on an object or surface/in a place. i.e. all the time from the beginning while something was happening. 428 Cf. CCD, p. 36; LDCE, p. 32

109

Their success is all [the more pleasing] when you consider the effort theyve made. (LDCE) (3) all [too + adverb] means much more than is desirable,429 eg All [too often] its the mother who gets blamed for her childrens behaviour. (LDCE) (4) all of + [number/amount + noun/quantifier] is used in speech to say that a particular total is not less than this (that many/much) and often to express surprise at how large or small it is: There were all of [six people] there. (CCD) It cost all of [three hundred pounds]. (CCD) (5) not all that + [adjective/(vague) quantifier] or not [as + adjective + as] all that (spoken) mean not very and are used in spoken English for downtoning, when we want to deny something without being too emphatic or definite, 430eg It doesnt sound all that [good], does it? (LDCE) I dont think it matters all that [much] (LDCE) He is not all that [warm], just [warm] enough. (CCD) I dont know him all that [well], actually. (CCD) It isnt [as awful as] all that. (CCD) (6) its + all very well/fine [for + NPh/toInf that + but/However ] is used for emphasis, when we want to say that we consider a particular situation or thing unacceptable, although other people may think that there is nothing wrong with it; often used to express disagreement, scorn, dislike, annoyance, or envy, eg I mean its all very well [to say that you dislike it, but] what are you going to do about it. (CCD) It was all very fine [for the birds], I supposed. [However], I preferred a different sort of life. (CCD) Look, Lynn, its all very well, [but] he scared the life out of me. (CCD)
429

Also: all too briefly/eagerly/late/obviously/often/quickly/soon , in Horia Hulban 2003, p. 13. 430 CCD, p. 36f

110

(7) of all + [things/people/places] is used for emphasis, to show surprise, to suggest that a particular thing, person, or place seems surprising or unlikely,431 eg Why should [they], of all [people], believe that this is the right thing to do? (CCD) They were arguing about [the Emperor], of all [things]. (CCD) She went to live in [Naples] of all [places] (CCD) Of course you shouldnt have done it [you] of all [people] should know that (8) all + (usu. noncount) [noun] (water/innocence/smiles) means either chiefly, and it is used when we are describing something or someone and want to say that a particular thing seems to be their chief or strongest characteristic, or it means complete and is used when we mention a particular quality of appearance and want to emphasize that it is complete and total,432 eg The potatoes were wet and the sprouts were wet and the gravy was all water. (CCD) He was all [smiles]. (CCD) Elsie was all [smiles] when I saw her again the next morning. (LDCE) a beefy athlete, all [bulging limbs]. (CCD) Im saying it [with] all [sincerity]. (Im very sincere.) I say this [in] all [seriousness]. (CCD) (9) all (pronoun) + Pron + Verb + be (that) + NPh/Thats all + Pron + Verb/Its all + PP are used at the beginning of a clause to emphasize the most basic or necessary facts or details about a situation,433 eg All [you do is add water]. (CCD) All [I know is that] a mans dying while were talking. (CCD)
431 432

idem, p. 37 CCD, p. 36 433 LDCE, p. 32

111

The meat was dry and flaky. All [he could taste was mustard]. (CCD) All [Im asking for is a little respect]. (LDCE) All [you need is a hammer and some nails]. (LDCE) [Its] all [because of commercialism that] this is so. (CCD) Look, give me a chance. Thats all [I want]. (CCD) (10) above all (else) is used to emphasize that a particular thing, especially the last one in a list, is more important than other things,434 eg The pressures-[political, social and], above all, [economic]-are growing. (CCD) Above all, there is [a severe shortage] of health visitors. (CCD) Relax, and above all [dont panic]. (CCD) (11) at all, in E-position, is used as a diminisher in negative and nonassertive clauses, as well as in some kinds of questions, in expressions such as [not any/anyone/anything/anywhere ] at all/[if/whether] at all, give emphasis: We did[nt go] there at all. (CCD) We have [very little] in those fields at all. (CCD) I was ready to go [anywhere] at all. (CCD) The meal would have been extremely late, [if] indeed [it appeared] at all.(CCD) Have[nt] you got [any] at all? (CCD) (13) and all, as a vague quantifier, means the whole thing; including everything or everybody mentioned, eg They ate the whole fish; [bones, tail, head], and all. (LDCE) (14) The compound adjective structures all-adjective /-noun, describe something as consisting only of the thing mentioned or as having only the quality indicated,435 eg

434 435

ibid. LDCE, p. 32

112

the all-[white] South African Cricket Associations. (LDCE) new all-[electronic] digital exchanges. (LDCE) all [wool] jumpers (LDCE) As it is the case with other indefinite pronouns (any, every, everybody), collocations of all, such as all at once, all by the book (ca la carte) all gratitude, occur in various emphatic contexts that are more or less bent towards hyperbole.436 3.2.1.2 Boosters Except for far, the superlative most, quantifier much, so, well, the phrasal structures a great deal, a good deal, a lot, by far, the exclamatory how, and the intensifying use of more, boosters are deadjectival items whose basic negative adjectival meaning is more or less transparent in their use. The intensifiers stemming from a negative adjective base add some extra negative force to adjectives which are already negative.437 This would be the case of awfully, frightfully, horribly and terribly, which read causing awe/fright/ horror and terror, respectively, as well as of badly and bitterly, but they do not have such effect on positively loaded adjectives whatsoever, eg: awfully [good], frightfully [interesting], terribly [nice]. Greatly, enormously, heartily, highly and jolly, on the other hand, have very strong positive connotations, a feature which is likely to show up in the collocating adjectives.438 The other members of the booster paradigm, extremely,439 highly, intensely, severely, strongly and violently, are said to be less emotional but just as transparent lexically as the former set, all of them meaning a high and superlative point on the continuum. 440 The members of the booster paradigm mainly combine with typically scalar adjectives. The most frequent booster in the LLC was
436 437

Horia Hulban 2003, p.1 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 85 438 idem, p. 73 439 I agree with Carita Paradis 1997 that extremely should be regarded as a booster rather than a maximizer, as it is glossed in Quirk et al 1985. 440 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 73

113

found to be very and the least frequent frightfully.441 VERY, the most common and at the same time the most lexically bleached442 booster, did not come into use as an intensifier until the 16th century.443 In Middle English very was used as an adjective meaning true, genuine, real, but before long it began to be used in its weakened Modern English sense of to a high degree. Very can be regarded as prototypical for the process of adverbialization of intensifiers, in general, and of suffixless intensifiers, in particular. As the most frequent of all adverbs expressing a high degree, very practically came to be used in front of all adjectives. This intensive use brought about a weakening of its grading force. 444 Thus, an adverb expressing absoluteness of a quality, i.e. completely, entirely, quite, has taken on a purely grammatical function, turning into an empty/function word, unattractive from the point of view of collocation. This might account for a collocation of the type their very [unique] plan. Present-day very has lost its modal interpretation, but has preserved in modern phrases one of its old adjective senses which was common enough in Shakespeares works, eg He is the very [picture] of his father or He is a very [fool].445 Notice also the use of a possessive adjective in predeterminer position: Phillipe: I always keep my old things. Claire: Even your boots? Phillipe: Yes, [my] very [boots]. (TV-movie) Moreover, in premodification of adjectives in the superlative,
idem, p. 83 Very has developed from a modal adjective meaning true, into a maximizer of absoluteness and then into a booster. (idem, p. 82) 443 C. Stoffel, op.cit., p. 28-34 444 Cf. Carita Paradis 1997, p. 73 445 C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 31. Quirk et al. consider this use of very as a restrictive adjective (within the noun phrase) rather than as an intensifying adverb, eg: You are the very man I want. A similar meaning can be conveyed by restrictive adverbs outside the noun phrase, such as You are precisely/exactly/just the man I want. (1985, p. 431)
442 441

114

very achieves the maximizer reading absolutely: the very [smartest], the very [best] (movie). 446 It may as well function as a booster, meaning extremely with adjectives in the base form: very [good], very [smart].447 This modulation of very in terms of gradability is the very proof that intensifiers are known by the company they keep, that is, by the grammatical head(s) they modify. TOO may mean very, more than enough in informal style. In negations, or when too modifies negative heads, there may occur a shift of meaning. Consider They drive too [fast]. [They drive faster than they should; They dont drive slowly enough.] They dont drive too [fast].[They dont drive very fast; the sentence can also be a denial of the positive statement.] Thats too [bad]. [Thats very bad.]448 Intensifying structures such as once too + often/soon are used as variants of all too and only too [often/soon/well], meaning very, to indicate that something happens to a greater extent or degree than is pleasant or desirable: I can remember only too [well] the disasters that followed. (CCD) The suspicion had proved all too [true]. (CCD) All too [soon] the party was over. (CCD) Sadly this kind of attack is becoming all too [common] these days. Josie: Youll tell that lie about my love once too [often]! (ON/MM: 54) Josie: Ive been fooled once too [often]! (ON/MM: 54) Josie: Dont lie anymore, Father. This time, youve told once too [many]. (ON/MM: 103)
446

Other examples in C. Stoffel are the very first, the very last, the very next, the very same, the very best husband in the world, the very oldest of them. (op. cit., p.33) 447 Carita Paradis 1997, p.18 448 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 787n [c]

115

PURE is another adjective, of Romance origin this time, which was also occasionally used adverbially as an intensive449 in the fourteenth century, as a mere intensive with the sense of the Modern English very and as a maximizer, meaning completely, quite. Its intensive force can be traced in the adjective phrase pure and simple, a borrowing from French (pure et simple), meaning mere, sheer, without any foreign admixture.450 AWFULLY, DREADFULLY, FRIGHTFULLY, HORRIBLY, TERRIBLY, TERRIFICALLY Ulf Bcklund supposes that intensifiers awfully, dreadfully, frightfully, horribly, terribly and terrifically originally expressed manner exclusively, but as they were emotionally charged, they acquired an intensifying force when placed in front of adjectives, adverbs and prepositional phrases. As for awfully, it has gone furthest in this respect and has thus been drained of it condemnatory sense, as shown by the 8 positive heads, out of a total of 16 in Ulf Bcklund 1973.451 Therefore, although on account of their underlying adjective bases, the above adverbialized lexical items can be regarded as the most negatively loaded members of the booster paradigm, in terms of the process of semantic change this is hardly so. In an ample illustration of the treatment of terribly, horribly and awfully in dictionaries,452 Ho-Suk Yoon453 compares these adverbs in terms of their adjectival and verbal collocates which may
C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 14 idem, p. 26 451 Cf. Ulf Bcklund (1973, p. 165ff) most of the informants had a low opinion of these adverbs, regarding the use of them as bad English , favoured by women, children or the upper and middle classes as a kind of jargon. Krger calls awfully, terribly and dreadfully adverbs of degree carelessly and tastelessly overused. 452 The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDCE), Collins Cobuild English Dictionary (CCD) 453 Ho-Suk Yoon, Is Terribly Good Horribly Wrong?: A study of collocations of terribly, horribly and awfully. http://plaza.snu.ac.kr./~hskwon/papers-yoonhs-a.htm1
450 449

116

be associated with either positive or negative judgement (feeling). 454 Very much in the same vein as Paradis, in her analysis of the intensifier entries in CCD,455 Ho-Suk Yoons conclusion is that current dictionaries are not unanimous in their treatment of these adverbs. The corpus analysis of intensifier-adjective and intensifier-verb collocation shows that for all three adverbs the great majority of tokens are found to be functioning as adjectival modifiers.456 Terribly co-occurs with a wide variety of adjectives, both with a positive and a negative import. Among ten most frequent adjectives, at least four are the positive adjectives, i.e. good, well, interested /ing, excited /-ing. The adjective good is found as the second frequent collocate of terribly, whereas bad is found only four times in the corpus. Horribly, on the other hand, has quite a limited set of collocatesmore or less associated with negative judgement. 457 The fact that wrong occupies almost twenty percent of all the tokens of adjectival collocates of horribly, and that the adjectives disfigured and awry also collocate with horribly, suggests that only horribly retains firmly its association with the original noun horror458. The most interesting finding with awfully is that it co-occurs most commonly with the expressions of amount, especially those on the positive side of the scale such as big. Adjective big seems to be the most frequent adjectival collocate of awfully whereas long is

idem, p.1. He posits that although normally deemed to imply negative judgment or feeling about a thing or situation on the part of the speaker, the boosters terribly and horribly both seem to be also used to intensify a positive judgement. They are in this respect comparable to the use of awfully, which is either positive or negative in context.454 455 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 17f 456 idem, p. 3 457 idem, p. 2, with some exceptions, i.e. the adjectives familiar, like and right 458 idem, p. 2ff. Although the nouns horror and terror are normally deemed synonymous nouns, there may be some kind of division of labor between terribly and horribly in that horribly is preferably used to convey the meaning of fear and disgust.

454

117

the second frequent one.459 The corpus analysis has shown that seven among the eight most frequent collocates of awfully, except big are found in the collocates of terribly, whereas only half of the ten most frequent collocates of terribly can be found with horribly.460 As far as the adverb-verb collocation is concerned, the syntactic information provided in Cobuild has again been confirmed by the corpus analysis. Proportionally, horribly is the most common verbal modifier, terribly fills in second position, while awfully is scarcely used as such. It has, however, been noted that the three adverbs preserve their negative association when they are used as a verbal modifier461. Unlike its reduced collocational range with adjectives, horribly widely collocates with verbs. The verbs miss and suffer occupy about half of the number of verbal collocates of terribly. The analysis has revealed the ambiguity of terribly between its two readings, i. e. extremely and incompetently,462 as recorded by OED. Terribly has developed the second meaning, i.e. incompetently, in collocation with verbs denoting sports, just like horribly, which is used with the verbs bowl, fetch, misfire, miskick and putt. This sense of horrible has not, however, been recorded in any dictionary.463 The intensifiers awfully, horribly and terribly were found to be quite distinct in their collocational ranges with adjectives and verbs in Ho-Suk Yoons corpus. While horribly particularly collocates with adjectives having a negative import, as well as with verbs, terribly, able to replace either of the other two adverbs, occupies an in-between position, having a greater frequency of occurrence than

idem, p. 3 idem, p.4 461 ibid. 462 ibid.. It occurs in collocation with verbs like play , ed adjectives or past participle forms, such as the predicative use of the phrase terribly organized. 463 idem, p. 5. Ho-Suk Yoon notes that all dictionaries associate horribly with a word of objectionable sense.
460

459

118

the other two.464 The frequency counts have pointed out that awfully, followed by terribly, collocates most frequently with positive heads. Horribly comes third, co-occurring with positive heads more often than it is assumed to co-occur with them in the dictionaries.465 Ho-Suk Yoon concludes that there are two aspects to be approached in further analysis of awfully, horribly and terribly. First, the historical change in the collocation of the adverbs in question, which may account for the researchers opinion that they should exhibit overall increase in the usage as an intensifier of positive expressions along time.466 The second point to be studied is the relationship between negation and intensifier usage of the adverbs since, though terribly collocates with positive adjectives such as good, eight out of seventeen tokens appear after not or never. His findings with respect to tendencies in the collocational patterns of awfully, frightfully, horribly and terribly have been checked below on further examples from Carita Paradis corpora,467 CCD, LDCE and the literary corpus. AWFULLY (very; terribly) preferably combines with scalar positive and negative adjectives, which are emotionally coloured but not very forceful: anxious, difficult, drunk, easy, funny, good, grateful, hard, kind, nice, sad, silly, sorry, sweet.468 Paradis suggests that the informal modifier awfully serves to inspire new life in the bleached adjectives which are common in informal communication.469 In Ulf Bcklund, the collocation awfully good470 is called apprehensive, on account of its connoting a feeling of restraint in the speaker, mostly because he is apprehensive of the
464 465

ibid. idem, p. 4 466 ibid. 467 Carita Paradis 1997 468 idem, p.84f 469 ibid. 470 Awful good is mainly American according to all informants, except for one informant who stated that it is used in affected use in British English in upper class jargon. Bcklund agrees with Krger that this should be an affected imitation of Uneducated English, where awful, terrible, etc. are used as modifiers of adjectives and adverbs. (1973, p. 167)

119

hearers reaction or because he is unwilling to commit himself.471 Here are two of the examples that he comments on: He was awfully [nice] about it. It was safe, awfully [safe]. The former was uttered tentatively by a woman, who is aware of the unexpectedness of the message for the hearer. In the latter, the added awfully, before the repeated adjective, is a device on the part of the woman speaker to convince herself of something that she was not quite sure of.472 awfully + [adjective] Im awfully [happy/well].473 At Christmas we have an awfully [jolly] time: tree, carols and all that stuff. He was an awfully [good] rugby player. Its awfully [good of you] to come with me. It was awfully [difficult] trying to talk to her Im awfully [sorry], we havent got any Im [not] awfully [certain] what they are (CCD) DREADFULLY (awfully, terribly; very or to a very great extent; LDCE: extremely), frightfully (awfully; LDCE: BrE oldfashioned very), horribly ( frightfully; LDCE: very unpleasant and often frightening, upsetting), and terrifically (great in amount, degree or intensity) are rather infrequent items on the booster stage. Bcklund seems to detect a more or less explicit element of irony or sarcasm in collocations with frightfully, and holds that there is more urgency in Im frightfully sorry than in awfully sorry and terribly sorry. They are semantically similar, in that they all seem to retain, to a greater (dreadfully, terribly) or lesser extent, some of their condemnatory force. Thus, all collocations
471 472

idem, p. 166f idem, p.167 473 Although Stephen Ullmann regards collocations of this type as a contradiction in terms, we see it as another opportunity to point out the weakening of meaning in adjectives alongside their adverbialization. (1970, p. 137)

120

with dreadfully and horribly are said to be semantically negative, even if the heads by themselves are not negative in character.474 The following combinations are quite common in Bcklunds corpus: dreadfully alive/long/unpractical/upset; horribly aware/familiar/ omnious; frightfully busy/cross/tricky/out of date; terrifically kind/ill.475 With negative heads they are used to emphasize how awful or unpleasant an experience, event or situation is, whereas with positive and neutral heads they are mere markers of emphasis of emotive speech. In LLC, frightfully, very much like awfully and terribly, combines with positive and negative typically scalar adjectives, eg: dull, expensive, funny, good, interesting, neat, posh. dreadfully + (so)/(most) + [adjective] The three girls were dreadfully [dull] companions She was dreadfully [upset] (CCD) Theyre dreadfully [busy] at the moment. (LDCE) Im so dreadfully [sorry] She was most dreadfully [sick] all day. (CCD) He [had behaved] dreadfully. (adverb of manner) (LCDE) TERRIBLY (very; frightfully) is used informally to emphasize the extent or degree of something476 and it is by far the most frequent adverb in the paradigm. Since it has not lost as much of its original condemnatory force as awfully, terribly lacks the tentatively apprehensive note that awfully has with heads denoting positive ideas.477 In contrast to awfully sorry, Bcklund can sense a connotation of propitiatory excuse without the apprehensive note characteristic of awfully in Im terribly sorry it happened,; Im terribly, terribly sorry, Susie.478 Like awfully, terribly collocates with both positively and negatively loaded scalar adjectives, eg: cheap, funny, good, glad, lonely, interesting, nice, polite, romantic; depressing, hard, irritating. In LLC, terribly collocates most often
474 475

Bcklund 1973, p. 170 idem, p. 169ff 476 CCD 477 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 168 478 ibid.

121

with sorry and difficult. There are quite a few potential limit adjectives in LLC which get a scalar interpretation in combination with terribly, eg: aware, different, flat, independent, lonely, sorry, new, underpaid, unjust, unused, as well as a few modulated extreme adjectives, that collocate with terribly, eg: squalid, torn and tattered.479 TERRIBLY + [adjective] Im terribly [sorry]. Im terribly [angry].480 They were terribly [pleased] to see you. Its terribly [important] It wasnt a terribly [good] summer Hes terribly [smart](ro.nemaipomenit/extraordinar de detept) FEARFULLY + [adjective] (old-fashioned extremely) Shes fearfully [clever]. FRIGHTFULLY + [adjective] Im frightfully [sorry] I think it to be frightfully [accessible]. Hes [not] frightfully [popular]. HORRIBLY + [adjective](very bad/unpleasant, often frightening or upsetting) I am horribly [timid] Lined curtains are nicest but horribly [expensive] horribly + [adverb] Her face was horribly [scarred]. (LDCE) Everything has gone horribly [wrong]. The man had begun [to scream] horribly.

Carita Paradis 1997, p. 84 Besides foarte/extrem/grozav/stranic de [furios/mnios], terribly [angry] ca be rephrased in Romanian as dunre de [mnios] sau [mnios] nevoie mare.
480

479

122

TERRIFICALLY + [adjective] (informal: very, extremely) Its terrifically [difficult] for working parents to find adequate child care.481 EXTREMELY (to a very great degree; to an extreme extent; to a very pronounced or excessive degree ; highest degree; to the greatest possible extent), came into use as an intensive at the end of the sixteen century. We agree with Ulf Bcklunds observation regarding the weakening of its meaning of excess to a mere high degree.482 It combines with either positive scalar adjectives, such as flexible, glad, good, happy, nice, helpful, grateful, interesting, polite, sensitive or with negatively loaded adjectives, such as bad, dangerous, difficult, greedy, untasteful, violent, and few neutral adjectives: busy, long and slow. 483 In spite of the extreme component in its underlying adjective base, there is a striking feature about extremely, that is, its range includes adjectives that imply a certain amount of superficiality, with an ephemeral air, like neat and pretty. Moreover, a great many heads it applies to are fairly colourless lexemes, eg: cultured, favourable, flexible, glad, nice, popular, practical, sensible and slow.484 Moreover, Bcklund holds that extremely only rarely occurs in contexts where the writer/speaker is absolutely sincere and that there is often a note of jocularity, lightheartedness or irony about extremely and those connotations neutralize the dangerous overemphasis of the adverb, as in beneath this glossy and cheerful surface lay several extremely [uncomfortable] sets of feelings or He wrote to me an extremely [kind] letter485 Its most frequent collocate in LLC is

The Romanian counterparts of these intensifiers are foarte,/extraordinar/nemaipomenit/teribil de 482 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 175. Both Quirk et al 1978 and 1985 classify extremely as maximizer. 483 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 84. Horia Hulban 2003 exemplifies with collocates such as extremely accessible/careful/dangerous/lucky/unhealthy. (p. 13) 484 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 175. See also Paradis 1997, p. 84 485 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 175f

481

123

difficult.486 extremely + [adjective] You are extremely [good looking] and extremely [clever]. (HJ)... an extremely [difficult] and [dangerous] taskHe played an extremely [important] part in the revolution. (CCD)... Im extremely [sorry] to have troubled you. (LDCE) extremely + [adverb] Ralph and I have always got on extremely [well] Extremely can also be used as focalizer: It seems this is debatable. Extremely.487 Very much similar in meaning to extremely, but quite rare in everyday use, is a number of booster and manner adverbial blends, whose collocation has been illustrtated with a selection from both a dictionary and a literary corpus:488 EXTRAORDINARILY intensifying patterns: (remarkably; extremely) has two

extraordinarily + [adjective]: extraordinarily [beautiful/difficult/successful]: an extraordinarily [beautiful] lady. [adverb] + extraordinarily: Im afraid Jane can behave [quite] extraordinarily at times.(adverb of manner) IMMEASURABLY (extremely; used to emphasize adjectives in order to indicate that something has the quality mentioned to a very great extent)
486

Carita Paradis 1997, p. 84. In LLC extremely was found to collocate with anomalous, the odd potential limit adjective modulated into a scalar adjective. 487 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 177 488 Charlotte Bronte (CB), Emily Bronte (EB), Lewis Carroll (LC), Charles Dickens (CD), Daniel Defoe (DD), Henry Fielding (HF), Thomas Hardy (TH), Henry James (HJ), David Lodge (DL), Mark Twain (MT).

124

Paul Getty had always been immeasurably [wealthy] Their faces are lined, immeasurably [sad]. INCREASINGLY There is an increasingly [strong and well-organized] lobby. IMMENSELY (enormously; to a very great extent or degree). The issue is an immensely [complex] one He was immensely [generous] (booster) I [enjoyed] the course immensely.(adverb of manner) INCREDIBLY (greater in amount or degree than you expected or thought it was possible): Im in an incredibly [privileged] position.... The water was incredibly [hot]... They tried incredibly [hard]. INFINITELY (very much) infinitely [more manageable] infinitely [more liberal and advanced]Infinitely [the most distressing] aspect489 Living in the country is infinitely [preferable to] living in London... The process of unloading has been infinitely [more straightforward] than putting the stuff on. MASSIVELY (large in size and quantity) She got massively [fat]We [invested] massively in West German machinery. OUTSTANDINGLY (exceptionally; it is used to indicate an extreme degree of a quality). She must be outstandingly [good] an outstandingly [successful] director I realized how outstandingly [dull] he was. TREMENDOUSLY (immensely): There is a tremendously [difficult] struggle ahead of us
489

Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 191

125

HIGHLY (very; in or to a high degree, amount or extent) is used to emphasize that a particular quality is true to a great degree or to indicate that something is at a level or standard that is towards the top of a scale of importance).490 It has been acknowledged that highly primarily functions as an intensifier, although it still preserves some traces of an adverb of manner. Since it reads high on a scale, it combines with scalar adjectives, such as athletic, intelligent, respectable, embarrassing, and with potential limit adjectives which can get a scalar reading, eg: secret. It also collocates with adjectives which seem to dwell in the borderland between scalar and limit, since they respond to the criteria for both scalar and limit adjectives and seem to involve more or less equal proportions of criterial and evaluative features.491 The heads are both positive and negative and most of the collocations convey feelings of admiration and contempt. In contrast to the typical boosters, very, extremely and terribly, highly does not combine with typically scalar adjectives, such as fast, good and long. As compared to terribly, awfully, and frightfully, highly is a formal degree modifier which is used for more selective purposes and maybe also in more matter-of-fact and less evaluative contexts.492 It may be this relatively high level of formality which makes it more common in writing and which accounts for the type of adjectives which occur as collocates.493 highly + [adjective] Its an extremely [simple] concept in principle, though highly [complex] in detailMan is highly [sensitive to] the evil effects. (CD) ... To steal from one another is highly [criminal and indecent]. (HF) The report is highly [critical] of these policies Its highly [improbable] that they will accept highly-[educated] people... a highly [placed] negotiator

a
490 491

very

highly [classified]

planning

document...

CCD Carita Paradis 1997, p. 83f 492 idem, p. 85 493 idem, p. 83f

126

Americans are highly [appreciated]. (HJ)... The squire

was highly [pleased] with the arrival of his brother. (HF) highly + [verbs] Sophia highly [approved] the method. (HF) The beauty of Jones highly [charmed] her eyes. (HF) highly + [prepositional phrases] He paid his reckoning and departed highly [against the will] of Mr. Partridge. (HF) MOST (very; highly, extremely) the superlative booster, indicates the highest degree of scalar adjectives, such as most anxious, most curious, most important, most interesting.494 Eugen Borst, who calls most Elativ, considers that this unconditioned superlativesignifies a high degree of something, but not the highest degree in a comparison.495 Some intensifier features of most need to be pointed out: (1) Most is usually weakly stressed, thus giving prominence to its head; (2) Utterances with most often have a persuasive, appealingnote of assurance about them; (3) Many examples with most are exclamatory; (4) Heads of most are, in their great majority, words with strong semantic content: anxious, appalling, dreary, sickly etc.; (5) In their great majority, heads of most denote positive ideas, eg: most delicious/observing/kind (of..)496 Most collocates with adjectives characterized by strong evaluative features,497 such as extreme adjectives: annoying, enthusiastic, exhausted, extraordinary, fascinating, miserable, weird, wonderful. It does not combine with typical scalar adjectives such as good, long, slow, but it collocates with positive heads such as delicate, grateful, important, interesting. Paradis claims that this difference between the semantics of most and of the other boosters is
494 495

ibid. Apud Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 171 496 idem, p. 171f 497 ibid.

127

due to the superlativity of most itself, and that the occurrence of several extreme adjectives in combination with ordinary scalar adjectives suggests that most is flexible between maximization and boosting.498 A special case is the collocation most [incomprehensible], where the limit adjective is modulated towards a scalar reading and a high position on the scale.499 most + [adjective] The film is most [disturbing]The trading results show a most [encouraging] trend most + [adverb] I would most [certainly] love a drink. He always acted most [graciously]. (CCD) GREATLY (very much, tremendously) is used in formal English to emphasize the degree or extent of something.500 It is more likely to collocate with positive heads, but negative heads are not unusual either. Most of the heads are extreme deverbal adjectives, such as amused, disappointed, flattered, pleased, vexed, etc. Greatly, is a blend of degree intensifier and manner adjunct and quantifier, which is quite frequently used as an adverb of manner. greatly + [adjective] Miss Bridgett had been greatly [enamoured]. (HF) I am greatly [flattered]. (HJ) This arrangement greatly [pleased] her. (HJ) She is greatly [disappointed] in you. He was not greatly [surprised]. Verb heads of greatly also have favourable implications, eg: to surprise, to contribute, to admire, to enjoy, to please, etc.: greatly + [verb] The behaviour of Miss Bridgett greatly [surprised] Mrs. Deborah. (HF) This behaviour between husband and wife did not
498 499

Carita Paradis 1997, op. cit., p. 84 ibid. 500 CCD

128

greatly [contribute] to Mr. Allworthys repose. (HF) This arrangement greatly [pleased] her. (HJ) I greatly [enjoy] my independence. (HJ) I was greatly [influenced] by Sullivan. (CCD) He [admired] his father greatly. (manner adverbial) (CCD) All those marriages which are contracted from other motives are greatly [criminal]. (HJ) greatly + [prepositional phrase] He was greatly [in love with] you. (HJ) A GOOD DEAL/A GREAT DEAL (a lot)501 and A LOT modify comparatives, verbs and nouns alike. As adverbs of degree originating in nominals, they include comparatives in their ranges:502 a great /good deal + [verb] (a lot more, longer, etc ) They [talked] a great deal. (CCD) They [upset] me a great deal. his coat sleeves being a great deal too long, and his trousers a great deal too short. (C.D/NN: 48) We [learnt] a good deal from her. (CCD) You seem to [travel] about the world a great deal. (DL/SW) a great/good deal + [comparative] He [stayed] a great deal [longer than] they expected. He [knew] a good deal [more than] I did.(LCDE) JOLLY (extremely, very) is used in informal British English to emphasize something, especially when you want to show approval of it.503 Due to its meaning, jolly prefers positively loaded scalar
The partitive phrasal structure a great deal of has been dealt with in 4.3.1.1. 502 eg: all, almost, altogether, a bit, a good deal, a great deal, (a) little, a lot, a shade, a damn sight, somewhat, a trifle. (Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 190) 503 CCD
501

129

adjectives: anxious, brave, enterprising, good, glad, handy, nice, lucky, useful, but, in LLC, it was found to collocate with a negative head: unnerving. Half of the occurrences of jolly in LLC are collocations with good. Ulf Bcklund speaks about a note of mock enthusiasm, with various overtones, in most collocations of jolly.504 jolly + [adjective] We provide a jolly [good] service, I think.... Hes going to be a jolly [tough] candidate to beat when the election comes along. It was jolly [decent of him] to think of me, I must say. Jolly well (really) is used in informal British English to emphasize what you are saying, especially when you are annoyed or irritated: I had no sympathy for them, it jolly well [served] them right!... Im jolly well [not going to] ring her up and be told to get lost! BADLY (to a great or serious degree, severely or unpleasantly to a great amount or degree). To the best of our knowledge, intensifier badly has been approached only in Sydney Greenbaums505 and Johanssons506 studies. Stig Johanssons analysis is based on a study of the tagged Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus (LOB) and a closer look at combinations of the intensifier badly with verbs in three corpora of present-day English texts and in the quotations of the Oxford English Dictionary.507 The first five sections deal with verbCf. Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 161ff, jolly may contain a note of irony or sarcasm, a note of condescension or a note of affectedness. 505 Sydney Greenbaum, op. cit. As it has already been shown, Greenbaums study arrested Bcklunds attention in the Introduction to his study on the collocation of adverbs of degree, but it was ignored in further analysis as there is no discussion on or entry of badly in Bcklunds dictionary. 506 Stig, Johansson, This scheme is badly needed: some aspects of verbadverb combinations. In Aarts and Meyer (eds), The Verb in Contemporary English.. Theory and description, CUP, 1995, p. 218-240 507 idem, p. 218
504

130

adverb combinations in general and some notes on Sydney Greenbaums elicitation experiment. The conclusion was that badly as an intensifier only occurs in post-position of the verbs need and want: I badly [needed]/[wanted] the money. With verbs of injuring (hurt, injure, pain, sprain, wound), the meaning of badly is a mixture of degree intensifier and manner adjunct, that is, we are saying something about the extent of the wounding and at the same time referring to its unpleasant consequences.508 Similarly, with verbs of judging (miscalculate, misjudge), badly is also a blend of intensifier and manner adjunct.509 Stig Johanssons conclusions tally with Sydney Greenbaums, as far as the collocational pattern of badly as an intensifier is: pure degree only occurs with need and want. The manner/degree meaning combines most typically with forms that have a negative meaning component. This applies both to verb-adverb combinations and to the limited number of instances where badly was found to combine with forms other than verbs: badly [in need of] repairs, [had gone] badly [awry], badly [out of focus], go out of focus very badly.510 Quirk et al. mention an intensive use of badly and other manner/intensifying adverbials in the following pattern: He [felt] badly/deeply/keenly/strongly about it. Further, they contrast: She [feels] bad today. (not healthy) She [feels] bad/badly about it. (guilty, uneasy) Sydney Greenbaum and Stig Johansson do not, however, share the same opinion as far as the form of a distributional lexicon of adverbials is concerned. The former claims the need for a specification of the collocational range of verbs of each degree intensifier, as well as of some individual verbs that have a strong collocational link. Furthermore, there will also be cases: badly, where individual verbs must be listed, since no generalizations can
Sydney Greenbaum, op. cit., p. 63 Sydney Greenbaum supposes that badly is in these cases in part reinforcing the sense of the prefix mis. (idem, p. 66) 510 Stig Johansson, op. cit., p. 227f
509 508

131

be made.511 Stig Johanssons examination of badly, on the other hand, suggests that there is a great deal of uniformity in these combinations, and generalisations can indeed be made. He concludes that collocational patterns appear to be remarkably stable, since [t]here is good agreement between the corpus material and the quotations from the Oxford English Dictionary, in spite of the difference in the age of the material.512 An ideal distributional lexicon should, in his opinion, give information on grammatical context as well as collocation.513 Both Stig Johanssons and Sydney Greenbaums studies fall within the scope of our thesis. They are primarily noteworthy for the study of gradience between intensifiers and adjuncts of manner. There are many other such items whose function very much depends on the modified head, and which have simply been listed as intensifiers in Quirk et al514 and in Ulf Bcklund.515 Among them are some negative intensifiers in the range of awfully and terribly, or some positive ones, such as bitterly, deeply, enormously, heartily, intensely, etc. By the same token, some concluding notes in Stig Johansson invite to generalizations about the status of intensifiers in general and of badly in particular. He is of the opinion that badly has developed along the same lines as awfully and terribly have, namely, they have turned from degree adverbs expressing negative evaluation plus degree into pure degree adverbs.516 What he finds surprising, however, is the limited use of badly as a pure degree adverb. He seems to have found an answer in both Sydney Greenbaum and in Dwight Bolinger. The former thinks that this may be the consequence of badly being restricted to colloquial usage.517 Not very much unlike him, Dwight Bolinger places badly among his relatively ungrammaticized intensifiers, though he later refers to badly as a rather more grammaticized

511 512

Sydney Greenbaum, op. cit., p. 87 Stig Johansson, op. cit., p. 233 513 idem, p. 234 514 Quirk et al 1985 515 Ulf Bcklund 1973 516 Stig Johansson, op. cit., 231 517 Sydney Greenbaum, op. cit, p. 62

132

intensifier among the relatively ungrammaticized ones.518 Due to its low frequency of occurrence, not unsurprisingly, there are only two occurrences of badly with its pure degree function in LCDE and none in CCD. In all the other examples badly is either a blend of manner and degree adverbial or a mere adjunct of manner. Compare: Degree: She badly [wanted] to be chosen for the school hockey team. (LCDE)... Hes badly [in need of] a haircut. (LCDE) Manner and degree: Rob [did] very badly in the History exam. (LCDE)... Things started to [go] badly [wrong] for Eric after he lost his job. (LCDE)... Im sure they wont [think] badly [of] you if you tell them you need some time away from work. (LCDE)... The room was so badly [lit] I couldnt see what I was doing. (CCD)... Hes been limping [badly] ever since the ski-ing accident. (LCDE)... The company has been very badly [managed]. (LCDE)... The party did [badly] in the election. Manner It was badly [organized]... Pearce [played] pretty badly in yesterdays semi-final. (LCDE) BLOODY, as an intensifier, is only discussed in Ulf Bcklund, who thinks that bloody adds a note of flippancy to collocations in its range,519 bringing about some release from various emotional tensions, caused by despair, irritation, embarrassment and the like, as in Funny! You were a bloody good dad!(which is uttered by a young man watching his father dying) or in Im getting cold so bloody ridiculous (which is uttered by an old man, helpless and weak from a severe disease). Under such circumstances, bloody may be interpreted rather as a downtoner tempering down on reality than as a swear word, as commented in the CCD.520 LDCE regards it as a
518 519

Stig Johansson, op. cit., p. 239n Ulf Bcklund 1973, p.159f 520 Bloody is a swear word used to emphasize something you are saying, especially something you dislike or feel strongly about; used mainly in

133

marker of emphasis that is used to emphasize what you are saying in a slightly rude way: Its [bloody] cold out there!; It serves you [bloody] well right; What a [bloody] cheek!; [Bloody] hell!;Are you going to go with him? Not bloody [likely]. (definitely not) FAR (greatly; very much, decidedly) is used in intensifying structures, in submodification, as premodifier of (too +) adjective base, comparatives, verbs or adjuncts that refer to or describe progress, comparison, or difference.521 Borst claims that collocations of far with adjectives in their base form are in most cases negative in character.522 (1) far + [comparative] a far [greater] problem I enjoyed it far [more than] I expected to (2) far + too + [adjective]/[adverb] I have been talking far too [much]... far too [nave]. (3) far + [prepositional phrase] a suicide rate far [in excess of] the national average. (4) (so very) far + [verb]/[adjective] ...electronic techniques, in which the firm had so very far [outstripped] its rivals over the last few years My ideas on foreign policy were far [removed from] those of the Government... The reality fell far short of the promise. (5) by far + [superlative]/[comparative]; [comparative]+ by far than; (by) far and away + [comparative] are used to emphasize that someone or something is much better, worse, greater, etc, than anything else or than another thing that has been mentioned:523 She was by far [the] camps [best] swimmer by far [the greater] part of the prosecutions evidence... by far [the most effective] supporter... This is far and away [the most important] point... Mr. Gerran is by far and away [the
British English. 521 CCD 522 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 190 523 CCD

134

biggest] share holder. (6) far from + [adjective] + (noun)/-ing; Far from+ it is used to emphasize that something is not a particular thing or does not do a particular thing, often when you are making a contrast with what people expect or think: His hands were far from [clean] Nell was very far from [poor] The first day was a nightmare-but it was far from [a] total [disaster] Far from [speeding up], the tank slithered to a halt You werent my choice, [not that Im against you], far from [it], but my first choice was Holliday It is not that Irish Americans are [ungenerous]. Far from [it].524 SO can mean to a great degree or extent and modifies adjectives, adverbs and verbs.525 Thus, so big/tall, for instance, is used to emphasize how big, tall etc. something is, especially when it is very big or very tall.526 (1) so + adjective (+ a + noun)527 Im so [glad] you could come. (CCD) I had never felt so [alone] in my life. (CCD) Whats so [funny]? (CCD) We had not expected so [overwhelming] a response. (CCD) Why does life have to be so [complicated]. (LDCE) It was so [embarrassing] everyone was standing there looking at us. (LDCE) Ive never seen so [beautiful a baby] before./so [tall a
524 525

ibid. Approximating vague expressions of the type or so + adjective and about so + adjective have already been commented upon in the section/unit on approximators. 526 LDCE, p. 1363 527 The alternative pattern is such a + adjective + noun, eg: such a tall man; It was such a lovely day Lonnies such a nice man It was strange that such elegant creatures made such ugly sounds My life is such a mess.CCD

135

man]/so [high a mountain]. (LDCE) (2) so + adverb Dont go so fast. (CCD) I dont think that one can so easily dismiss so serious a subject. (CCD) (3) so + [verb]/[verb] + so (a great deal) I wish he wouldnt [fuss] so it makes me feel nervous. (LDCE) I dont know why you must always [fuss] so. (CCD) I [do] so [love] you. (CCD) (4) not so means to a less great or less serious degree than you would expect or than has previously been started or suggested, not that: It wasnt so very [long] ago. (CCD) Carrying the weight was not so [difficult]. (CCD) (5) so + (vague quantifier) [much]/[many] + (count/noncount noun)/(pron. + verb) can be used to refer to a particular amount, number, level, degree etc,528 to say that there is a definite limit to something but we are not saying what this limit is:529 Theres so [much] work to be done. 530 There is only so [much] you can do with hair this fine. We will only [pay] so [much], no more.(CCD) I can only [take] so [much], and then I get annoyed. (CCD) ... Ive never seen so [many] people attend this church before. (LDCE) ... They were privileged in so [many] ways.(CCD) ... There are only so [many] ways of cooking an egg. (CCD) (6) so + [adjective] (that) and so + [adjective] + as to be something are used to emphasize the degree of something by mentioning the result or consequence of it:531
528 529

LDCE, p. 1363 CCD, p. 1381 530 That much and that big in the following examples are similarly intensifying in the following examples: Hogan: Id never dream he had that much [spunk]. (ON/MM: 9) Hogan: hes that big [a jackass]. (ON/MM: 11) 531 CCD, p.1381

136

He was so [fat] he couldnt get through the door. (LDCE) You couldnt hear yourself think, the music was so [loud]. (LDCE) ... The objection is so [fundamental] and so widely [accepted] that it needs to be answered in detail.(CCD) Never, she said, so [firmly] that it closed the subject. (CCD) ... So [critical] is the shortage that some villagers will soon be completely without water.(CCD) a loss so [vast] as to be almost incomprehensible. (CCD) ... Mountaineering is now very popular, so [much] so that theres been talk of restricting access to Mount Snowdon. (CCD) ... The statement was so [ambiguous] as to be totally meaningless. (LDCE) (7) Oh so + [adjective] (a literary expression) means to a very great degree or extent: The flames spread quickly, oh so quickly. SUCH is a (pre)determiner with either an anaphoric or a cataphoric function, i. e. it is used to refer back to something which has already been mentioned or to introduce something which you are going to talk about. It is slightly more emphatic or formal than the, this, that or it, eg They lasted for hundreds of thousands of years. On a human time scale, such [a period] seems an eternity... We have been asked to consider radical alternatives. [Many] such have been proposed in the last few years... In any case I dont believe in magic, there is no such [thing]. such a + [noun] is used to refer to something in the situation around you, especially something that seems uncommon or surprising in some way, eg What an amazing restaurant to find in such [a place]. I have been waiting for just such [an occasion]. such ((pre)determiner) a + [adjective] + [sg. noun]/such + [adjective] + [pl. noun] is also used to emphasize an adjective or noun. It means

137

to a very great degree or extent532 and can be used interchangeably with the structure so [adjective] a + [sg. noun]: Lonnies such [a nice man]. It was strange that such [elegant creatures] made such ugly sounds... My life is such [a mess]. such + (a) [conj (that)] is used in order to emphasize the degree of something by mentioning the result or consequence of it: I slapped her hand and she got such a [shock] that she dropped the milk-canThe extent of the disaster was such [that the local authorities were quite unable to cope] ... There are such [great differences that] close parallels cannot be drawn. 3.2.1.3 The Emphasizer Paradigm Unlike intensifiers, which require that the item or unit to which they apply should be gradable, emphasizing items, in adding to the force (as distinct from the degree) of a constituent, do not require that the constituent concerned should be gradable.533 This set is concerned with expressing the semantic role of modality, and has a reinforcing effect on the truth value of the clause or part of the clause to which they apply.534 It includes lexical items such as actually, certainly, clearly, definitely, indeed, obviously, plainly, really, surely, for certain, for sure, of course; frankly, honestly, literally, simply, just, as well as a British English homomorph of fairly. When some emphasizers are used with gradable verbs they may also have a scaling effect akin to that of boosters, eg He really [likes] her. [He likes her very much] I indeed [appreciate] your help. [I greatly appreciate your
532

There are cases when the singular structure can be used interchangeably with the structure so + [adjective] a + [sg. noun], eg: It was such a [lovely day] = It was so [lovely] a day. 533 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 583. Cf. Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 362, this may be the reason why verbs and verb phrases are more freely modified by emphasizers than by moderators. 534 Quirk et al, idem, p. 583

138

help] He definitely [impressed] them. [He impressed them greatly] 535 Unlike boosters, however, emphasizers have an intrinsic reinforcing and emphatic effect with nongradable verbs too: He really [was] there. She indeed [sat] next to them. We definitely [saw] it.536 There are emphasizing subjuncts that can, under certain circumstances, have a scaling effect, i.e. they take on the force of an intensifier when the head is a gradable adjective or noun: really [rude/long/cool/good/interesting/shocking].537 It was really [funny]. Hes [dangerous] indeed [very dangerous indeed] She is certainly [intelligent]. [She is very intelligent] I was frankly [appalled] at his attitude. [I was absolutely appalled] Hes obviously [a fool]. [Hes a big fool] Hes clearly [a dangerous man] [Hes a very dangerous man]538 REALLY The prototypical emphasizer in this set is really. Carita Paradis claims that the motivating factors for the readings of really within the framework of cognitive semantics as an epistemic marker of
idem, p. 586 ibid. 537 Carita Paradis (http://www.englund.lu.se/research/workingpapers/pdfvolume2/Cim.pdf, p.1): Reinforcing really takes scope over scalar property concepts denoted by adjectives which are based on a scale schema and it is this schema that makes it possible for really to develop a degree reinforcing function. Thus, really has the effect of reinforcing the degree of rudeness, length and personality, implying boosting of this property, i.e. really rude is ruder than just rude. 538 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 586. As it is also the case with intensifiers, speakers may vary in the extent to which they feel that all or some of these emphasizers have a scaling effect.
536 535

139

factual and subjective evidence and as a degree marker are semantic/pragmatic in nature rather than syntactic/positional. 539 She thinks that position is a linguistic reflex of the semantics and pragmatics of an utterancean important clue to the interpretation of really. It is however a formal clue, not strictly predictive of differences in readings.540 The following examples of really are interpreted as epistemic in the sense that they make a comment on the degree of truth of the proposition as perceived by the speaker in the actual situation of use, but they differ in scope and semantic interaction with their environment:541 (1) this question is really [surprising] (2) this is [a] really [surprising question] (3) this is really [a surprising question] (4) this really [is a surprising question] (5) really [this is a surprising question] While in (1) and (2) really is primarily a degree modifier reiforcing a gradable value of the head surprising, in (3), (4) and (5) its function is primarily that of a marker of epistemic stance.542 Moreover, really in (3) and (4) appears to be backgrounded in relation to the rest of the clause, whereas in (5) it is both prosodically and discoursally more salient.543 Apart from position, another formal clue to the interpretation of really is intonation, i.e. the presence or absence of the nuclear
539

It has been claimed that it is the combined effect of position, prosody and the wider context that finally decides the function of really. (Carita Paradis,http://www.englund.lu.se/research/workingpapers/pdfvolume2/Cim.pdf, p.1) 540 ibid. 541 ibid. 542 ibid. 543 Carita Paradis (ibid.) holds that in in (5) really no longer intensifies a single clause element but it is a comment on the whole proposition. It has, in fact, been remarked that the further really is moved to the left, the less is the emphasis on surprising and the more it is on the whole, i.e. a surprising question

140

tone on really and the shape of that tone, if there is one.544 This tallies with Quirk et als approach to the emphasizer and intensifier really. Emphasizer really takes on the force of an intensifier only in collocation with gradable, usually extreme heads. In Quirks reading, for instance, the subaudition of the sentence He may have really injured innocent people, is of a high degree of injury as well as the assertion of certainty.545 In William Labovs view, really is one of the most frequent markers of intensity in colloquial conversation, and must figure large in any first approach to intensity in everyday communication. It makes, however, little contribution to cognitive or representational meaning, unless it is directly opposed to the unreal or the insincere.546 Pragmatically, it seems that really informs us that there are others who do not support the proposition that it modifies, a definition with which William Labov is rather discontented. He does not find it entirely satisfactory because it looses the emotional content expressed by intensity, which is shared by intensifiers, intensifier really included. Further William Labov describes really as a cognitive zero since it would have zero representational content in the context-free information processing.547 In contexts such as I really [worked] while I was away! really is said to act to intensify the main predication, and therefore considered as a part of the mood system, pertaining to the existential status of the predication. It establishes a surreal mood, the converse of irrealis, in designating a state of reality greater than normal.548 The adverb sure, which also occurs in preverbal position, is similar in force and it is in general an alternate of really: 549
544 545

idem, p. 2 Quirk et al 1985, p. 583 546 William Labov, op. cit., p. 44 547 In William Labovs opinion, Social and emotional meanings are difficult to demonstrate directly, but the presence of cognitive zeros or cognitive contradictions can give indirect demonstrations of their presence. (ibid.) 548 ibid. 549 ibid.

141

Sure [it is]! Cause they sure [work the hell out of me]! Moreover, the adverb so, which is limited to adjectival modification, can function as an alternate of sure and really: Listen honey, theyll change clothes so [fast] down here! Im so [glad] she comes. But they were so [glad] to see me! 3.2.1.4 Co-occurrence Restrictions on Amplifiers The members of the paradigm of maximizers and the members of the paradigm of boosters are basically said to have an intensifying effect on the scalar feature of the adjective they modify. Although maximizers are said to denote the upper extreme of the intensification scale, and boosters a high degree/point on the scale, this distinction/division is not a hard and fast one. Maximizers in Eposition,550 are more likely to convey their absolute meaning of extreme degree, but they only express a very high degree when they are in M-position. Quirk et al draw our attention to the closeness in meaning of maximizer utterly and of booster violently in Mposition, eg: They utterly/violently [detested] him. 551 When they express the absolute extreme of the intensification scale, maximizers cannot be premodified or compared for degree. This is the case of the suffixless maximizers altogether, most and quite (which can neither be compared nor modified), whereas the rest of the maximizers are variable in their modification and comparison patterns: How utterly we deplore his tactics! However totally they believed in the leaders integrity,
Positions of intensifiers will be marked I-position, M-position and Eposition, representing initial, medial and end-position, respectively. 551 Quirk et al write about the tendency to use the maximizer for merely a high degree, especially in the case of attitudinal verbs such as detest. (1985, p. 591)
550

142

they were prepared to He ignored my request more completely than she did. They very fully [appreciate] our problems. 552 The result of the test for modification and comparison shows that, although fully and thoroughly can be used to denote a very high point on the scale, only absolutely is felt to be absolute, marking the absolute extreme of intensification and, hence, is not susceptible itself of modification.553 Entirely, utterly and extremely cannot be modified, whereas the modification of totally, completely and perfectly and the comparability of perfectly and entirely are doubtful. Quirk et als findings tally with the hard-and-fast rules of prescriptive tradition that they make mention of, namely, that the use of very or the comparative with completely and perfectly, as well as with their respective adjective forms is forbidden.554 There is, however, some variation with the intensifying adjectives, whose acceptability of modification very much depends on the modified noun. Thus, in premodification of an abstract deverbal noun head, the intensifying adjective will more readily accept comparison and modification by very than a concrete noun head, eg: Ive never seen a more complete [investigation]/?fool. Corpus analysis of the maximizer paradigm has sorted absolutely out as the modifier favoured by extreme adjectives. 555 Completely, totally and utterly are preferred by adjectives with negative morphemes and a negative import, whereas perfectly shuns negative morphemes.556 Different is a frequent collocate with completely, entirely, totally and quite, but it does not occur with absolutely and perfectly for the mere reason that there is no absolute/perfect difference in the same way as there is, say absolute/perfect identity. This is so because if different is laid out on a scale it never reaches an absolute point. Identical cannot be laid
Cf. Quirk et al 1985, p. 592 ibid. 554 ibid.. This is hardly so in coloquial English, where modification by inflection and intensification of perfect, for instance, is quite common, e.g the most perfect wife, more nearly perfect. 555 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 82 556 ibid.
553 552

143

out on a scale, because it represents a zero-point, i.e. the absence of difference.557 When used with completely, entirely, totally and quite, different is understood to mean in all respects, as opposed to partly [different].558Partly can be replaced by completely, fully, totally and utterly as in The diversity of London speech is partly [responsible] for those dialectal or abnormal pronunciations whereas only altogether, entirely and wholly are likely to replace it in the failure to achieve any sort of English Academy was partly [political].559 Adjective and verb collocates harmonize with the negative and dynamic character of intensifiers completely and totally. Collocational ranges of most maximizers overlap and it is quite difficult to account for discrete features that distinguish them unless some contextual cues help disambiguate. The members of the paradigm of boosters have different collocational patterns. Very co-occurs with less colourful, commoncore, scalar adjectives. The informal boosters awfully, dreadfully, frighteningly, frightfully, horribly, terribly and extremely are also more frequent with positive and negative common-core adjectives in spontaneous speech. They, however, seem to add some extra negative force to the negative heads they modify. Because it combines with adjectives with strong evaluative features, both scalar and extreme, the superlative booster most has been labelled flexible between maximization and boosting.560 Highly resembles most in that it also does not collocate with typically scalar adjectives such as good, fast, long. Positively loaded boosters, like jolly, are preferred by positive emotive adjectives. 3.2.2 Downtoners/Attenuators Conceptually,
557 558

downtoners561/

attenuators 562

have

ibid. ibid. 559 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 198 560 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 84 561 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 597 ff 562 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 84

144

generally lowering effect on the force of the verb or predication. In agreement with their position on the intensification cline, they have, like amplifiers, been further subclassified as approximators, compromisers/moderators, diminishers and minimizers.563 These semantic divisions represent an evaluation in terms of their downtoning force and, more important, in terms of their relationship with the modified head. While diminishers perform a simpler grading of intensity, the subsets of approximators and compromisers question the expression of the head they modify. 564 More context versatile than maximizers and diminishers, the subsets of approximators and compromisers have comparatively wider collocational ranges. Their interpretation poses problems of overlapping and ambiguity, especially within the compromiser paradigm. 565 Their unsettled and fuzzy nature has, however, made the assignment of individual downtoning intensifiers/attenuating modifiers to particular groups a problem of speaker subjectivity. 3.2.2.1 Approximators In approaches ranging from semantic to radically semantic and pragmatic to radically pragmatic, writers on the subject have assigned the feature of approximation either to (1) the semantic category of intensifiers or to (2) the discourse category of vague words. The downtoning semantic feature of approximators entails a denial of the truth value of what is denoted by the verb, in other words an approximation to the force of the verb, while indicating that the verb concerned expresses more than is relevant.566
563

Following Carita Paradis (idem), we consider only three paradigms in the semantic class of downtoners, namely approximators, compromizers and diminishers, respectively. Thus, Quirk et al.s diminishers and minimizers are both analysed as members of the paradigm of diminishers. 564 Cf. Quirk et al. 1985, p. 597 565 Compromisers may, under certain circumstances, act as approximators (sort of, kind of, fairly, etc.) or as maximizers (quite, rather, etc.). 566 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 599. It has been noted that while we can state I almost resigned (but in fact I didnt resign), we cannot deny in this way

145

Tokens of approximators in Quirk et al. (almost, nearly, practically, virtually, as good as, all but) 567 only partly identify with restrictives in Gustav Kirchners list,568 with Dwight Bolingers class of truth-identifying adverbs, in the category of sentence adverbs, commenting on the full truth versus partial truth of the head (quite, altogether, fully, entirely, almost, nearly, all but, [just]about),569 with Anna Wierzbickas approximatives (at least, at the most, just, merely, only;570 around, about, approximately, roughly; almost, nearly; no less, no more, as many as, exactly), Wachtels 571 approximators (approximately), Joanna Channells approximators (about, (a)round, approximately; n or m, n or so approximators) and with Carita Paradis approximators (almost). 572 Estimating that approximation overall is frequent, Joanna Channell573 is concerned with the role it plays in high standard education: students are required to master the language of formal spoken presentations, one dimension of which is appropriate use of precision and vagueness. In learning academic writing, they must acquire judgement of where it is necessary to give precise quantities
the truth value of what is said when we use most other downtoners as in * I kind of like him (but in fact I dont like him) or * We know them slightly (but in fact we dont know them). 567 Cf. idem, p. 597f, only practically and as good as are informal approximators. 568 Gustav Kirchner, op. cit. 569 Dwight Bolinger 1972, p. 94 570 Anna Wierzbicka, Precision in vagueness: the semantics of English approximatives. In Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 1986, p. 597-614. The comparative prepositional phases at least, at the most have not been included in the downtoner list by Quirk et al., whereas just, merely, only have been recorded as diminishers, and I shall treat them as such, in my thesis. 571 Tom Wachtel, Pragmatic Approximations. Journal of Pragmatics 4, North Holland Publishing Company, 1980, p. 201-211.; Tom, Wachtel, Distinguishing between approximators. Journal of Pragmatics 5, NorthHolland Publishing Company, 1981, p. 311-322. 572 According to Carita Paradis criteria of selection, only one approximator, namely almost, ,has been identified. 573 Joanna Channell, op. cit., 1994, p. 10

146

or other information, or where a more vague reference will be sufficient.574 In an attempt to construe the semantics of English approximatives, Anna Wierzbicka575 advocates the need for a radically semantic approach, as opposed to a radically pragmatic one, suggesting that even the vaguest hedges and approximatives can be given rigorous semantic explications, which correctly account for the particles use.576 She disagrees with the following, in her opinion, erroneous assumptions, which have been induced by defeatist and deeply pessimistic attitudes: (1) either words in general, or most words, or in any case words such as particles, dont have meaning; or if they do have meaning this meaning cannot be stated in discrete terms; (2) words (all words, or most words, or in any case words such as the approximatives) are semantically fuzzy and can be handled only by some sort of fuzzy logic; or, perhaps in terms of Gricean principles of interpretation, not in terms of any compositional semantics (3)the functioning of particles, hedges and the like, can only be elucidated by pragmatics.577 Wierzbicka advances what she thinks to be valid assumptions in support of her thesis of precision in vagueness and offers a paraphrase substitutable for each of the lexical items under analysis, paraphrase that provides the basis for a contrastive analysis. She assumes that the meaning of a word determines its range of use, and that the validity of semantic formulae postulated by the semanticist has to be assessed on the basis of their predictive powers with respect to the range of use. The verifiability of the postulated semantic formulae depends on their substitutabilityfor the expressions defined.578 A precondition of their verifiability, on the other hand, is that they should be intelligible.
idem: 21 Wierzbicka, op. cit. 576 idem, p. 560. In Anna Wierzbicka, approximatives are labelled particles. 577 idem, p. 612 578 ibid.
575 574

147

3.2.2.1.1 ALMOST, NEARLY and Congeners The semantics of the cognitive synonyms almost and nearly, which collocate with both numerical and non-numerical heads, has been the object of both Anna Wierzbickas579 and Ulf Bcklunds 580 studies. The approximator almost581 consists of the elements all and most and it is relatively neutral with respect to emotive meaning. The development of the meaning nearly originates from the meaning mostly all, nearly all to very nearly.582 Anna Wierzbicka speaks about almost1 and almost2. While the deletion of almost1, in (a) Almost1 50 people came to the party and in (b) He is almost1 blind/bald, will leave the sentence approximately true, the deletion of almost2, in John almost2 killed Harry, would make the sentence patently false.583 Ulf Bcklund is dissatisfied with current lexicographic methods, whose scantiness of data used for semantic discussion has led to an exaggerated reliance on introspection. He disapproves of mechanistic analyses whose basic fault have been to confuse meaning with reference, thus encouraging the excessive polysemy which dominates linguistic discussion today and adopts a monosemic view for the study of almost and nearly.584 The main purpose of his paper is to illustrate the principle of semantic determinism,585 which stipulates that words enjoy semantic integrity. By virtue of this principle, it is primarily implied that the language user should be credited with a more systematic and deepseated linguistic knowledge than what seems to be generally
579 580

idem Ulf Bcklund 1985 581 Neither C.Stoffel, op. cit., nor Gustav Kirchner, op. cit., discussed almost in their studies. The latter mentions its presence in Eugen Borst (1902) in the analysis of most. 582 Cf. Carita Paradis 1997, p. 73 583 Anna Wierzbicka, op. cit., p. 606-610 584 Ulf Bcklund holds that the dictionary entries show severe shortcomings in that wordy definitions of various senses... serve as a poor guide for the dictionary user, while illustrative examples and collocational information would offer much more reliable help. (1985, p. 67) 585 idem, p. 65

148

assumed. This knowledge is chiefly unconscious. Although most English speakers would consciously think and claim that synonyms are more or less interchangeable, the synonyms are actually in most cases clearly distinguished in that certain contextual cues release the selection of a synonym but block the use of another.586 The semantic integrity of a lexical item should be respected so that the excessive polysemy that is prevalent in current lexicological methods and in lexicographic applications should be abandoned in favour of a monosemic view. Such a view would enable us to gain a more realistic insight into what principles and forces underlie the use of language.587 It has thus been assumed that the selection of almost and nearly in the following examples is not determined by a more or less superficial whim being rather guided by deep-seated, unconscious <knowledge> about the unified sense of the semantic function of either word.588 Compare Almost [every] person does this. Nearly [every] person does this. This happens almost [always]. This happens [nearly] always. The best way to get at the unified meaning of a lexical item, especially one with a high frequency, and for reliable conclusions to be drawn, a larger amount of data should be evaluated. 589 Ulf Bcklund therefore draws on an extensive amount of data meant to help him substantiate van Dongens definition of the core meaning of almost and nearly, i.e. Nearly denotes that an action is on the point of being completed; almost that an action is begun and approaches its completion. Nearly means not far from either the beginning or the completion of an action; almost means: a long way towards the end or completion of an action. A first conclusion to be drawn is that
ibid. idem, p. 65f 588 idem, p. 67 589 Ulf Bcklund concludes his survey of the collocational ranges of almost and nearly with a tentative suggestion... as to what kind of material a dictionary article on almost and nearly should present to ensure more valuable help. (idem, p. 118ff)
587 586

149

nearly has a dichotomous, either-or character, whereas almost expresses gradual approach. Ulf Bcklund uses two of van Dongens examples to illustrate these semantic differences. She almost [screamed] reads that she was crying out such that the cries came near fulfilling the conditions for being called scream, that is, a few degrees from screaming, it was as if she screamed. She nearly [screamed], on the other hand, reads that she was near screaming but she could stop herself at the last moment, that is, being on the point of actually screaming but suppressing this tendency.590 Focusing on the sociolinguistics of approximators, Ulf Bcklund discusses concepts such as call-words and apexwords, dynamic and static meaning. They help Ulf Bcklund point out some general semantic features underlying the nature and function of the two approximators in similar or different contexts. One can discern elements of dynamicalness and dramaticalness in the collocations with almost, a sort of heightened emotional tension or emotional overtones591 which contrast with the element of staticalness or mathematical definiteness592 inherent to collocations with nearly. This has been illustrated in comparisons between almost + [verb] and nearly + [verb]; almost [always] and nearly [always]; almost [every] and nearly [every]; almost [all] and nearly [all]; almost [there] and nearly [there]; almost [impossible] and nearly [impossible]; almost + [number] and nearly + [number], etc. Almost + call -words and apex-words Ulf Bcklunds criterion for referring a certain word to the category of call -words is not based on its inherent semantic properties, but rather on its use in certain contexts. Thus, We are almost related is probably uttered when both the encoder and the decoder know that they are not related, but where the encoder in
idem, p. 69. Ulf Bcklund points to the fact that the analysis of nearly and almost in Bcklund 1985 tallies with Van Dongens comparison between the two lexical items, referred to in Bcklund 1973. 591 idem, p. 72. 592 idem, p. 70.
590

150

what precedes this utterance has stated that their personal connections may even be called related. Related functions as a call-word in that it tampers with reality, whereas almost has the double function of focalizing a call-word and to tone down the concept of its head, in order to give it pragmatic credibility.593 The modified head is in some respect exaggerated because an as ifcomponent is inherent in its semantic structure in a specific use. 594 In We are nearly related, on the other hand, related is given information and nearly carries... an important meaning of its own, that is the relation is near. The factuality of the collocations nearly there/double/ horizontal/perpendicularly, with an absolutely dispassionate tone, is contrasted with the emotional involvement of the speaker in collocations of a call-nature, such as almost there/at the airfield/palpable/tangibly in the examples below: Watson stumbled down the bank. The man leaned his frail body against Watsons shoulder. He was no heavier than a child. Watson paused for breath. The man wheezed weakly, his fetid breath beating softly against Watsons neck. His sweet whisper came after great effort - Oh, Christ - - I wish you was Henry. He promised to take me - Hush, were almost there. (BC) Stevie wake up now. Were nearly [there] - - The train had slowed. (BC) The heads of nearly are reckoned to be punctual and valid all in one piece. So are the states double, horizontal and perpendicularly, which cannot be intensified as *very double, horizontal or perpendicularly. They are names of positions which are never allowed to become valid because these movements are arrested before this position is reached.595 The dramatical overtones,
idem, p. 76. Almost is said to lend pragmatic credibility to heads which express an absolute idea too categorically to be consistent with affairs in the external world. That might, in Ulf Bcklunds opinion, account for the collocability of almost with immediately and at once. 594 idem, p. 66 595 idem, p. 88f
593

151

the heightened emotional tension, created by an extreme situation in the example with the collocation almost there causes the punctual head there to become flexible. 596 What prompts the helper to use the dynamic almost is his wish [t]o give the exhausted man courage to continue his strenuous trip.597 It has been argued that through the call-nature given to we are there, the link with the external world is made indirect. The exhaustion in the man needs to be charmed away as it were. We are almost there would mean we are approaching our goal; look here, we can call our situation we are there, because to all intents and purposes this is true.598 It is assumed that one of the most essential semantic functions of almost is to stretch a categorical head such as immediately, at once, palpable, tangibly, etc. and make it pragmatically credible. On the contrary, in a non-dramatic situation, such as a train approaching its destination there has a direct link with the external world, retaining its mathematical precision and calculability,599 in which case there is no need for there to be stretched. In they were almost [at the airfield], when Fan, leaning forward from the back seat, said urgently a movement is arrested before the destination is reached. Bcklund argues that at the airfield is just as punctual as double, horizontal and perpendicularly, but the feeling of irritation600 causes it to be stretched. The dramaticalness of the contexts of we are almost [there] and they were almost [at the airfield] is said to introduce an element of interpretativeness which deprives there of its punctuality and mathematical precision. It has been pointed out that, contrary to some informants opinion, almost and nearly do not express a difference in distance. The contexts with almost and those with nearly differ in that almost attaches an as if feature to ideas which are known not to be true. Thus, the mans exhaustion made me cause him to think that it was as if we were already there; our
idem, p. 89 ibid. 598 ibid. 599 ibid. 600 ibid.. This feeling of irritation has been described as we were there, to all intents and purposes, when Fan made us stop.
597 596

152

irritation at Fans causing us to stop and turn in our hurry made us think that it was as if we had already reached the airfield. By using exaggerated heads of a call-nature, speakers disregard reality to a certain extent, and the function of almost is to tamper with reality. 601 Ulf Bcklund claims that similar to metaphorical words a call-word typically has a wider semantic scope than an ordinary word.602 Metaphorical words are said to have typically a wider semantic scope in that they are characterized by inexactness of meaning. Thus, crashing, in the frozen collocation crashing bore, has a wider semantic scope and is more inexact than eg: dreadful in that crashing has been taken from the fringes of the semantic area the verb crash has in the example The elephants crashed through the jungle.603 In coining this collocation, the encoder is confronted with a particularly strong bore-act, which, because of the strong impact it is making on his mind, he wants to communicate to others with a particularly striking and concretizing word. It is suggested that the strong bore act raises an antenna which sends out a search-signal looking for a semantic area which may supply him with a striking expression. These signals are resonated most strongly by crashed in The elephants crashed through the jungle, because one of the inferred or recognized features of this verb is clumsiness, which is shared by a bore-act. Thus, crashing is, because it evokes the way elephants walk through dense vegetation, the way a stone crashes through a window, etc. a series of associations which are covered by the adjective crashing, in a diffuse way.604 Thereby call-words are linguistically interesting because they are contextually dependent or sensitive. Forms like crashing (bore), crass (stupidity) and raving (lunatic) tend to get monopolized by the epithet that arises from the observed act605 and in that the underlying act is often specified in the immediate

601 602

ibid. idem, p. 88 603 ibid. 604 ibid. 605 i.e. a bore-act, a stupidity-act and a lunatic-act.

153

context of crashing bore, crass (stupidity) and raving lunatic.606 Although regarded as secondary in that they are the last link in a chain of associations which are given linguistic form, apex-words also serve to concretize an abstract general idea.607 The adjective blithering, for example, in blithering idiot, is a concrete intensification of the general, abstract idea stupid.608 By serving as a kind of iconic representation of stupid talk, it concretizes the abstract concept stupidity in that blithering has a sound-imitating quality.609 In Bcklunds reading, blithering may mean so stupid that he was blithering, which is a conscious, concrete and, nevertheless, dramatic intensification, since its verbalization is conditioned by a strong emotional element.610 Almost also combines with heads with an apex-character. They have a visualizing or concretizing function, thus enabling the decoder to grasp an abstract idea more clearly by evoking a phenomenon which can be concretely perceived. Apex-words are supposed to function as a replacement of a word or phrase hit upon first with another word which is more in accordance with the encoders sensory impressions of the phenomenon he is confronted with and with which he is emotionally involved to a high degree. 611 Focalized by almost, the second, refined word is a comment of language on itself. Apex-words are the products of the deliberate, reflected employment of the tool language, and these products are evidence of an ongoing linguistic creativity in that the encoder stalls for time in his search for the most adequate linguistic form.612 In the following examples: the various theoretical concepts were like great cubes of almost [tangibly] solid matter up in the air. (BC) Silence was almost [palpable] in the air.
606 607

idem, p. 88 idem, p. 103 608 ibid. 609 idem, p. 90 610 idem, p. 103 611 idem, p. 79 612 idem, p. 79ff

154

in order to render a higher degree of graspability to the abstract theoretical concepts and silence, the human mind tricks itself into representing abstractions as concrete entities.613 Similar to almost [there] and almost [at the airfield], there is an as ifcomponent attached by almost to ideas which are known not to be true. Concepts cannot be tangible and silence cannot be palpable either, but the reading is it is as if this was true.614 It has been argued that [t]his trickery, or tampering with reality, which is typical of almost, is intimately connected with the basic meaning of almost: the head contains most properties which justify a specific name. Likewise, the characteristic tampering with reality of almost is intimately connected with its heads having a call-nature. To call something a name implies that you deliberately refer to the phenomenon which you give the name properties of your choice; whether this corresponds to reality is generally not verifiable.615 To call something a name is a persuasive or argumentative act of imposing an idea or a belief on another person. This act can nevertheless be associated with the function of almost in contexts where there is a shift from one designation to another, thought to be an improvement on the original designation.616 In Bcklunds opinion, the examples above are said to clearly demonstrate the dynamicalness of almost, showing that almost is placed as it were inside the concept it modifies in that it signifies that most properties are present to justify the name of the name in question.617 The following selection of collocations of almost with apexwords as heads in Ulf Bcklund 1985618 can probably provide a clearer picture of the nature of apex-words: slipped sideways slowly, almost [thoughtfully]... when his ranging thoughts would abruptly, almost [accidentally], encounter her... The Lord looked
613 614

idem, p. 90 ibid. 615 ibid. 616 ibid. 617 ibid. 618 idem, p. 79f

155

insignificant, almost [contemptible]... It was coarse, almost [insulting], this appraisal... her imagination responding fully, almost [exhaustingly], to these shores peculiar powers... pumped-up almost [to burstingpoint]... who has red hair that cascades almost [to her ankles]... So beautiful, so distinguished, slender almost [to emanciation]. (BC) Ulf Bcklund suggests that thoughtfully, for instance, contains the same properties as slowly, in addition to which there are a few properties on the top making it stronger than slowly. By the shift from the weaker to the stronger word a sort of movement is suggested. This suggestion is in part achieved by means of almost, which evokes the picture of the extra properties on the top being added gradually to those that are originally present. This movement is not, in contradistinction to what is the case with the static nearly, arrested. Instead, the decoder is left in no doubt that the movement will proceed until the concept expressed by thoughtfully is fully valid. It is this inherent suggestion of movement in almost that accomplished the stretching in the cases of there and at the airfieldThoughtfully, being much stronger than slowly, is placed as it were at the end of the scale of properties of slowness. 619 Moreover, there is a certain concretizing evocativeness in thoughtfully, accidentally, contemptible, insulting, exhaustingly, which rather resembles apex-words, as follows: thoughtful suggests a specific facial expression indicative of thinking accidentally (a shift from abruptly) has a concrete suggestiveness through its association with accident. Contemptible (a shift from insignificant) suggests concrete expressions of contempt, insulting (a shift from coarse) suggests a specific wording of an insulting phrase and exhaustingly (a shift from fully) suggests the concrete phenomenon empty.620 As pointed out before, the production of these secondary call-words is characterized by delayed selection, which makes possible a similar interpretation of the examples below:

619 620

idem, p. 90f idem, p. 91

156

who has red hair that cascades almost [to her ankles]. (BC) The tall sash-windows, which reached almost [to the floor]. (Iris Murdoch) The front windows of the place were low and narrow, reaching nearly [to the floor] and affording an unusual good view of the interior. (BC)621 Ulf Bcklund claims that cascades almost [to her ankles] suggests that the dynamicalness of almost transfers itself to the preceding verb since this verb is probably a refined version of a deeper form according to this sketch: reached almost to her ankles, it even cascaded almost to622 In reaching nearly [to the floor], on the other hand, [t]here is a definite factual tonein that the lowness of the windows is explicitly stated. Moreover, [t]he information that one could get a good view when looking at these windows adds even more to this factual, mathematical tone, to say nothing about the verb reach, which has also a factuality about it that cascadelacks. While the decoder imagines the hair really touching her ankles, in reaching nearly [to the floor] there is emphasis on the unusually small distance between the lower edge of the window and the floor.623 The analysis has pointed out that [t]he factuality of nearly is particularly manifested in the information that the nearness in question permitted a good view of the interior.624 By contrast, examples two and three can be interpreted as follows: reached almost [to the floor] reads [i]t is surprising how tall the windows are; they are practically touching the floorI have definitely the impression that the windows reach the floor; this is so almost, but not quite. Two propositions seem to be expressed by nearly in reaching nearly [to the floor]: Consider the windows reaching the floor. That cannot be true, of course. But this is nearly the case.625 While surprise filled with emotion conveys a subjective evaluation of the situation in the collocation with the dynamic
621 622

idem, p. 81 ibid. 623 ibid. 624 ibid. 625 ibid.

157

almost, the static nearly conveys a totally dispassionate evaluation. One of Ulf Bcklunds main findings in the contrastive analysis of almost and nearly is that the head of almost involves exaggeration in the form of call-words, whereas nearly has static meaning implying mathematic precision and modifies heads which involve understatement.626 The following quote from Kingsley Amis, for instance, is reckoned to be probably an utterance made after some time had elapsed from the session with the psychoanalyst so that an intellectual dispassionate stance could be taken: You see, it was very nearly [all right] telling you all this 627 Ulf Bcklund claims that if the utterance had been made in a more emotional atmosphere, just as the session finished, the woman might have said It was almost a miracle, telling you all this. An apex effect, on the other hand, wouldhave found linguistic expression in absolutely fantastic/marvellous or some other emotional expression. By choosing all right the woman adopts a cool attitude, which covers up her excitement. It is the choice of the static nearly, rather than the dynamic almost, that makes this collocation so strong and so emotional...628 Ulf Bcklund argues that the categoricalness or calculability of heads such as always, all, or everyone, everybody, every person, which are much more categorical than all people, would need a modifier (nn like almost) to make it pragmatically credible.629 It is one of the chief linguistic tasks of almost to lend such pragmatic credibility to heads, which, if taken literally, would cause the speaker to commit himself too strongly. Also categorical in meaning, heads such as immediately and at once differ from the
idem, p. 66 It must be due to its mathematical character that only nearly can undergo premodification by very. A similar example, cited from Agatha Christie, is given in Mettinger, op. cit., p. 88 eg: The story is very nearly[right], he said slowly: but not quite. It was not I who... 628 \Ulf Bcklund 1985, p. 85 629 Ulf Bcklund claims that it is seldom the case in real life that literally everyone performs a certain act, that every and compounds with every are likely. (idem, p. 70)
627 626

158

above-mentioned ones in that they cannot be modified by nearly. The reason why every and always can, however, is that these heads can denote calculable mathematical units in certain contexts.630 Almost and nearly + [numerals] as heads The emotional tone worry causes selection of the more dramatical almost in the following example, although the mathematical definiteness, suggesting a limit, about phrases such as five oclock causes nearly to be the natural word to choose:631 I was beginning to get kind of worried. I looked at my watch. It was almost four oclock. Both almost and nearly can be used with conspicuously high figures.632 The crucial factor determining the selection of almost in the following examples is a dramatic element, made manifest in an element of awed amazement at the immense amount of sewage which can be dealt with by the sewage industry, in the unusual length of deliberation and the duration and uniqueness of Istanbul as a city.633 By contrast, the collocations of nearly with high figures have a mathematical overtone. 634 Compare Even more formidable is the sewage industry, which by the year 2000 will be dealing with almost [37 000 million gallons] of municipal sewage a day. (The Observer 1968) A verdict against Pohl came at 4:05 p.m. after almost [13,5 hours] of deliberation... for Istanbul is the only city in the world that is built upon two continents. For almost [3000 years] Europe and Asia have rubbed shoulders in its streets. 635 ...The value of seeds produced in the country for all purposes, including cereals, nearly [10
630 631

ibid. ibid. 632 idem, p. 77f 633 ibid. 634 The examples with nearly are said to evince a neutral, dispassionate, strictly mathematical tone, which is characteristic of nearly with its static nature denoting proximity. (idem, p. 68) 635 ibid.

159

billion dollars] a year... What to buy of the years grist of nearly [15 000 book titles]. (BC) Both almost and nearly collocate with extreme and limit adjectives: nearly/almost perfect/frozen/dead/impossible but they are not usually used with less extreme adjectives. Very or extremely are more likely to be used in these cases: The schools are extremely [good] there. (*nearly good); The coast was very rocky (*almost rocky). 636 In Carita Paradis637 almost collocates most strongly with impossible. It combines with limit adjectives such as automatic, central, identical, definite, deserted, final, identical, impossible sure, an extreme adjective, brilliant, a scalar adjective, flabby, interpreted in terms of a limit one, and a few modulated nongradables, such as political, post-graduate and Russian. The collocations almost [impossible] and nearly [impossible] in the following examples describe feats so difficult to carry out that the limit not possible to carry out is approached:638 A major portion of the credit should also go to the flautist Haumd for this rendering of the almost [impossible] Indianapolis movement in the Baslot. Not only was Haumds intonation and phrasing without flaw, but he seemed to take every tonal eccentricity in this stride. For example, to move, as the score requires, from the lowest F major register up to a barely audible N minor in four seconds, not skipping, at the same time, even one of the 407 fingertips, seems a feat too absurd to consider (BC) It is made up to tumbling, which might be said to start with a somersault, run through such stunts as headstands, handstands, cartwheels, backbends, and culminate in nearly [impossible] combinations of aerial flips and twists and apparatus work. (BC)
636

The assertion that nearly is more commonly used in British English, while almost is more common in American English, made in LDCE, is a rather superficial analysis of the semantics of the two lexical items. 637 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 82 638 Ulf Bcklund 1985, p. 68

160

Ulf Bcklund claims that there is more drama in the first example, in which the heightened degree of dramaticalness is achieved through the detailed description of the highly intricate complexities which require great technical skill from the flautist. These complexities are further underscored by the evaluative statement too absurd to consider which as it were pushes away the pole impossible from its opposite pole. Moreover, the element of dynamicalness present shows that the pole impossibility is being approached. In the second example, on the other hand, there is an element of staticalness, the point of nearly being frozen, as it were, near the pole impossible. This is combined with a dispassionate coolness in the observer watching the slick performance of circus artists.639 Almost [always] and nearly [always] On the contrary, in examples with almost always, there is no limit to the number of times something occurs or takes place implied by always:640 When he came home from his office at the end of the afternoon, Breasted never knew what gathering he should expect to find, but there almost [always] was one. (BC) Angrily Martin wished they had delayed the wedding and gone a trip preferably one that lasted months instead of deciding not to postpone the date until he could getaway. Here they were at the mercy of anyone who chose to come by. These stray people nearly [always] insisted on Dolores showing them around the apartment. (BC). Ulf Bcklund thinks that the difference definiteness/indefiniteness is crucial for the selection of nearly and almost in the examples above. Thus, although there is an emotional overtone of irritation in both contexts, the selection of almost conveys greater
639

idem, p. 69. Ulf Bcklund supposes that [s]uch a dispassionateness probably derives from the observers awareness that the acts of circus artists are supposed to be as near the limit impossibility as possible, but the acts are sure to stay within a safe distance from this limit. 640 idem, p. 70f

161

dramaticalness, a note of indefiniteness that heightens the feeling of irritation.641 The following example most clearly illustrates the appropriateness of nearly in contexts where the tone is absolutely dispassionate and there is a definite calculability: the use of locks is valid at a point near all the occasions when the switch points... The number of such occasions has a definite mathematical limitation: A signal cannot be cleared until all the related turnouts are properly locked. Such locks are nearly [always] used where the switch points face oncoming traffic. (BC) Almost [every] and nearly [everything] According to Ulf Bcklund, almost in almost [every] seems, rather than factually suggesting proximity, to have the function of focalizing a concept which is the basis of a strong feeling of surprise and can be described like fancy/imagine that he was different in EVERY respect:642 To help him to do so the Prince had conferred control of this land forces on a soldier who was different from him in almost [every] respect save one: both were eccentric. By contrast, there is a dispassionate, factual, almost mathematical tone in collocations with nearly. Compare the dramatic context of almost [everything] conferred by a sinister purpose with the detached, mathematical note in the context of nearly [everything]:643 .. read a sinister purpose in almost [everything] she did.(BC) Couperin and Ramirez gave titles to almost [everything] they wrote.(BC) Almost [all] and nearly [all]
641 642

idem, p. 72f idem, p. 74. 643 idem, p. 74f

162

Ulf Bcklund has found out that nearly [all] outnumbers almost all in his corpus and that nearly predominantly collocates with [all] + a [prepositional phrase] of (the). 644 The semantic movements proceed in contrary directions with almost and nearly. With almost, the (amazing) concept all is approached or zoomed in, whereby this conspicuous concept is illuminated and blownup to the status ALL. With nearly a concession is made to the illogicality of all. The concept all is made invalid by nearly, which occurs in a sobering afterthought as it were,645 in the following examples: are common to all, or nearly [all], classes of customers. (BC)... developed a passion so that he spent nearly [all of] the following ten years abroad.(BC) Ulf Bcklund speaks about the punctuality of heads of nearly which is highly essential for the correct semantic interpretation of nearly in a comparison with almost. Saying It was nearly [otherwise] or There was the headmasternearly [frantic] or He was nearly [sure] we mean it is either otherwise or not, you are either frantic or not, you are either sure or not. There are no intermediate stages. The concepts expressed by these punctual words are there in one piece as it were.646 The function of almost, on the other hand, is to render absolute heads pragmatically credible. Almost has a kind of double nature in that it both paves the way for an extra strong term and legitimates the use of this strong term by toning down its content. By its function to pave the way for an extra strong term almost can be said to be interpretative in that it allowsthe encoder extra time to verbalize his sensory impressions. In situations where these impressions have some extra time in order to be able to hit upon the most suitable word. Almost gives him this chance.647 In She types at an almost [incomprehensible] speed, for instance, almost both tones down the over strong adjective, thus making a concession to reality, and

644 645

idem, p. 76 ibid. 646 idem, p. 86 647 idem, p. 93

163

focalizes it.648 Almost is regarded as a sort of forewarnerthat an extra strong word, chosen with extra care, is coming.649 Almost makes an absolute head pragmatically credible650/gives credibility to the exaggerated heads by making literalized concepts flexible, placing these heads strongly in focus at the same time.651 Therefore, almost has the function to both literalize a definite concept by placing it in focus and to tone down this concept by making it flexible.652 Ulf Bcklund assumes that the tendency of almost to occur in dramatic contexts is linked with its interpretativeness, as in I was beginning to get kind of worried. I looked at my watch. It was almost four oclock, where the emotional overtone worry demands an exaggeration as to the statement of time: my worry causes me to imagine it was practically four oclock rather than nearly four oclock. The interpretative almost is said to suit heads that have indirect ties with reality, such as angry, desperate, goodlooking and insipid,653 better than the factual nearly does. Typically interpretative heads, which are intrinsically comparative654 such as Churchillian and Miltonic, can only collocate with almost. Almost [Churchillian] and almost [Miltonic] are contrasted with nearly [biblical], in And when a Greek teen-ager carves up a co-villain, the reaction of 007 comes nearly [biblical]: Bond shuddered. (Life, 1968) with a view to demonstrate the call-function which has been ascribed to the heads of almost. Thus, something called
ibid. Cf. Ulf Bcklund (idem, p. 92) almost gives the speaker/encoder time to search for the word which most appropriately expresses his sensory impressions. This impies that the word which is actually selected may be a secondary choice, earlier choice having been discarded at an earlier stage in the serlectional process, a process which is also typical of apexwords. 650 idem, p. 109 651 idem, p. 103 652 ibid. 653 i.e. they are rather interpretative, unlike hysterical, for example. 654 idem, p. 93. The item like is said to be inherent in them.
649 648

164

Churchillian/Miltonic can never reach identity with acts or qualities of CHURCHILL/MILTON.655 It has been argued that nearly, by its blocking tendency, in a way focalizes not in not biblical, nearly [biblical] meaning: of course not biblical, but it was very near to being biblical! Miltonic, in almost [Miltonic], on the other hand, is focalized. The tampering with reality of almost causes Miltonic to smack of reality because of its dynamic meaning implying having most properties for full validity of the head.656 Almost causes the decoder to adopt the erroneous notion that Miltonic actually refers to the real MILTON.657 There is only one such collocation of almost in our literary corpus: Obviously continual response to the music had developed within them an almost [Pavlovian] response to the noise, a response which they believed was pleasure.(KT/CD: 143) Another conspicuous feature of almost is its cooccurrence with negative heads. It is the pragmatic improbability of the categorical ideas expressed by heads such as incomprehensible, incredible, breathless and weightless that accounts for almost being more readily attracted to negative heads.658 It is again an emotional element, of amazed admiration, this time, that releases the selection of almost in He dictates at an almost [incomprehensible] speed. Almost causes the decoder to feel that incomprehensible smacks of reality such that he is led to believe that such a phenomenon is incomprehensible (about a thing which really occurs) but actually exists.659 Ulf Bcklund interprets almost [incomprehensible] to be stronger than the unmodified incomprehensible in He dictates at an incomprehensible speed., where there is a tacit agreement between encoder and encoder that such a phenomenon as incomprehensible

655 656

idem, p. 94 ibid.. 657 ibid.. Similarly, by focalizing immediately, in almost immediately, almost gives the decoder the false notion that something can actually occur without any time whatsoever elapsing from a happening occurring earlier. 658 idem, p. 95 659 ibid.

165

has no true value.660 Impassible, in nearly [impassible], on the other hand, denotes a verifiable idea, and the function of nearly is to block the full validity of the head.661 It has been claimed that almost [impassible] would perhaps be used in a situation where someone had to fight his way through with immense efforts and difficulties, such as dragging himself.662 Dictionary entries equal almost and nearly with practically (CCD). Almost means very nearly but not completely, whereas nearly means almost but not quite or not completely. (LDCE). Consider the coocurrence restrictions on almost and nearly: almost/nearly + [adjective] Cats are in fact almost [color blind](CCD) an almost [impossible] task. (LDCE) It was nearly [dark]. (CCD) Is the job nearly [finished]? (LDCE) almost/nearly + [adverb] Hes almost [certainly] been murdered. (CCD) The cause is almost [certainly] a virus. (LDCE) Hes nearly [always] right. (LDCE) almost [never]. (LDCE) almost + [verb] I had almost [forgotten] about the trip(CCD) Weve almost [finished]. (LDCE)663 It almost [looked as if] he might win. 664 (The Observer, 1968) I can nearly [swim] a width. (CCD)
ibid. idem, p. 96 662 ibid. 663 Quirk et al comment on the use of like to as an approximator in informal AmE, especially in past tense contexts, eg: When he saw all the blood, he like to [fainted]. Cf. also the more widespread in informal use damn near, eg: They damn near [killed themseves] in that accident. (1985, p. 601) 664 As if supposedly only collocates with almost, being apt to point at the semantic core of almost. (Ulf Bcklund 1985, p. 93)
661 660

166

Both almost and nearly can be used with negative verb heads: I almost/nearly [didnt get up] in time. (LDCE) Hogan: be damned if [I dont] almost [think] youre glad of the excuse! (ON/MM: 64) almost + [noun] I spent almost [a month] in China. (CCD) We stayed there [for] almost [a week]. (LDCE) Brody had been sitting there [for] nearly [an hour]. (CCD) almost + [pronoun] [every(thing), any(thing), nothing, nobody, no]665 You can find the meaning of almost [any] word here. (LDCE) In Oxford Street, you can buy almost [anything]. (CCD) They sold almost [everything]. (LDCE) Almost [no one] came to the party. (LDCE) Hogan (He is almost [himself] againruefully): (ON/MM: 114) almost/nearly + [number] It took nearly [two] hours to get here. (LDCE) Michelles nearly [twenty]. (LDCE) almost + [clause] The door opened almost [before] Brody had finished knocking. (CCD) almost/nearly [all (of)] Almost [all the children] here speak two languages. (LDCE) Almost/nearly [all (of) my friends] came to the party. (LDCE) I think about it nearly [all the time]. (CCD) almost/nearly as + [adjective] + as wines which are almost [as expensive as] champagne. (LDCE)
665

Hardly or scarcely are more usually used with any, anybody, ever etc than almost with no, nobody, never etc. We are more likely to hear: Hardly anybody came to the party than: Almost no one came to the party. We do not use not with hardly or scarcely: There was scarcely enough time to take a shower.

167

She was nearly [as tall as] he was(CCD) not nearly as + [adjective] + as/so/ adj. + enough Shes not nearly [as pretty as] her sister. (LDCE) The deeper water was not nearly [as good as] the water close to the shore. (CCD) Vegetarians like us dont have nearly [so many] foods to choose from as ordinary people.(CCD) not nearly + enough.666 I havent spent nearly [long enough] here(CCD) I can earn some money, but not nearly [enough to] live on. (LDCE) This is also the case of as if, which is said to be apt to point at the semantic core of almost:667 A marked difference between the members of the approximator paradigm is that only nearly can collocate with not, pretty and very.668 Compare: Its nearly/almost/practically/virtually [dark]. Its not nearly [dark]. Its very/pretty nearly [dark]. Its not *almost/*practically [dark]. Its very/pretty *almost/*practically [dark]. Expression of degree, in the form of compromiser (kind of and sort of) and approximator (almost, nearly, practically and virtually) subjuncts is inextricably mixed up with metalinguistic comment, 669 as in: They have an idea, almost a theory. They have an idea, a theory, almost. Mike: Youre as bad as he is, almost. (ON/MM: 5) She just about alienated her audience on that occasion. Quirk et al, commenting on the meaning of the last sentence, doubt that the originator of the sentence was making a distinction
666 667

It means much less than enough. Ulf Bcklund 1985, p. 93 668 Quirk et al 1985, p. 447 669 idem, p. 619

168

between the two meanings, that is, almost but not entirely alienated or as what I might almost call alienated. 670 Similarly, the meaning of the following example is rather uncertain: He almost very nearly ` STOLE the car. practically virtually

It may either mean that he came close to stealing it or acted in such a way that it could almost be called stealing. The style disjuncts (comment adverbials) like actually, frankly, literally and others are often used as subjuncts (emphasizers): The police literally [left] no square inch unexamined. It was a tiny room literally [a one-man offfice]. I could literally [feel] the earth shaking. The car literally [somersaulted] off the road. The speaker uses literally to emphasize the extraordinary nature of what he is describing Believe it or not! -, as well as to draw attention to the hyperbolic language used to describe it. Quirk et al assumes that [t]he insertion of literally often acknowledges that people tend to use the expression concerned (somersault, earth shaking) as merely figurative or exaggeratedly colourful whereas in the present instance the word is to be taken in its literal meaning. There is a tendency towards overuse of literally in careless and informal speech, as well as in writing, in ways that are literally absurd.671 The Collocation of PRACTICALLY, VIRTUALLY, AS GOOD AS PRACTICALLY (virtually; almost, but not completely or exactly). The town was practically [deserted]. (CCD) The hall was practically [empty]. (LDCE) He knew practically [no English]. (CCD)
670 671

ibid. ibid.

169

She practically [forced] him into joining the army. (CCD) I had visitors practically [every night]. (CCD) Compare the degree and manner adverbial practically: Practically [all my friends] are gay. (LDCE) But how can we pay for it? Said John practically. (LDCE) VIRTUALLY is used to suggest that in effect what you say is true and that any exceptions or differences are small and unimportant: It was virtually [impossible] to decide. (CCD) This opinion was held by virtually [all the experts]. (CCD) Virtually [nothing] has been said about the incident.(CCD) Virtually [all the children] come to school by bus. (LDCE) AS GOOD AS [done/finished/yours] etc. is used to say that something is almost done etc, or definitely will be soon (CCD); to indicate that the statement you are making is not quite true but is reasonable in the particular situation, since the effect is almost the same as if the statement was true:672 The work is as good as [finished]. He had as good as [abdicated]. Without her glasses she is as good as [blind]. As good as [dead/ruined/useless] etc. means in a state that is not much better than being dead, ruined etc., eg: If he finds out, Im as good as[dead].

AT LEAST, AT THE MOST, ONLY, MERELY, and JUST have been contrastively analysed as English approximatives. 673 According to Wierzbicka, only is perfectly neutral, merely is depreciative, and just easily lends itself to mildly positive
Note also the reading of as much as [told] in the following example: Hogan: He as much as [told] me his reason, (almost told me) (ON/MM: 58) 673 Anna Wierzbicka, op. cit.
672

170

(reassuring, defensive, apologetic etc.) interpretations. 674 Thus, the title of Kiplings volume Just so stories, could hardly be changed to Merely so stories. This is because while it may make sense for an author to take an encouraging or a reassuring tone in speaking about his work it would be odd for him to dismiss it as unimportant, not worth bothering about. The expression just for fun, on the other hand, could well be used as an advertising slogan, but merely for fun could hardly be so used.675 In an attempt to substantiate her676 claim that we are more likely to say: Only 47 people came. than: ?Just 47 people came, Wierzbicka677 offers the semantic formulas posited for the relevant meanings of just, merely and only. She claims, for instance, that the semantic formula for just reads it is a small thing and Im being precise. Combinations such as just the two of us (perhaps two lovers) or just the three of us (perhaps a small family circle), are said to be self-explanatory in this respect.678 Expressions such as just the two (three) of us seem to convey the idea of an intimate, cohesive group,679 the assurance just two (two is the right word) can be taken as implying: no outsiders. While Just 47 doesnt sound like an approximation, just 50 may sound all right, especially in just 50 cents rather than 50 people: it is easy to think of 50 cents as a small thing, and it is easy to understand why 50 could be suspected of being an approximation.680 In the sentence It just [happened] like that,
on the other hand, just implies that not much can be said about the thing in question, that it no more than happened (eg:, it was not pre-planned or pre-arranged), and it also conveys the idea that
674 675

idem, p. 599 idem, p. 599f. 676 ibid. 677 ibid. 678 idem, p. 599 679 ibid. 680 ibid.

171

happen is the right word to use, under the circumstances. The sentence: ?It merely [happened] like that. is much less felicitous, because it is not clear what exactly the speaker is trying to dismiss as unimportant, and why.681 On the other hand, the sentences: It is just [a game]. It is merely [a game]. are both felicitous, and easily interpretable. It is just a game implies no more than a game and game is the right word for it (rather than, say, serious business); and merely a game dismisses the game in question as something unimportant.682 The expression just for fun could well be used as an advertising slogan, but merely for fun could hardly be so used. The sentence: She is merely [a child]. could, however, be used in a situation when one was trying to djsmiss a girls words as unimportant or unreliable.683 In a situation when one was trying to protect a child from excessive burdens 684 one would be perhaps more likely to say: She is just (only)[a child]! It has also been noted that merely in contrast to just and only, can hardly combine with an explicit or implicit imperative: Bring just (only/ * merely) two! Just a moment! *Merely a moment! Informally, in some AmE, we have like to as an approximator, especially in past-tense environments:
681 682

ibid. ibid. 683 idem, p. 600 684 ibid.

172

When he saw all the blood, he like [to fainted], [he nearly fainted] In more widespread informal use, near is used: They damn near [killed] themselves in that accident.685 3.2.2.1.2 Other Approximators Apart from the use of almost and nearly for number approximation, several other approximators and phrasal structures have been identified for numerical and non-numerical approximations. Two distinct phenomena have been identified in G. Lakoffs category of hedges,686 namely (a) designated) hedges/shields which introduce fuzziness with respect to the speakers commitment to the truth of the proposition, eg: I believe, I think, it seemed like, it appeared; kind of, sort of, technically speaking. 687 (b) expressions that introduce fuzziness within the proposition that the speaker is expressing and which have been labelled approximators by Prince at al. (1982), i.e. about, approximately, around, somewhat, (eg: approximately two point three kilometers).688 Joanna Channell identifies some sets of numerical and nonnumerical vague quantifers, but she chooses to apply the term approximators only to expressions affecting numbers:689 (1) Vague additives are added to what would otherwise be

685 686

Quirk et al. 1985, p. 601n Cf. Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 17 687 ibid. 688 ibid.: each speaker makes an unhedged (unshielded) statement about a phenomenon of which their knowledge is vague. The speakers uncertainty is not explicitly encoded (although it may be implicated). 689 ibid.

173

a precise statement.690 The (precise) quantity is made vague by the addition of a word (approximately, around) or phrase (something like that) to numbers or non-numerical quantifiers, as in: A team of around ten people at Conran Advertising works on the design and production for most of the year [A]. And we see McEnroe there with his foot may be a little bit of stone or something like that.691 (2) Vague words include dummy nouns (thingummy, whatsit) and vague quantitative phrases (loads of , heaps of ). (3) Vagueness by implicature is a syntagm which refers to an apparently precise sentence that can be used and understood to have a vague meaning.692 Sam is six feet tall, for instance, can be both precise (Sam may be exactly six feet tall) or vague (he is actually six foot and a quarter of an inch).693 In an attempt to formulate a semantics for vague expressions and to substantiate particular theoretical analyses, most semanticists have either looked at limited numbers of (usually) invented examples, or held that context will permit an exact interpretation to be put on any word.694 Unlike them, Joanna Channells description of the appropriate use of vague language focuses on the interface between semantics and pragmatics, illustrating various ways of approximating quantities with copious examples of language in use.695 She is aware of the fact that approximation overall is frequent696 and of the necessity of teaching vague language. It is partly because of an inability to include appropriate vague expressions that the advanced learners of English may sound rather bookish and pedantic to a native speaker. Vague
690 691

idem, p. 18 ibid. 692 ibid. 693 ibid. 694 idem, p. 20 695 idem, p. 21 696 idem, p. 10

174

language is also essential in the teaching of presentation skills to L1 speakers of English, in particular in further and higher education, where students are required to master the language of formal spoken presentations, one dimension of which is appropriate use of precision and vagueness. In learning academic writing, they must acquire judgement of where it is necessary to give precise quantities or other information, or where a more vague reference will be sufficient.697 3.2.2.1.2.1. Approximating Quantities with Exemplar Numbers698 and Approximators. There are various options that speakers have when they choose to be vague about quantities in English, namely precise/exemplar 699 numbers and approximators; round numbers; non-numerical vague quantifiers.700 Pattern 1 includes approximators such as about, approximately, which lead to the approximation reading plus one or, optionally, two exemplar numbers. Other types of vague quantifiers, also optionally, include a measure noun (pounds, feet, etc.), or a vaguer intensifying structure, i.e. number + or so + a measure noun (fifty or so pence).701 Expressions containing or have an idiomatic function. 702 They are in some way vague, do not designate precise numbers or quantities, but rather intervals of numbers whose extent is apparently not exactly specified. 703 For instance, while the most frequently-occurring coordination of this type, one or two, has the special idiomatic sense a small number, five or six means approximately in the range of five and six, and ten or twenty means a number in the region of 10 or 20. 704
697 698

idem, p. 21 Channells term. 699 idem 700 idem 701 idem, p. 43 702 Quirk et als cardinal numbers coordinated with or (1985, p. 963) 703 Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 43 704 Quirk et al 1985, p. 963

175

In an attempt to decipher the semantics and pragmatics of quantity approximators, Joanna Channell concerns herself with the following questions: (1) What is the general meaning of approximator + n structures? (2) Do different approximators give different meanings such that, for example, choice of around twenty people is different from approximately twenty people? (3) Are there any rules for combining numbers with approximators?705 (4) How and when do speakers use approximations? The first finding of the series of tests carried out with groups of linguistically naive native speakers is that number approximations are understood to designate intervals of numbers.706 The second finding is that as a general rule, the length of the interval increases as a function of the size of the exemplar number, for example, about 14,000 is judged as designating a much larger interval than about 500.707 The third finding is the confirmation of an observation made by previous writers on this topic, namely, that the nature of the item(s) being approximated affects the length of interval for which the approximation seems appropriate.708 It is our knowledge of the world that makes us interpret differently approximations with discrete items (such as people, pages, replies) and non-discrete measure nouns (such as pounds, feet, litres). This may, in Joanna Channells opinion account for the fact that responses to about ten pages were different, a longer interval resulting, than those for 10 lbs or so and 10 or so litres.709 In order to infer the general meaning of approximators in structures from a large collection of conversation and written data, Joanna Channell carries out tests with groups of linguistically nave
705 706

Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 43 idem, p. 44 707 ibid. 708 ibid. 709 ibid.

176

speakers. The respondents approximation readings for about, around, round and approximately, tabulated in histograms and tables of meaning, have pointed out that number approximations are understood by decoders as designating continuous intervals of numbers whose position on the number continuum is established by reference to the exemplar number given. 710 ABOUT, AROUND, ROUND In a preliminary discussion of individual number approximators, Joanna Channell holds that [a]bout, around, and round appear to be interchangeable in most examples, and test results for about and around indicate that they have the same effect on the meaning of an approximation.711 About occurs more frequently in Joanna Channells spoken examples, and around more frequently in her written examples.712 She treats round as a variant of around. The approximators about and (a)round function as premodifiers to a number (n), and their effect on the sentence containing the number is to make it vague as to the exact quantity involved.713 She claims that the speaker mentioning Christmas trees in I had one, some while ago, that my mother managed to keep for about [three years] was allowing for the tree to have lasted less than, or exactly three years.714 From the test results, it was observed that the respondents judged these approximations as designating intervals of numbers which are symmetrical about the exemplar number given.715 Thus, when we are told that someone writes about ten pages a week, we understand that they are writing between 8.5 and 11.5 pages each week. 716
710 711

idem, p. 51. idem, p. 45 712 In the Cobuild spoken corpus of 1.32 million words, around occurs 369 times, but only two of these occurrences are number approximations. (Cf. Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 45) 713 idem, p. 46 714 ibid. 715 ibid. 716 ibid.

177

About so can also be used as an approximating vague expression; so means this and we use a gesture to show the size, height, or length of something: How tall was he? About so [tall]. CCD About can also be premodified by emphasizer just as in Billy and Charlie had managed to keep their enormous secret [for] just about [twenty-four hours]. (SK/TB: 52) APPROXIMATELY Although it does not appear to be the most commonly used approximator,717 linguists who are interested in the theoretical problem of finding a semantics for vague quantity expressions have given much attention to the semantics of approximately. Joanna Channells examples718 suggest that the use of approximately is generally confined to rather specific official, semi-official, and scientific registers (technical, medical, etc.).The distribution of approximately is the same as about and (a)round, that is, anywhere a number can be used, approximately can be added to it providing a contradiction does not arise.719 Approximately is grammatical only when combined with exact numbers or measures denoting exact quantities. In Joanna Channells reading of Tom Wachtel, 720 an approximation using approximately is true for an interval of numbers, the centre point of which is the exemplar number. It then follows that the meaning of approximately is similar to that of about in designating an interval symmetrical about the exemplar number. The difference between it and the other three approximators appears to be stylistic. Approximately is preferred in formal or technical contexts and the other three in more informal contexts.721
717 718

idem, p. 50 ibid.. Since her data sample is too small for firm conclusions to be drawn from it, she draws on the 34 examples of approximately (in 1.32 million words) of the Cobuild spoken corpus. Moreover, there were no uses of approximately in the informal conversations that she recorded. 719 idem, p. 51 720 Tom Wachtel 1980, op. cit. 721 Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 53

178

Anna Wierzbicka comments on the fact that dictionary entries exclusively record around, about and approximately in a synonymous relationship: Dictionaries usually define around via about (and/or via approximately), and vice versa. And indeed, in many contexts, the two words seem interchangeable.722 She considers more or less to be often though by no means always substituted for them.723 Joanna Channell and Anna Wierzbicka both agree on the stylistic difference between approximately, which appears to be preferred in formal and scientific registers, and about, around and round, which occur in more informal contexts. The latter concludes that, due to their core meaning, each approximative has its peculiar range of use.724 She discerns some subtler semantic nuances that separate approximately from the other three items, i.e. a degree of control and mental discipline, implying that accuracy is possible and a greater degree of abstraction and conceptual complexity, which accounts for its use in relationships between sizes and dimensions rather than to straight numbers.725 There is also an idea of rounding encoded in around, approximately and almost with numerical heads. With heads denoting time, about would imply one particular point in time (that is, a year, as in about 1993), whereas around applies to a whole period surrounding a point (that is, a span of years, as in around 1993).726 Both around and about introduce a number to which the speaker is not wholly committed. Both Quirk et al727 and Joanna Channell note the possibility for some number approximators to combine. Among the functions of suffix ish, for instance, is that of expressing approximation. It means approximately/about when added to numbers denoting time or ages as in B: Whats the time now?
722 723

Anna Wierzbicka, op. cit., p. 601 ibid.. 724 idem, p. 603 725 idem, p. 604 726 idem, p. 602 727 Quirk et al 1985, p. 1553

179

C: Its about sevenish or a bit later [B]728 He was in his sixtyish.729 Shell arrive about tenish.730 Since the effect of adding an approximator is to give a vague reading, the more approximators are added, the vaguer the reading is, as in the following examples: Its seven. Its sevenish. Its about sevenish. Its about sevenish or a bit later.731 The examples above and other data in Joanna Channells corpus seem to demolish the theoretical accounts on approximators being more or less semantically empty.732 She naturally assumes that since combining more approximators makes things vaguer and vaguer, it is unlikely to be true that approximators are semantically empty.733 3.2.2.2 Compromisers/Moderators By toning down ideas which would otherwise sound blunt, 734 compromisers735/moderators736 have a compromising role in communication, making conversation appropriately imprecise. 737
728 729

Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 68 Cf.Quirk et al 1985, p. 1553 730 ibid. 731 Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 69 732 ibid. 733 ibid. 734 They all have a de-intensifying function, i.e. a slightly lowering effect on the clause element they modify, but they do not scale it down to the same extent as diminishers such as a bit, partly, and somewhat do. (Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 360.) 735 Quirk et al 1985, p. 598 736 Carita Paradis 1994; 1997, p. 27ff 737 Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 11. Cf. Allan R. James, op. cit., p. 202, any hiatus in the discourse brought about by the introduction of a compromiser has the effect of highlighting or textually foregrounding the lexical choice which the compromiser introduces.

180

Like approximators, they call in question the appropriateness of the head concerned738 by modifying a scalar element present in the make-up of the latter. By approximating an assumed mean degree of that element,739 compromisers reach out towards an assumed norm, while reducing the force of the head word.740 In doing this, compromisers occupy the middle of the intensification cline, trying to look both ways at once.741 The slight attenuating or slight boosting effect on the collocating head, makes the application of the modified item fuzzier and less conclusive than would otherwise have been the case.742 In the literature, compromisers are usually approached as two subsets sharing obvious semantic features: The downtoning degree modifiers or compromisers proper: fairly, pretty, quite, rather. The so-called (designated) hedges, 743 shields, gambits, fumbles, softening connectives, which are members of the larger categories of discourse markers/particles or modality markers. 3.2.2.2.1 Compromisers Proper Their relative non-transparency makes the interpretation of the members of the paradigm of compromiser particularly interesting and challenging from both a diachronic and synchronic perspective. Studies in diachrony have pointed out that compromisers acquired scalarity in the course of time, by metaphorical extension of meaning, most of them having developed from adjectives and adverbs that originally had non-scalar meaning.744 Although
738 739

Quirk et al 1985, p. 597 Carita Paradis 1994, p. 159 740 Quirk et al 1985, p. 600 741 Dwight Bolinger 1972, p. 17 742 Carita Paradis 1994, p. 159 743 Cf. Joanna Channell, op. cit., p.17, as already shown in the discussion on approximators, about, approximately, around, somewhat have also been classified as hedges 744 Cf. Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 360

181

largely synonymous as moderators in present day English,745 the main four tokens quite, rather, pretty and fairly underwent rather different processes of adverbialization. The intensifier QUITE is a particularly highly context-sensitive adverb, and, therefore, a problematic word. Initially used to convey the maximizer meaning totally, completely, quite achieved a second modal modifier meaning, i.e. actually, really, which, in time, weakened to a compromizer meaning, i.e. rather, somewhat, to a moderate degree. In British English, and less often in American English, with gradable adjectives and adverbs, quite is a downtoner, meaning fairly, rather, less than the highest degree or better than expected. There is, however, little consensus regarding the status of quite. Collins categorizes quite as attenuator, 746 Leech and Svartvik as reinforcer,747 and Quirk et al as both reinforcer and attenuator.748 While absolutely, for instance, always refers to the same maximizing degree, it is impossible to say what quite means out of context. It may be assumed that the amount of flexibility in quite (i.e. its compromiser and maximizer readings) is rendered by the type of adjective it combines with. Thereby, in The teacher was quite [young] and I'm quite [sure] quite indicates different intensifying values. There is a moderate degree of youth, indicated by quite in combination with the scalar adjective young, whereas its combination with the limit adjective sure prompts a maximizing degree reading, i.e. absolutely. 749 There is still a related but more delicate problem in the analysis of quite, namely, whether quite has the same scaling force on different kinds of adjectives. Carita Paradis remarks that it is difficult to judge whether the two instances of quite in the following sentences have the same scaling force on the adjective they apply to:

idem, p. 377 CCEG , p. 94 747 Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik, A Communicative Grammar of English, London and New York: Longman, 1994, p. 113 748 Quirk et al 1985, p. 446, 599n 749 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 17f
746

745

182

The room is quite beautiful. The film was quite good. Intonation may be crucial for the interpretation of some degree modifiers. Speakers, can, for instance, highlight the aspect of degree by various intonational strategies, which may influence the scaling force of the modifier quite, for instance. When quite is made prominent, as in The room is QUITE new, it seems as if it is a clear attenuator, whereas when the tone goes on the adjective, as in The room is quite NEW, the effect of quite is rather on the reinforcing side.750 Contextual factors, such as the collocating adjective and prosody, seem to be crucial especially for the interpretation of compromisers. Just as the two functions of quite co-occur in contemporary English, there are also, in principle, two main functions of rather: the degree word rather and preferential rather, in which rather can be replaced by sooner, instead or more willingly.751 An adjective or an adverb in the comparative, meaning sooner, rather originally denoted precedence in time, priority in nature, and priority in choice. 752 This preferential use of rather co-occurs with the more recent meaning somewhat, perceptibly, which did not become common until the middle of the 18th century. C. Stoffel claims that rather does not modify a definite word in the sentence, but gives a definite subjective colouring to the sentence as such: it is a wordsentence-modifier.753 It therefore follows that rather should be rarely used in objective matter-of-fact statements, where such subjective colouring would be out of place.754 Rather conveys a note of apology, mitigation, diffidence, modest self-depreciation, toning down of either praise or blame as exemplified by C. Stoffel,755 who also notes that with the meaning to the slightest perceptible degree rather is colloquially, by litotes, often employed

750 751

idem, p.18 idem, p. 74 752 C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 131-47 753 idem, p. 142 754 ibid. 755 idem, p. 144

183

to express an exceptionally high degree.756 This figurative use is said to be in great favour with vulgar speakers, as wil, for example, be the case in Charles Dickens: But you know him? Rather, sir.757 The focus of attention in Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen758 falls on the adverbialization of two roughly synonymous present-day English intensifiers, namely, pretty and fairly.759 Their study is based on electronic corpora that are analysed in terms of the framework of adverb functions proposed by Quirk et al 1985. The findings of the corpus analysis illustrate that despite some of their shared meanings, the two items underwent non-identical processes of adverbialization, which made fairly and pretty map onto different functional profiles outside the intensifier class, butare developing along similar lines as intensifying modifiers.760 There is some evidence that pretty as an older and more established modifier can be used more freely along the whole semantic spectrum of intensification,761 while fairly, a comparatively young intensifier, has more of its original lexical meaning left.762 C. Stoffel remarks that pretty,763as solely a modifier of adjectives and adverbs, is somewhat older than rather as a sentence modifier. Pretty originates in the Old English adjective prettig, meaning cunning, which later developed into clever and nice. During the 17th and 18th centuries it came to mean moderately great, a notion that is perceived as an inherent feature of pretty 764 in a pretty kettle of fish. This meaning has been preserved in a pretty kettle of fish and a pretty penny. In modern usage pretty differs from rather in that it is strictly word-modifying and never has modal

756 757

idem, p. 146 idem, p. 147 758 Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit. 759 idem, p. 359 760 idem, p. 360 761 idem, p. 377 762 ibid. 763 C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 147-153 764 Carita Paradis 1977, p. 75

184

force.765 It was in common use in the 18th century in its modern adverb meaning, i.e. to a considerable extent, in a moderate degree, moderately, quite, or as an equivalent tovery. Pretty is quite common as a downtoner (compromiser),766 but it also very rarely occurs as an amplifier (booster) with the meaning of very. As an intensifier, pretty is associated with the adjectival meanings of the adjective pretty, i.e. fair-sized, considerable and great, which introduce an aspect of quantification to the modified nouns.767 The booster and compromizer readings of pretty in Early Modern English seem to correlate with the fuzzy meaning of the adjectival base. The Old English adjective fger, meaning beautiful, is the etymon of compromiser fairly, which has also been used as a manner adverbial in different shades of meaning in different contexts, eg: elegantly, candidly, respectfully, properly, by proper and lawful means, softly, clearly. As early as Middle English, it was used as an intensifier and an emphasizer, meaning completely, quite, and actually, positively, really, 768 respectively. It was first used as a downtoner, meaning moderately, in the 19th century. 769 Paradis distinguishes between the emphasizing function of fairly in combination with verbs, eg: The children fairly flew up and down the corridor, and its attenuator function as adjective and adverb modifier: I was fairly [upset] about the whole thing. 770 To contemporary speakers of English, fairly is the only modifier in the moderator paradigm which has a content component of some lexical weight, that is, it is not as lexically bleached as the others are.771 The analysis of fairly and pretty in diachrony has
765 766

C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 148 Carita Paradis regards pretty as exclusively a compromiser, excluding from her study [a]ll instances of pretty as an adjective meaning goodlooking. (1994, p. 162) 767 Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 377 768 Carita Paradis 1977, p. 74 769 Eugen Borst, op. cit, p. 62 770 Carita Paradis 1977, p. 74 771 idem, p. 75

185

pointed out that in the course of time fairly and pretty acquired new dimensions and achieved some specific adverbial functions. Several developments in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries paved the way for the rise of the premodifying intensifier fairly. Semantically, due to the process of metaphorical extensions of meaning, the adverb became less common as a manner adjunct and more common as an item-oriented subjunct. Nowadays, fairly displays the functions of a downtoner, meaning moderately, of an amplifier, i.e. completely, fully772, of an emphasizer, i.e. absolutely or of subject-oriented adverbial. Moreover, fairly and other polysemous ly items can also assume clause-level functions as adverbials and serve as manner adjuncts773. In Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanens reading, the notions of tolerable and not unjust, inherent in a fair amount put fairly at the lower end within the region of a significant degree of a property. The adjective pretty, in a pretty kettle of fish, on the other hand, is sufficiently strong to place the degree word pretty in the upper region of what is indicated by the adjective.774 Compromisers quite, rather, pretty and fairly show a great deal of flexibility, and sometimes also ambiguity, with respect to their notional interpretation775 in terms of attenuation and reinforcement. The difficulties encountered in pin-pointing the exact meaning of compromisers are due not only to their being inherently vague and subjective, but also to their being lexically bleached, which makes their interpretation highly sensitive to contextual factors.776 Linguists seem to have reached consensus in that the process of grammaticalization of compromisers is still going on and that the subtle differences in the grading force777 of quite, rather,
The maximizer use, although recorded in dictionaries, is looked upon as archaicor hard to distinguish from those associated with emphasis. (Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 361-362) 773 idem, p. 361. Fairly has been glossed as subjunct in Quirk et al.s classification (1985). 774 Carita Paradis 1977, p. 75 775 idem, p. 161 776 idem, p. 160 777 Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 377
772

186

fairly and pretty can only be highlighted through a thorough contextual analysis of corpus evidence. Since their meanings are more or less constituted by their contextual relations and, therefore, only fully reflected in their context,778 contextual clues and intonational contours are regarded as primary means to their disambiguation.779 It has been asserted that what compromisers compromise on is the literalness of their heads as figurative constructions780 and that compromisers are dependent on features of the elements they modify.781 Following D.A. Cruse, Carita Paradis claims that the compromiser interpretation of quite, rather, fairly and pretty is due to bi-directional selectional restrictions of a semantic nature on the syntagmatic axis, the two constituents i.e. the compromiser and the semantic head, exerting semantic pressure on each other.782 This semantic pressure is provided by the availability of a scalar feature in the semantic head and the ability of the compromiser to identify it. In other words, the semantic head has to have a scalar feature that can be selected by the compromiser, and the compromiser occurs in a position immediately in front of and adjacent to its semantic head, so that it can identify the scalar feature in the semantic head. Only under such circumstances the interpretation of the compromiser can be semantically licensed by the scalar feature... to occur in a certain syntactic position. It follows that this semantic - syntactic license mechanism restricts the notional space of the polysemous lexical forms quite, rather, fairly and pretty to that of compromisers783.
idem, p. 162 See C. Stoffel op. cit.; Carita Paradis (1994, 1997) 780 Alan A. James, Compromisers in English: A Cross Disciplinary Approach to their Interpersonal Significance. In Journal of Pragmatics 7, North-Holland, 1983, p. 201 781 Carita Paradis 1994, p. 163 782 Cf. idem, p. 164. This bi-directionality, as already commented upon, lies in the identification of a scalar feature in the modified item by the compromiser, i.e. a selection from left to right and the licensing of the compromiser by the modified item from right to left 783 ibid.
779 778

187

From a cognitive linguistics perspective, Carita Paradis 784 regards compromisers as cognitive synonyms that occupy the middle of an abstract intensity scale, ranging from amplification to downtoning, with the effect of approximating an assumed mean degree of the word they modify.785 The meanings of these polysemous and poly-functional words are determined by a crucial semantic trait to a moderate degree on the paradigmatic axis, and by a semantic-syntactic, bi-directional selection-licensing mechanism on the syntagmatic axis.786 She postulates that quite, rather, fairly, pretty form a notional paradigm of compromiser within the category of degree modifiers,787 being capable of yielding sentences with the same truth-conditions, which can be diagnosed by means of entailment relations between sentences.788 D.A. Cruse and Carita Paradis agree that quite, rather, fairly and pretty differ with respect to idiosyncratic collocational restrictions and attitudinal aspects, which are not logically necessary for the encoding of the message.789 It does not suffice to say that compromisers occupy the middle of an abstract scale of intensity, that they correspond to the concept to a moderate degree and that they are dependent on features of the elements they modify. Why and when they do so, needs to be specified The modification of the semantic head by compromisers influences the degree of its descriptive meaning, which means that they directly interact with the item they modify. It is for this reason that they have to occur in a construction where they can select a scalar feature in order to obtain the appropriate interpretation.790 In conclusion, there are two criteria that must be fulfilled for the inclusion of a certain lexical form in the paradigm of compromisers. The first criterion applies to the paradigmatic axis, and the second applies to the syntagmatic axis, the two axes being
784 785

idem, p. 157 ibid. 786 ibid. 787 ibid. 788 idem, p. 160 789 idem, p. 157 790 idem, p. 163

188

interrelated both semantically and syntactically by a bi-directional selective-licensing mechanism.791 Paradigmatically, therefore, compromisers are cognitive synonyms, which means that they are variant lexical forms sharing the same central semantic traits to a moderate degree. Syntagmatically, they should be looked upon as semantic selectors in that they identify and select a scalar feature in the semantic head, feature which licenses the modifier position and makes possible a compromiser interpretation. Inversely, compromisers are semantico-syntactically licensed by the head. It is in effect this selection-licensing mechanism that restricts the notional space of the compromiser.792 Carita Paradis assumes that the differences between quite, rather, pretty and fairly are to be accounted for by the backgrounded content involved.793 Quite contains a notion of completeness, which becomes clear in The laundry is quite dirty, where there is a tension between the complementary interpretation of dirty as opposed to clean. The scalar interpretation of the adjective dirty in quite dirty makes quite take on the role of moderating the assumed mean degree of significant dirtiness on a scale of dirtiness ranging from very slightly dirty to extremely dirty.794 As far as rather is concerned, Carita Paradis thinks that its interpretation is probably conditioned by its former comparative meaning of more of a certain property.795 Besides being a moderator, rather also implies that something has a bit more of the property indicated by the adjective it modifies than the assumed reference point might indicate or than people might believe, eg: It is rather [long] or It is rather [good]. Something might be longer or better than you perhaps thought it would be. 796 When rather collocates with a negative or neutral adjective, as in Its rather [bad] or It's rather [short], it is not only worse and shorter than you would think, but also worse and shorter than you would desire or
791 792

idem, p. 164 ibid. 793 idem, p. 74 794 ibid. 795 ibid. 796 ibid.

189

prefer.797 This attitudinal overtone of undesired excess,798 conveyed by either negative or neutral adjective heads only (and never by positive adjectives, eg: *Its rather [nice]), has often been interpreted as negative attitude. Thus, Its quite [warm] today is taken to suggests a positive attitude, whereas It's rather [warm] today suggests a negative attitude. While Paradis agrees with the interpretation of the utterance, she disagrees with the reason for the interpretation, that is, she does not think that there is anything inherently negative in rather.799 It seems that the feeling of undesirability and negativity comes out of an excess reading,800 which is due to the potential differentiality (difference of degree between an item described and some reference point) that can be traced in the history of the word.801 Carita Paradis assumes that the comparative tension in rather plays a role both for the general versatility of the word and for the function of rather as a marker of epistemic modality and preference. The interpretation If I think anything, then the priority is... is said to be hovering in the background of Its rather long,802 for instance. Rather may also get more or less the same interpretation as most, particularly in combination with strong adjectives such as marvellous, disgusting, as well as a reinforcer in contexts with extreme adjectivesor with limit adjectives like different or unique.803 Pretty as adjective modifier is stronger than rather and has an affirmative sense, by contrast with the negative sense of rather, which means to the slightest perceptible degree.804 Carita Paradis guess is that pretty, the most clear-cut case of compromiser and fairly have a fairly clear-cut semantic trait that is
ibid. Cf. idem, p. 75. This component of excess is also common with diminishers and all adjectives which can be interpreted in terms of excess. 799 idem, p. 74 800 idem, p. 75 801 D.J. Allerton uses the term differentials to indicate the difference of degree between the item described and some reference point. (1987) 802 Carita Paradis 1977, p. 75 803 ibid. 804 C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 148
798 797

190

not liable to ambiguous interpretations. 805 Quite and rather, on the other hand, are more versatile due to their set-up of competing semantic traits such as maximizing and preference, which are contextually determined.806 It is but natural to assume that the various semantic roles of quite, rather, fairly and pretty have been triggered by semantic and syntactic constraints, which also make compromisers members of other notional paradigms of intensifiers. Carita Paradis postulates that the selection by quite and rather of a scalar feature in quite nice and rather interesting, respectively, yields the compromiser interpretation. By contrast, the selection of a limit feature in quite sure, makes quite a member of another paradigm. The linguists conclusion is that since both sure and quite are potentially ambiguous between a limit interpretation and a scalar interpretation such constellations have to be disambiguated by prosody and by contextual clues. On the other hand, the clearcut compromiser pretty, unlike quite, identifies the scalar feature of sure in pretty [sure], whereas in absolutely [sure], absolutely, a clear-cut maximizing word allows only the limit feature of sure to be activated.807 The analysis of all the instances of quite, rather, fairly and pretty in the London-Lund Corpus of Contemporary Spoken British English (LLC) has shown that quite, rather and fairly, often share features of members of other intensifier paradigms. 808 In the corpus under analysis, quite displays at least three semantic roles. 809 Consider th following examples: Its got quite [high] mountains. [compromiser]810 be quite [certain] that you hold it very definitely [maximizer]811
Carita Paradis 1994, p. 162 idem, p. 161 807 idem, p. 163 808 idem, p. 160f 809 For this discussion, the examples whose source has not been marked are from Paradis 1994, p. 161ff. 810 idem, p. 161 811 ibid.
806 805

191

I still dont really quite [know] whether he had[ maximizer/equalizer]812 In (1) quite is a compromizer in that it approximates an assumed mean degree of the modified head high. In (2) the meaning of quite comes close to that of completely, thus taking on the role of maximizer. Finally, in (3), quite is ambiguous between the equalizing and the maximizing roles, i.e. between completely and exactly.813 Drawing on Quirk et al. (1985), Carita Paradis,814 Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen815 identify the discoursal functions of rather, a lexical item which is highly sensitive to contextual clues and intonation. In the following sentences, rather has the role of compromiser, expressing a moderate degree of the adjectival property that of strangeness and of grottiness, etc, respectively: I found his behaviour rather [strange]. [compromiser] 816 Actuallly, I was feeling rather [grotty] last week. [compromiser]817 This car is getting rather [old]. Apart from being a word modifier, i.e. a compromiser, rather can also be a sentence modifier, modifying the whole proposition as in Id rather like to go now. [preference]818 I rather [like] raw vegetables. He [did] rather [badly] in the control. Rather has nothing to do with degree here. It has the function of relating the content of the whole sentence to the rest of the discourse819 and expresses the speakers preference of choice,
ibid. ibid. 814 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 13 815 Nevalainen and Rissanen, op. cit. 816 Carita Paradis (1997, p. 13) interprets rather as either a moderator or a reinforcer of the adjectival property of' strangeness expressed by its head. 817 Carita Paradis 1994, p. 161 818 idem, p. 163 819 ibid.
813 812

192

meaning sooner. There is also an element of preference in the role of quasicoordinator820 of rather, as in the following examples: Steven would rather go swimming than riding. [quasicoordinator]821 He is to be pitied rather than to be disliked. 822 Rather than cause trouble, Im going to forget the whole affair.823 Im going to forget the whole affair, rather than cause trouble.824 In the following example rather has the role to make overt reference regarding the selection of the preferred description her preparedness in opposition to the contrasting element her ability:825 Im not doubting her ability to do it, rather her preparedness.[contrastive reformulatory conjunct],826 Rather can also have the role of a dangling modifier, used to express agreement as in I do think the concert was very good, don't you? Rather![an old-fashioned response item expressing agreement]. 827 Fairly can be a compromiser and a maximizer,828 as well as an emphasizer. Moreover, fairly, like other polysemous ly items, can assume clause-level functions as adverbials and serve as manner
820 821

Quirk et als term (1985, p. 982). ibid. 822 ibid. 823 ibid. 824 Note the mobility of rather in its role of quasi-coordinator. 825 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 13 826 Quirk et als term (1985, p. 639). 827 Rather/RaTHER , in somewhat old-fashioned informal BrE functions as an exclamatory booster. (idem, p. 591) 828 Although recorded in dictionaries, the maximizer use of fairly is looked upon as archaicor hard to distinguish from those associated with emphasis. (Cf. Terttu Nevalainen and Matti Rissanen, op. cit., p. 361f)

193

adjuncts.829 Frequency counts show fairly more common as a downtoning modifier than as an emphasizer or manner adjunct.830 Compare: I thought Id do something fairly [simple]. [compromiser = pretty, quite] It would fairly [soon] be light and he would get a sense of direction again.[compromiser/moderator = pretty, quite]831 He fairly [jumped] for joy. [emphasizer = really, positively]832 In her anger, she fairly [screamed] at him. [emphasizer of truth value = absolutely]833 The general was fairly vanquished. [maximizer = completely, fully]834 I felt I hadnt been treated fairly.[manner adverbial = reasonably; in a fair way]835 You excelled in writing fairly. 3.2.2.2.2 Hedges In 1972, George Lakoff836 published a list of hedges, i.e. phrases and larger syntactic structures whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness, indicating non-central membership of a logical or referential category.837 While hedging forms like (Hes) another (Caruso/Lincoln/Shes another Babe Ruth, etc.) or (America) is the (Roman Empire) of (the modern world) are used to signal metaphor
idem, p. 361 idem, p. 377 831 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 147 832 The emphasizer modifies a non-scalar head. (Quirk et al 1985, p. 584.) 833 idem, p. 585 834 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 144 835 CCD 836 George Lakoff, Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. In Peranteau et al. (eds), Papers from the eighth regional meeting. Chicago linguistic society, 1972, p. 195f 837 Karin Aijimer, Sort of and Kind of in English Conversation. In Studia Anglistica 38, p. 118
830 829

194

rather than fuzziness or approximation, others like sort of and kind of are used ambiguously to indicate metaphor and/or approximation. The ambiguous use of such forms, it has been claimed, provides some evidence that metaphor and approximation overlap, or are not always distinguished.838 Hedges and related lexical items are regarded as a productive source for the expression and regulation of interpersonal relations within verbal interaction. Due to their general relational function, they serve to relate stretches of discourse in a purely continuative role. They introduce fuzziness with respect to the speakers commitment to the truth of the proposition and are accordingly analysed as attitudinal markers, i.e. as vehicles for the establishment and maintenanance of interpersonal relations between interlocutors.839 In point of structure, they range from single words to clauses: sort of, kind of, like, you know, I mean, well, or something, and everything, more or less, I believe, I think, it seemed like, it appeared. Their logical meaning is that of lowering, toning down or softening the assertive force of their immediate co-text by compromising on the full semantic significance of the structures they modify.840 The structures and heads that this set of compromisers modify vary considerably in syntactic form and function, ranging from phrasal constructions (usually kind of, sort of, or something) to clausal types (especially you know, you see, I mean, well). More often than not, the modified head will follow the compromiser. It has been noted that there is an expression of like-ness, which is central to the social-psychological, as well as the pragmatic and interactional significance of compromisers. More precisely, while qualifying the qualitative properties of their immediate contextual referents, they also indicate a something like synonymous relationship between the qualified construction and an item in absentia.841 This structural synonymity relation is
Aandrew Goatly, op. cit., p. 20 Allan R. James, op. cit., p. 193 840 idem, p.194 841 The cue to a synonymity relation is provided by the presence of the compromiser itself: the synonymous status of the head is overtly signalled
839 838

195

rhetorically expressed as a metaphorical relation, i. e. a similetype marker, glossable as LIKE (the compromiser) signals the choice of a lexical item (the head) whose significance is open to figurative interpretation. Therefore, while the compromiser functions as a simile element, the head functions as a type of implicit metaphor, where the tenor is not stated.842 The synonymity of the lexical choices framed by compromisers with the items in absentia should then be regarded as a social synonymity in the context of which the figurative character of compromiser constructions serves to mark the head as standing for or representing socially equivalent items.843 Linguists seem to agree that the interpretation of the meaning of compromiser constructions is made overtly dependent on interactant co-operation by the appeal to hearer deduction and/or inferencing capacities. Thereby, the meaning of the compromiser (i.e. the LIKE-element) has been glossed as I invite you to interpret the head as a synonym of expressions of like significance.844 SORT OF and KIND OF have been classified as downtoners, more exactly as compromisers845 and approximators,846 and as stance adverbials, more exactly as adverbials of imprecision. 847 Lakoff assigns them to a subset of hedges/shields, together with I believe, I think, it seemed like, it appeared; technically speaking, which introduce fuzziness with respect to the speakers commitment to the truth of the proposition.848 David Crystal and D. Davy849 label them
by the compromiser interpersonally, in that the compromiser indicates to the receiver that the structure it modifies is in a synonymous relation with other structures in absentia in the way that the synonymity itself is expressive of interpersonally relevant meaning. (ibid.) 842 idem, p. 199 843 idem, p. 202 844 idem, p. 199 845 Karin Aijimer, op. cit.; Allan R. James, op. cit. 846 Quirk et al 1985, p. 559 847 LGSWE, p. 870. Sort of and kind of are used in speech to make the reference of an entity vague and less well defined rather than clear and specific. (Aijimer, op. cit., p. 118) 848 Cf. Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 17, as pointed out before, in the

196

softening connectives, together with well, you know, I mean, 850 which have the role to alter the stylistic force of a sentence, so as to express the attitude of the speaker to the listener, or to express his In James view, assessment of the conversation as informal.851 these lexical items constitute voluntary markers of imprecision of propositional content on the one hand and modifiers of illocutionary force on the other. Interactionally, they constitute lexical means for the expression of non-imposing, deferent verbal behaviour, serving to communicate, perhaps in a culturally specific conventional way, certain degrees of politeness.852 As markers of co-operative heareroriented behaviour, they conform to the global principles of
discussion on approximators. Two distinct phenomena have been identified in G. Lakoffs category of hedges, i.e. (1) (designated) hedges/shields, which include kind of and sort of, and (2) approximators, eg: about, approximately, around, somewhat, which introduce fuzziness within the proposition that the speaker is expressing. Joanna Channell illustrates (1) by contrasting His feet were blue, where the speaker is committed to the truth of the proposition that his feet were blue, and I think his feet were blue, where the speaker is not sure if the feet were blue or not. Compare His feet were blue and I think his feet were blue While in the former the speaker is committed to the truth of the proposition that his feet were blue, in the latter the speaker is not sure if the feet were blue or not.848 849 D. Crystal and D. Davy, Advanced Conversational English., London: Longman, 1957 850 Cf. Allan James R, op. cit., p. 197f, you know and I mean have been included in the categories of gambits/conversational strategy signals or fumbles, which are further subdivided into the cajoler and let me explain types. Their function in the spoken discourse is to plug speakingturn-internal conversational gaps. The let-me-explain fumble is speaker-oriented and may be said to communicate the fact that Im trying to communicate, whereas a cajoler is basically hearer-oriented and is used by the speaker as an appeal for understanding. Through a cajoler, the speaker seeks to make his illocution more palatable to Hto establish, increase, or indeed restore harmony between the two conversational parteners. Due to frequent use in colloquial American English, compromisers you know and well have been called mannerisms (idem, 204n). 851 David Crystal and D.Davy, op. cit., p. 91f 852 Allan James R, op. cit., p. 198

197

conversational interaction as expressed R. Lakoffs Rules of Politeness 2 and 3 and Leechs Tact Maxim, in perfect accord with a general Hearer supportive maxim of conversation, stated as Support your hearers costs and benefits! Suppress your own! Give benefits when you receive them!853 The most important function of sort of and kind of, in spoken discourse, is to make it easier for the listener to pick out the specific referent the speaker has in mind if the linguistic expression is not exact.854 Karin Aijimer describes the role of the speaker as follows: When a speaker produces a piece of discourse, he has in mind a particular representation of a state of affairs that he wants to convey to the listener.855 In order to choose the proper formulation, the speaker, taking into account shared knowledge and previous context, makes a judgement of what is needed for the listener to work out what he refers to in such a way as to distinguish it from other possible referents.856 It may be stated that sort of and kind of have primarily a mitigating/deintensifying role of softener and hedge, expressing the speakers attitude to the force, emphasis or certainty associated with a word or a formulation which is too strong or categorical.857 Sort of and kind of have been paraphrased as I am not good at making my point. What I say is only approximate. However, you can probably reconstruct what I mean from this description.858 From a pragmatic point of view, the status of sort of and kind of is still more complex. They have been tailored as signals of accommodation to the addressee as well as a means of the speakers self protection.859 Generally contributing to the furtherment of interpersonal rapport between participants, they act rather as fillers of lexical gaps and have often developed into

853 854

ibid. Karin Aijimer, op. cit., p. 122 855 ibid. 856 ibid. 857 The speaker attenuates the force or certainty of that particular word. (idem, p. 126) 858 idem, p. 123 859 Allan James R, op. cit., p. 191

198

clichs with individual speakers.860 There is no difference in meaning or in function between kind of and sort of. They are both used to describe or refer to something that we are uncertain about but that is roughly like the thing mentioned or has the qualities mentioned.861 It is, however, in style that they differ. The former has a higher degree of informality and it is more common in American English.862 In E-position they both sound somewhat more informal, eg: Im puzzled, sort of.863 According to dictionary entries, 864 kind of and sort of are used (1) to describe or refer to something that you are uncertain about but that is roughly like the thing mentioned or has the qualities mentioned: It had sort of [rather substantial walls] Mike had it sort of [behind] him on the window sill. He was sort of [banging his head against a window]. (2) to say that your description of something is not exact/that something is partly true or partly the case, but does not fully describe the actual situation (i.e. somewhat,slightly or in some ways): [Blue hair?]Well sort of. I[ve] sort of [heard] of him but I dont know who he is. (3) to convey uncertainty about what you are saying and wondering if you are using the right word: I just kind of [went for walks and things]. (very informal English) (4) to explain something, when you want to avoid giving the
idem, p. 194 CCD 862 According to Karin Aijimer, the basic phrase a sort of has undergone a structural reduction, developing into the unanalysable single unit sort of, which has undergone a phonological reduction, indicated in spelling as sorta, just as kind of has been reduced to kinda. (op. cit,. p. 120); cf. also LDCE 863 Quirk et al consider that, for some speakers, kind of and sort of are always nearer to more or less than to almost. (1985, p. 599n [b]) 864 CCD; LDCE.
861 860

199

details: I mean sort of [recently], like, you know, the last 5 of 7 years.865 Although they have sometimes been treated indiscriminately, a first distinction has to be made between the partitive phrase structures a sort of and a kind of (Determiner + Head + Postmodifier), and sort of and kind of. The former, a variable pattern of a partitive construction, is used for partition in respect of quality.866 The indefinite article can in this case be replaced by other determiners, such as the demonstrative pronouns this and that. Moreover, due to the vacillatory position of the noun, the modified pattern sort of + a + Head, co-occurs with the basic form: a sort of dinner/sort of a dinner.867 In a third variant, a dinner sort of, sort of , placed as an apposition outside the NP it modifies, is more likely to
865 866

CCD; LDCE. Note also the clustering of Quirk et al 1985, p. 249. Apart from reclassification, both count and noncount nouns can enter partitive constructions denoting a part of a whole. While partition in respect of quantity is expressed by phrases of the type a bit of, a piece of, a sheet of, quality partition is expressed by a partitive count noun like kind, sort and type + of phrase, eg. Im a kind of anarchist, I suppose Its just a kind of haphazard, er, conglomeration. She was wearing a sort of velvet dress I heard a strangling sort of noise a dark thing, a beast, some sort of animal She gave us the most exotic sort of creamy thing for dessert. (CCD) The partitive structure with the indefinite article in both I-position and E-position seems to convey a more emphatic and even deprecating nuance, as in Hes a sort of a manager; It looks like a bowl with a kind of a stirrer thing. Kind of also collocates with indefinite pronouns in some vague referring expressions: something of the/that kind, i.e. something similar to what has been mentioned: Are you sure he was wearing jeans? Well, something of the kind; nothing/anything of the kind is used to emphasize what you are saying when you disagree with someone: I never said anything of the kind!; of a kind is used to say that something is not as good as it should be, eg: Elections of a kind are held, but there is only one party to vote for. 867 The modifying adjective nice in a nice sort of dinner, seems to modify dinner rather than sort of/kind of. Mind also, She was very ill. Kind of a funny green color and sick all over the place. (CCD) a kind of a reddish-brown. (LDCE)

200

have the role of a compromiser and partitive construction blend. Determiners agree with the noun they modify, while the NP heads sort and kind may or may not agree with the determiner in their partitive function. 868 Compare: a new kind of computer: new kinds of computers a delicious sort of bread: delicious sorts of bread869 this/one/each/every kind of school: these/ten/many/all/a few kinds of schools; these/those (kind/sort of) traditions/questions.870 3.2.2.2.3 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Compromisers. Intonational Contours 3.2.2.2.3.1 Compromisers Proper Collocational patterns of compromisers proper have often been discussed contrastively and within smaller or larger contexts. With Michael Swan,871 the values of compromisers plotted along a bounded uni-directional intensification scale of niceness, extend rightwards from the negation of the adjectival head not nice to very nice. In this oversimplified interpretation of the scaling force of compromisers, the members of the paradigm are marked as mere points on a line going from not to very: not nice fairly nice quite nice rather/pretty nice
Figure 3.1 The partitive phrases a kind of and a sort of, unlike the compromisers (a) sort of and (a) kind of, can instead be pluralized: a/one kind of flower; many kinds of flower, other kinds of school etc.
869 870 868

very nice

All sorts of things or people (many; all kinds) means a large number of different things or people, and may be regarded as a vague expression, eg: When you are young you dream about all sorts of things There are all sorts of reasons why this is true suspicion and distrust and evil imaginings of all sorts. 871 Michael Swan, op. cit., p. 232

201

Since a change of compromiser will bring about a change of meaning, Swan claims that compromisers do have a meaning of their own and that the nature of the modified head (positive/negative; gradable/nongradable) is directly responsible for the change of meaning in the compromiser. To substantiate his claim, he discusses a set of compromiser and adjective collocations.872 Compare (1)The film is fairly [good]. (just worth seeing, but not worth going a long way to see) The film is quite [good]. (you are recommending it: it is not the best film ever made, but it is certainly worth seeing). The film is rather/ pretty873 [good]. (it is better than most) Also, compare: She speaks English fairly [well]. [Shecan communicate successfully on everyday subjects, but might not be able to take part in a difficult discussion.] She speaks English quite [well]. [She might even manage a difficult discussion] She speaks English rather [well]. [She is certainly a good linguist] (2) The steaks quite [good]. Shes quite [pleased]. The jobs quite [impossible]. Its quite [true]. Youre quite [right]. The news is quite [amazing]. Linguists seem to agree on the two readings of quite. Swan suggests that quite, in quite [good], changes the strength of the adjective: we know that the steak/film is better than fairly [good] but not as good
872

Michael Swan discusses collocational patterns of compromisers with positive, negative and neutral heads, and change of meaning, accordingly.There is also one note saying that the meanings can change according to the intonation used. 873 idem, p. 232. Pretty is similar to rather, but it is used mostly in informal style. It is unusual in careful written English.

202

as rather [good] or very [good].874 In quite [impossible], on the other hand, quite has a different meaning: it is similar to completely or absolutely.875 Linguists seem to agree that as a modifier of strong adjectival heads quite gets a maximizing reading, by contrast to its downtoning, compromizer meaning, when it is used with scalar adjectives like good. Since simply saying that [t]he meaning of quite depends on the kind of word it is used with876 does not suffice. Angela Downing and Philip Lockes approach to medium intensification877 throws some new light on this set of downtoners, discussed in broad terms in their functional grammar. The glosses for quite, pretty, rather and fairly only make reference to the typical semantic orientation of these four intensifiers. The intensifying value of quite is said to vary according to the attribute it modifies. It normally expresses a medium degree of intensification with positive and neutral heads such as good or interesting, but it takes on a high degree when it modifies an emotive adjective, as in quite amazing, quite incredible, quite disastrous.878 While quite denotes moderate but unequivocal intensification of the Attribute, pretty expresses the same degree of intensificationbut has an approximative less categorical value characteristic especially of informal speech. Rather, on the other hand, intensifies less strongly than quite and pretty, and implies on the part of the speaker a subjective attitude oscillating between approval of favorable Attributes such as rather good, rather easy, rather clever, and reserve or disapproval of unfavorable ones: rather ill, rather poor, rather difficult.879 Further on, with adjectives such as warm, easy and slow, rather implies a negative attitude meaning too warm, too easy, too slow.880 With antonymous pairs of the type clean: dirty, happy: unhappy, satisfactory: unsatisfactory, of which
874 875

ibid. ibid. 876 ibid. 877 Angela Downing and Philip Locke, op. cit., 523f 878 idem, p. 523 879 idem, p. 524 880 ibid.

203

the first of each pair is unmarked, rather is not usually used with the unmarked term unless the situation asks for it, such as a polite reply to a pejorative attitude: That was a foolish thing to do! Oh, really? I thought it was rather [clever].881 Rather can also function as a modifier of affective nouns, i.e. nouns which have a corresponding adjective such as angelic, boring, devilish, eg: rather an angel/bore/devil. Fairly also oscillates between moderate intensification and slight attenuation, collocating more frequently with favorable Attributes than with unfavorable ones, eg fairly honest/ intelligent/reasonable but not *fairly dishonest/foolish/ unreasonable.882 The four adverbs have slightly indeterminate references, that is, the attitudes they express can be varied in speech, but not in writing, by intonation. Thus, while a strong falling tone on the adjective (not the intensifier) marks an increase of the intensification, the fall-rise indicates a reduction of the normal degree of intensification, implying doubt or hesitation.883 There are two intonational contours884 that are made responsible for the meaning of quite. C. Stoffel885 put forward the claim that (1) the strong-stressed quite is a word modifier meaning completely, totally, perfectly, entirely as in I am quite sure of it and (2) the weak-stressed quite is a (word-)sentence modifier, meaning fairly, rather as in Why, its quite cold this morning for the time of the year. He, accordingly, suggests that the sentence He is quite a gentleman may have two widely different readings. A weak-stressed sentence modifier quite, collocating with a strongstressed gentleman, expresses the speakers astonishment at finding a man like this to make the impression of a gentleman. Furthermore, it suggests a half-doubt on the speakers part as to the genuineness
881 882

ibid. ibid. 883 ibid. 884 C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 57; Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 73 885 C. Stoffel op. cit., p. 61

204

of the mans pretentions.886 The converse intonation contour, i.e. a strong-stressed word-modifier quite, with a weak-stressed collocate gentleman, on the other hand, conveys the meaning Hes a perfect gentleman. There is, however, only one reading of He is quite the gentleman, which can never be uttered ironically and where quite can only be a strong-stressed word modifier. The degree function of quite and very are contrasted by C. Stoffel in two alternative, but semantically different sentences. In It is quite cold this morning, quite is necessarily weak-stressed and the subaudition is that the temperature is lower than might be expected under the circumstances. It is very cold this morning, on the other hand, is a matter-of-fact statement in which nothing of the kind is hinted at.887 Along much the same lines, Ulf Bcklund, 888 drawing on Jacobson, deals with the two readings of quite, labelling them Contour A and Contour B.889 The weak-stressed quite occurs with Contour A in the role of focalizer.890 The strong-stressed quite occurs with Contour B and is a word modifier. While ContourA expresses the speakers positive evaluation, Contour B is said to express his reserve towards the referent of the subject. The application of the two intonational patterns to the same syntactic structure illustrates the semantic function of the suprasegmental component. Compare: Shes quite NICE (I like her.)891 Shes QUITE nice (Shes all right, but Im not enthusiastic about her.).
idem, p. 55: The same reading applies to Hes sprung, I believe, from quite the middle class, where the writer wishes to suggest a feeling of astonishment that the person in question should have socially risen so high. 887 idem, p. 57 888 Ulf Backlund 1973, p. 73f 889 They will be referred to as quite1 and quite2, respectively, in this paper. 890 Jakobson uses focalizer as a replacive of the term referential adverb. A focalizer is a sentence modifier whichdirects attention to the constituent, i.e. the strong-stressed modified head. (Cf. Ulf Backlund 1973, p. 73) 891 Michael Swan, op. cit., p. 232
886

205

Hes quite a GENtleman Hes QUITE a gentleman The waters quite HOT The waters QUITE hot. Paradis892 uses a similar frame, analysing fairly, pretty, quite and rather as cognitive synonyms in collocation with good. In response to the question How good is the film?893 they indicate roughly the same degree of the property of goodness, i.e. a moderate degree of an adjectival property. How good is the film? It is QUITE good. It is RAthergood. It is PREtty good. It is FAIRly good. In cognitive terms, it is this vague and subjective degree that they indicate which makes them cognitive synonyms. In terms of entailment and truth, if we assert one item and deny the other item, the result will be paradoxical. Consider the following examples: ?It was RAther dirty, not QUITE dirty. It was VEry dirty, not QUITE dirty. The assertion of rather dirty, and the denial of quite dirty in the former is paradoxical, and consequently in agreement with the prediction for cognitive synonyms in such an entailment structure. In the latter, on the other hand, the result of the denial of quite and the assertion of very is acceptable, which proves that they are not cognitive synonyms.894:
892 893

Carita Paradis 1994, 1997 As shown in 2.3.3, the answer to the question How x is it? is one of the criteria used by Carita Paradis for the classification of adjectives as gradable and non-gradable. 894 Carita Paradis (1997, p. 70) notes that the members of all intensifier paradigms are paradoxical in the frame x but not y, eg: * The story was ABsolutely true, but it was not enTIREly true. The man was TERRibly sad, but he was not exTREMEly sad. * I was SLIGHTly disappointed, but I was not a BIT disappointed. If members from different paradigms are inserted

206

Carita Paradis assumes that the location of the nucleus would mainly have discoursal effects in that nucleus placement on either the adjective or the degree modifier would produce different presuppositions.895 Nucleus placement on the adjective would represent the neutral and unmarked case, where the adjective is new information, whereas nucleus placement on the degree modifier would involve some sort of contrast or contradiction, the adjective being given information.896 It was also assumed that the location of the nucleus could have some lexical and atutudinal implications. Nucleus placement on the degree modifier would bring out the aspect of degree distinctly whereas nucleus on the adjective would have the effect of making the degree aspect less clear, less prominent, and less speaker-assertive.897 She uses two different types of adjective, a scalar adjective, good, which goes with scaling modifiers, and a non-scalar adjective, identical, which goes with totality modifiers: (1) A: what did you SAY B: I said it was very GOOD (2) A: what did you SAY B: I said they were completely iDENtical (3) A: how GOOD was it? B: it was VEry good (4) A: were they iDENtical
in this frame, the result is no longer paradoxical, eg: The story was not ABsolutely true, but it was ALmost true. I was not TERRibly disappointed, but I was SLIGHTly disappointed. 895 idem, p. 116 896 Carita Paradis (idem, p. 116n) uses the term contrastive focus for the prosodic realization on the concrete level. Contrastive focus involves two ingredients: contrast to something in the context, and emphasis. Contrast is a textual term understood from the context, whereas emphasis is related to attitudinal meaning and involvement. When the contrastive focus is triggered by an explicit contrast in the context, the aspect of contrast will dominate, whereas when the contrastivity, i. e. the phenomenon considered at an abstract level, is implicit the aspect of emphasis is foregrounded. 897 idem, p. 116

207

B: they were comPLETEly identical Carita Paradis claims that the utterances in examples (1) and (2) represent neutral and straightforward statements where the nucleus falls on the last lexical item. They are responses to something in a context where a judgement of an adjectival value is wanted and this judgement is that something is good, or more exactly very GOOD, identical, or more exactly completely iDENtical. In examples (3) and (4) focus is on specifications of degree. In example (3) the nucleus is forced by the question to go on the modifier, the focus being restricted to very. Since the nonscalar adjective identical is incompatible with the scalar implication of the how-question, she uses an alternative question frame in example (4). The response also specifies a degree, of completeness this time, and the focus is restricted to completely in the same way as it is to very in (3).898 The reasons for choosing these types of setting for the discussion of the two intonational contours are further enlarged upon. It has been stated that the question in (1) and (2) does not necessarily prompt a response with the nucleus on the adjective. 899 Since the question is too general to absolutely exclude alternative nucleus placements, it would be possible to get a response where the nucleus falls on any other word in the tone unit, the modifier included. This type of setting was, however, chosen because it most typically produces a nucleus on the adjective, because no specific presupposition was intended, and because it would be convenient to use the same frame for all the combinations of adjectives and modifiers that were under scrutiny.900 As for questions in (3) and (4), they can only trigger an answer with the nucleus on the modifier. Carita Paradis speaks of a case of contrast that is created in the sense that both very and completely are chosen from a set of possible items for specification of degree.901 The moderators pretty, quite, rather, fairly, and the boosters very, terribly, awfully, extremely could have been alternative types of degree modifiers to be
898 899

idem, p. 117 idem, p. 118 900 ibid. 901 ibid.

208

used with good. The alternative degree modifiers that could have been used with identical, on the other hand, could be either maximizers, eg: completely, totally, absolutely, or approximators, eg: almost, nearly.902 It can, therefore, be inferred that the choice of nucleus placement is determined by two different presuppositions. This difference in presupposition, it is claimed, has to be explained in terms of how the adjective is conceptualized.903 When the nucleus goes on the adjective as in (1), the value of something encoded in terms of an adjective is made prominent, namely the speaker has in mind that something is good rather than bad. Both the speaker and the hearer have a scale of merit in mind, where good and bad represent the two opposite poles, just as very GOOD and very BAD do,904 as illustrated below: very very bad
Figure 3.2 The scale of merit

good

Paradis claims that very falls within the scope of the focus assigned by the location of the nucleus on the adjective, and very good is new information.905 Very is said to occur in the shade of the adjective and is interpreted as carrying less information value. The main point of the message is that something is good, while very is mentioned additionally and is apparently of minor importance in the actual context.906 In contrast, nucleus placement on the degree modifier, as in (3), does not conjure up a scale of good as opposed to bad in speaker and hearer. The how + adjective question prompts a response in which the degree of very is viewed on a scale of goodness only. There is no opposite of VEry good, in the same sense as very BAD is the opposite of very GOOD. The nucleus
902 903

ibid. ibid. 904 ibid. 905 idem, p. 119 906 ibid.

209

placement restricts the view to a scale of goodness, where good is already shared knowledge and old information:907 very good
Figure 3.3 A scale of goodness

The research has confirmed the assumption that when the adjective modified by quite is a clear-cut scalar adjective, such as good, quite always has the moderator reading. When the adjective modified by quite is a clear-cut limit adjective, such as dead, quite always has the maximizer reading. Obviously, in these contrastive cases the interpretation of quite was governed by collocational factors.908 It was also found that, as far as the collocation quite good is concerned, it is natural both with the nucleus on QUITE and on GOOD. When the nucleus goes on quite the degree aspect is highlighted, and the fall-rise harmonized best with moderator quite because of the inherent meaning of reservation both in the tone itself and in moderator quite.909 When the nucleus goes on the adjective, the fall is the more natural tone, since the fall represents the unmarked case in declaratives with neutral focus assignment 910 However, in quite dead, the fall can only go on dead, since contrastive focus presupposes polarity, a feature which dead lacks. 911 It has been pointed out that a further effect of different nucleus placement is that when the nucleus falls on the degree modifier, the aspect of degree is made prominent and emphasized.912 Thus, for scaling degree modifiers such as boosters, moderators and diminishers, nucleus placement on the modifier has the effect of
907

Very appears at the upper end, in the same way as it does when the nucleus goes on the adjective. (ibid.) 908 idem, p. 139 909 ibid. 910 ibid. 911 Carita Paradis holds that Narrow contrastive focus created by nucleus placement on quite was not natural, since [t]here is no element that is an opposite of quite in quite dead. (ibid.) 912 idem, p. 120

210

adding to its scaling potential. While reinforcing modifiers, such as boosters, indicate a higher degree on an abstract scale of intensification when they carry the nucleus than when they are nonnuclear,913 the attenuating potential of moderators and diminishers, correspondingly, becomes stronger too. It follows that they indicate a lower degree on the abstract scale of intensity than when they are non-nuclear. This is shown in the following examples: (5) it was very HOT. (6) it was VEry hot. (7) it was fairly LONG. (8) it was FAIRly long. (9) it was slightly DlFFerent. (10) it was SLIGHTly different. In (6), where very carries the nucleus, the interpretation is that it indicates a higher degree of hotness than it does in (5). The reverse relation applies to the two attenuating modifiers fairly and slightly, which indicate a lower degree of length/longness and difference than when they are non-nuclear.914 In conclusion, [n]ucleus placement on the modifier stretches the scale in both directions and makes the various degree modifiers stronger with respect to their scaling potential, either more attenuating or more reinforcing.915 From a pragmatic point of view, it can be asserted that all the utterances in which the nucleus falls on the degree modifier are more speaker-assertive with respect to degree, a difference which is especially obvious with the moderators pretty, quite, rather, and fairly. Consider examples (11) and (12): (11) it was pretty HOT. (12) it was PRETty hot. In example (11) [p]retty is not speaker-assertive, having a negotiating and hedging function. Pretty in (12), on the contrary, is speaker-assertive. Under the circumstances, it was assumed that
913 914

ibid. ibid. 915 ibid.

211

while in example (11) the degree aspect in pretty is backgrounded, in (12), the degree aspect is made paramount.916 Collocational patterns of compromisers are usually discussed comparatively and contrastively. Most commonly, quite is said to collocate with positive heads, such as bright, exciting, nice, good, which contrast with the negativity of the heads of rather, eg: dull, sad, careless, boring, badly, awful. Examples such as She is rather nice, Im rather [fond of tennis]917 and The film was quite dull, however, contradict the assumptions above, making things even fuzzier. In C. Stoffels opinion, rather gives a definite subjective colouring to the sentence, as [t]he most characteristic downtoning adverb used in modern parlance to take off the edge of what might otherwise produce an unpleasant impression on the hearer or to tone down the harshness of a statement.918 Notice the semantic relation which, in Stoffels reading, obtains between the compromisers rather and pretty in the following dialogue:919 Patient: The waters rather [cold] this morning. Attendant: Yes, sir, its pretty [cold], but then its the doctors orders. The patient under treatment is about to take his morning bath. Putting his hand into the water, he will express unpleasant surprise at finding the water colder than he expected by using the mitigating adverb rather. The attendant will merely make an objective statement as to the temperature of the water. Therefore, what for the patient would be an unpleasant experience, for the attendant would be an acceptable situation. Similarly, pretty shallow, in the sentence The water was luckily pretty shallow in that part, describes a fortunate circumstance which prevented Tom, in Henry Fieldings Tom Jones, from drowning. A change of compromiser, i.e. The water was rather shallow in that part, would be a more suitable
916 917

idem, p. 121 See also Angela Downing and Philip Locke, op. cit. p. 524 918 C. Stoffel, op. cit., p. 129 919 idem, p. 132

212

combination to refer to an unfortunate circumstance, i.e.the insufficient depth of the river that might cause an accident, such as to cause a boat to get stuck fast in the mud.920 There are no emotional overtones in pretty, which often has the same function as rather, but tends to combine with more positive ideas, sounds more colloquial, conversational and slangy and it is not so closely related to another persons utterances. Drawing on Ulf Backlund, 921 the modified scales of truthfulness and of certainty have been plotted below. The former may apply to the following sentence: I came to ask you a question, Jonathan. Please, [answer] truthfully. I want to consult you before I take the decision. Jonathan, coloured a little under the implied reproach in his mothers phrasing Im usually fairly [truthful], I believe. While rather [truthful] would have implied criticism, bluntness, Jonathans choice, fairly truthful, is caused by his feeling that his mother thinks him not truthful. Had Jonathan said quite truthful, Jonathans feelings would have been illustrated differently: rather quite --------------fairly not
Figure 3.4

- truthful

rather quite --------------fairly not

Figure 3.5

certain

In They were fairly exhausted, fairly expresses a sense of optimal degree, and the subaudition of the collocation may be: They were expected to be more exhausted that they were in fact. An increased degree of exhaustion, on the other hand, would have been expressed by the use of maximizers, such as completely, totally, utterly. Similarly, an optimal degree of acidity in wine is conveyed by fairly acid, meaning that it should be neither less nor more acid: The wine is acid, Max, isnt it?
920 921

idem, p. 149 Ulf Backlund 1973, p. 146ff

213

Well, fairly. Cooccurrence restrictons on quite, rather, fairly and pretty In premodification of adjectives, quite and rather occur both in the standard (pre-adjectival) position (a + quite/rather + Adj. + N) and in the special (predeterminer) position (quite/rather + a + Adj. + N). Allerton922 speaks about ambiguity as a further complicating factor in the case of quite. In the example sentence The sisters were quite different, the ambiguity stems from the fact that quite has two different meanings. The first meaning rather, somewhat occurs with SCALAR adjectives (good, funny, similar, pretty), whereas the second, absolutely, totally, occurs with ABSOLUTIVE adjectives (excellent, ridiculous, identical, lovely). As a member of the mixed SCALAR-ABSOLUTIVE class, the adjective different, just like beautiful, is compatible with both values of quite and therefore ambiguous. Quite + [Verb]923 I quite [enjoyed] the trip (to a certain extent) I quite [forgot] to post your letter (completely) Quite a/an + Noun and Quite a /an or a quite + Adjective + noun are positive in effect: Alan is quite [an expert] on jazz. Jasper is quite [a man]. (Jasper is an impressive example of a man.) Jasper is (not) quite [a man]. (Jasper lacks something that would grant status as a man.) 924
922 923

D.J.Allerton, op. cit., p. 25 Marcia Haag, op. cit, p.122, holds that quite does not trigger scale in verbs but it may be used in some dialects as an emphatic such as truly, eg: Fred [has] quite [trounced] his opponent. (i.e. Fred has - certainly, truly, definitely [trounced] his opponent.). (Do) not quite, on the other hand, may be glossed with not truly; not definitely with the additional sense of do imperfectly; miss succeeding in, eg: I dont quite [understand]., where understand is not scalar. 924 ibid.. As far as nouns are concerned, modifier (not) quite may have scope over NP but may not modify nouns, and does not trigger a scalar value; rather, quite with NP means impressively; notably and not quite

214

It is quite a[n interesting] film/a quite [interesting] film For all her rudeness, shes actually quite a kind-hearted old soul. (LDCE) Quite some + uncountable Noun means considerable: Its quite [some time] since we wrote to each-other. Quite the means certainly in the following patterns: quite the + superlative: Its quite [the worst] play I have ever seen; quite the + noun: Tweeds are quite the fashion this autumn. Not quite, follows the intonational Contour B, meaning not completely/almost, eg: not QUITE dead/perfect/right; Im not QUITE ready I wont be a minute; I dont QUITE agree. Not quite can modify a phrase with the postmodifying minimizer enough: You do[nt] type quite [fast enough]. It was[nt] quite [long enough]. Fairly, less complementary than quite, often combines with adjectives and adverbs that suggest a good, less than the highest degree state of affairs, as in The lecture was fairly [good]. He lectured fairly [well].925 It combines with verbs, but not with comparatives: You fairly [drive me mad] with your nagging (very nearly). The structure a + fairly + Adj + Noun is less complimentary than quite a /an/ a quite + Adjective + Noun. Compare Hes a fairly [good] speaker, which means a person who can communicate successfully on everyday subjects, but might not be able to take part in a discussion, to the one who is a quite good speaker/quite a good speaker. Rather combines with both positive and negative heads. It is stronger than quite and fairly and it often means more than is usual/expected/you want/you are inclined to be..., eg: rather
means lacking some attribute. 925 Fairly well and pretty well mean quite/almost/moderately well, eg: Pretty well everybody agrees with him.

215

good/nice/clever/well (i.e. inclined to be bad/nasty/stupid/ill (i.e. inclined to be bad)

good);

rather

This car is getting rather old. He did rather badly in the control. I rather like raw vegetables. In spoken American English, especially, kind of usually replaces rather: I rather/kind of like her. Someone who speaks English rather well is and not just a fairly good speaker, but a good speaker. Someone rather nice is surprisingly nice, the speaker being pleasantly surprised at finding him/her to be so. While [a] rather [good movie] is better than most, [a] rather [hot climate/weather] is a bit uncomfortable. Compare the following collocations of quite and rather: quite bright/exciting/nicely/a good player a rather dull/boring idiot. Compare also The waters quite [hot] (good) and The waters rather hot] (not so good ). Refer them back to rather [cold] and pretty [cold], in the patientattendant dialogue commented upon above. Theoretically, only rather is used with comparatives: Its rather [warmer] than it was yesterday. Ted earns rather [more] than his wife, It is not, however, unusual for quite to occur with a comparative, as in: Hes quite [better] (completely recovered) Only rather can be used with too: He s rather [too sure] of himself. Only quite and rather can be used with the pattern intensifier + Article + Noun. Compare Its quite [a nice day] Hes rather [a bore]. Rather a/an or a rather + Adjective + Noun

216

Its rather [a sad story]/[a] rather [sad story]. Rather a/an + Noun: Ted is rather [a bore]. (i.e. inclined to be a bore) The intensifiers quite, pretty and rather are assertive. Compare: They drive quite/pretty/rather fast. *They dont drive quite/pretty/rather fast.926 Only quite is acceptable, in a non-assertive context, when it modifies a phrase with the postmodifer enough: They dont drive quite fast enough. It wasnt quite long enough.927 The inclination to readily lend themselves to litotes928 makes compromisers vague and susceptible of being interpreted as both attenuators and potential reinforcers. As shown above, quite good may be attenuating or slightly reinforcing depending on the context and on intonation.929 Both rather and quite are used in understatements/litotes: The teacher was rather [pleased] when she read the composition. Youre quite [clever]. (Youre rather stupid) Quite the reverse, not at all + a negative word conveys a positive meaning, as in Hes not at all [stupid]. (Hes very intelligent). Both quite and rather occur with an emphatic-exclamatory value in predeterminer position, with count singular nouns, with a further restriction for rather, which can only occur with gradable nouns: quite a mess ! rather a fool ! Synonymous with rather, pretty is unusual in careful written English and it is used mostly in informal style. As with the other compromisers, the meaning of pretty varies with the intonation contour.
926 927

Quirk et al. 1985, p. 786 idem, p. 786 n[b] 928 Paradis 1997, p. 69 929 ibid.

217

The use of compromisers in every day English is often a matter of preference. This is especially true of quite, rather and pretty, which are sometimes used in the opposite way, as in Im rather [fond of] tennis; That play was quite [dull]. Pragmatic Functions of quite, rather, fairly and pretty There are various degrees of emotive meaning and emphasis that collocations with compromisers may convey: (1) surprise with connotations of (a) pleasure and (b) disappointment: (a) He observed for the first time that he was quite [a good-looking man]. (b) He has made a strong impression. But not, perhaps, quite [the impression] he had expected. (2) a nuance of criticism or sarcasm: shrewed businessman as he was, has settled quite [a nice lump of] money on his grandchildren. 930 (3) persuasiveness: Im quite [serious]. They are quite [happy], arent they? Collocations of rather + manner adverbials may connote feelings of: (4) surprise, something out of the ordinary: He put it rather [bluntly]. (5) discomfort and unpleasantness: His heart was beating rather [uncomfortably] hard. (6) criticism: I think you are behaving rather [childishly]. 3.2.2.2.3.2 Hedges. Collocations. Pragmatic Functions The distribution of the two items has been checked against a

930

Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 61

218

selection of live recordings from The Listening File,931 and of examples from the CCD and the LCDE dictionary corpus, which has revealed a high frequency of occurrence in premodification of NPs and of VPs. Collocations of sort of and kind of Im not upset. Im just sort of [stunned]. (Sunt doar uluit.) sort of + [noun] (a) Very old, yeah, I mean ancient! But he was the super-hot skier of [the whole] sort of [country] and er he came up to me and offered me a race, you see, and (b) even in Brixton, (which is supposed to be), you know, (the black area in London), you find sort of [middle class white people and black people] living side by side. (c) You had an argument then with him?-Well, kind of. sort of + (nongradable) [verb] (a) The man you have to watch is the one who becomes belligerent, and you sort of [take] him gently by the elbow to lead him to the door Um yeah, you know, sort of [knocking] on my door, eight oclock in the morning saying er tell you a funny story I just kind of [went] for walks and things I kind of [made] it look like the post office had lost his letter. (LDCE) if I am invited into somebodys house I [have to] sort of [play] the rules by them. Ive sort of [heard] of him but I dont know who he is. (LDCE) He sort of [smiled] at us. ['You could almost say he smiled at us']932
In the corpus, the occurences of sort of by far outnumber those of kind of. They occur predominantly medially, but also finally, in sentence structures. 932 Cf. Quirk et al 1985, p. 599 The subaudition of the approximator kind
931

219

He kind of [grunted]. ['You could almost say he grunted'] I kind of [like] him.933 I kinda [like] that color. (LDCE) He was sort of [banging] his head against a window. Did he help you? Well, kind of (=not as much as I hoped). sort of/kind of + [adjective] (a) Actually, I felt kind of [sorry] for him (CCD) Im kind of [glad] I didnt win. (LCDE) I guess theyre kind of [mad] at me for getting them up so early (CCD) he is kind of/sort of [clever]. and almost anywhere in the real world Im sort of [middle aged]. Blue hair? Well sort of. (b) and it was [very] sort of [long] and thin hair. (c) and it was a little sort of [rather unpleasant] in the end. It had sort of [rather substantial] walls sort of + [adverb] He spoke sort of [absent-mindedly]. She spoke kind of [proudly].934 I mean sort of [recently], like, you know, the last 5 of 7 years. sort of + [prepositional phrase] Mike had it sort of [behind] him on the window sill Tyrone: Its hard to describe how I feel. Sort of [at peace with] myself and this lousy life (ON/MM: 110) sort of + [numeral] I mean, you had sort of [ten] flights a day, I think. It may be noted that with noun heads sort of and kind of occur
of/sort of is He sort of smiled at us, but in fact it was more like a sneer. 933 The denial of the truth value of what is denoted by the verb is not possible in this case, eg: * I kind of like him (but in fact I dont like him). 934 ibid.

220

with or without premodification (a, b, c). The most striking example with verbs is the embedded sort of in the split infinitive structure in (b). Sort of and kind of co-occurring with adjectives may also combine with another intensifier, immediately before or after sort of and kind of, as very in (b), or rather in (a). Most common of colloquial conversation is the clustering of these pragmatic expressions.935 Pragmatic Functions of sort of and kind of The analysis of some of the semantic and pragmatic functions of sort of and kind of has been carried out in ampler discourse structures as illustrated by the following live selection from our corpus:936 (1) Well, I had a sort of [dinner] given for me by some Greeks, which was very terrible.937 (2) Im talking about, you know, sort of [acceptable middle class language] and sort of [working class language] (3a) but in the House of Commons Im sort of [bright young thing]. (3b) But at the time they didnt know that I was wearing aids and this sort of thing and (3c) And what about interviewing because you interview a number of er er politicians and well, the Prhyme Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, that kind of [thing].
Characteristic of an extremely casual form of conversation seems to be the complete absence of heads in compromiser constructions, leaving stranded/ dangling compromisers, as in Its like well kind of thing and the filling of the head slot by a lexical item expressing total vagueness, as in the following cluster of discourse particles: Its you know sort of doodah935 or something. /'du:d/in BE or /'du:d d/ is used to refer to something whose name you have forgotten or do not know, eg: Will you pass me the doodah will you? 936 Jeremy Harmer and Steve Elsworth, The Listening File. Authentic Interviews with Language Activities, Longman, 1994. This analysis has been suggested by Aijimers discussion of the pragmatic roles of sort of and kind of in spoken discourse. Due to the scarcity of examples in our corpus, I have also quoted some of the examples from Aijimer. 937 Aijimer, op. cit., p. 121
935

221

(4a) and he sort of [looked] at me and gasped.938 She sort of [felt] miserable. (4b) He sort of [smiled] at us, but in fact it was more like a sneer.939 (4c) She kind of [wasnt listening]. (5) Dont race him, dont race him, hell hammer you, you know, youll get hurt, all this sort of [thing], you havent got a you cant stand a chance, and all this sort of thing. (6) And it was sort of [black stripes] and sort of [bars] all going this way. (7) I mean they sort of [live en famille].940 (8) and she was sort of begging for the moon.941 (9) and we were all sort of fifty. (10a) it was just sort of twenty minutes up there. and we just sort of tried to work it out. (10b) Cant you sort of slow down a bit? (11a) But all the same it has an insidious sort of, er, effect that you really want to get on in the world (11b) and then they sort of they score them up in a certain way. While in (1) sort of conveys a negative evaluation of the mentioned meal, which is reinforced by the intensified booster structure very terrible, in (2) it functions as a signal of accommodation to the addressee and its reiteration amplifies this effect. Example (3) illustrates the use of noun heads with little or no semantic content after sort of and kind of , i.e. person, thing, stuff, place etc. The most frequent collocation is with thing. By using (the/this/that sort of) thing rather than a specific word or description, the speaker can avoid being explicit and still give a clear idea of

938 939

idem, p. 123 Quirk et al. 1985, p.601 940 Aijimer, op. cit., p. 124 941 ibid.

222

what he means.942 In (4) sort of and kind of premodify verb phrases. The verbs of feeling, thinking and believing have the most frequent occurrences in my corpus. Aijimer 943 identifies the following verbs in LLC: look, feel, leap, mutter, sit and try. The compromiser indicates that the verb is close to, resembles or approximates what we want to say.944 Example (4b) is an instance of explicit denial of the modified head of sort of. The modified version of this sentence He sort of smiled at us, but in fact he didnt smile at us has the subaudition You could almost say he smiled at me.945 Sort of and kind of are among the few downtoners that can modify a negative verb phrase,946as in (4c). As illustrated by example (5), the tokens of compromiser under discussion are also often used in personal narrative in which someone wants to convey an experience, feelings or an attitude and wants to indicate that he wants a conversation in which personal experince, feelings amnd attitudes are more important than facts and exact descriptions.947 The speaker uses sort of or kind of at stages of the narrative where either he does not want to, or cannot specify something fully but only wants to suggest the richness of the real experience.948 Example (6) is a description of a situation in which greater precision (i.e. exact words or description) is not needed. The speakers use of sort of signals that he wants the atmosphere to be informal and relaxed. Moreover, it makes possible for the speaker to use an expression which does not belong to this vocabulary, i.e. technical, rare, formal, vulgar, idiomatic, etc. In example (7), rather than using his own words, the speaker finds it easier to use a French expression, which help him disclaim

idem, p. 122 idem, p. 123 944 ibid. 945 ibid. 946 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 601. Similarly, He sort of didnt want to say anything about it. 947 Karin, Aijimer, op. cit., p. 123 948 ibid.. My emphasis.
943

942

223

responsibility for a formulation which is vulgar or informal.949 In example (8), sort of indicates that something should be interpreted not literally but as a metaphor. (9) Although sort of and kind of are not normally used if there is no uncertainty about the interpretation of a word, they can occur before exact number formulations with the meaning approximation. Thus, sort of fifty is indeterminate between more than fifty and less than fifty and can be paraphrased by approximately, about. In example (10a) the primary function of sort of and kind of is that of a softener collocating with just to soften down the too strong and categorical statement. In example (10b) sort of softens and modulates the force of a particular speech act, that is a suggestion, which imposes on the listener and is therefore potentially a threat to co-operative interaction.950 In Cant you sort of slow the speaker makes his communicative intention (to suggest smth.) more fuzzy by the use of sort of thus making the impact of the utterance on the listener less disruptive.951 In example (11a) sort of has the function of a filler, rather than a hedge, filling in the silence and maintaining the speakers right to speak.952 Sort of explains that the speaker makes the pause in order to find the correct formulation. In (11b) the filler sort of is used to introduce repair and is followed by a break and restart: they sort of they score them up In very informal speech kind of and sort of are used to make a serious statement sound weaker or amusing, eg: He sort of came up to me and pushed me. So I kind of hit him in the face.953 It appears that the main pragmatic function of sort of and kind of is to alter the stylistic force of a sentence, so as to express the attitude of the speaker to his listener and his assessment of the
949 950

idem, p. 124 idem, p. 125 951 ibid. 952 idem, p. 126 953 LDCE mentions that [s]ome people do not consider this to be good English.

224

conversation as informal.954 Sort of and kind of are likely to be used when the speaker (1) does not know or does not remember a word that (s)he wants to use; (2) wants to disclaim responsibility for what (s)he is saying; (3) thinks personal experiences to be more important than facts; (4) hesitates or searches for words. 955 More often than not they cooccur with other pragmatic expressions with which they share the same function of filler and softening connective, eg: you know, I mean, well, etc. You know, sort of and kind of , for instance, convey the idea that the listener can work out what he refers to on the basis of shared background knowledge.956 They all seem to be important elements in conversation, making spoken interaction easier, more pleasant and more efficient.957 3.2.2.3 Diminishers Another distinction within the class of downtoners has been drawn between diminishers, which scale downwards and roughly mean to a small extent,958 and minimizers, which scale downwards, almost reaching a zero degree value on the intensification scale, and mean (not )to any extent.959 While approximators and compromisers question the expression of the modified head, diminishers and minimizers express a simpler grading of intensity.960 In Quirk et als classification diminishers fall into two distinct groups: the expression diminishers and the attitude diminishers. Expression diminishers usuallly express only part of the potential force of the item concerned and include a bit, a little, least (of all),
954 955

David Crystal and D. Davy, op. cit., p. 91f Cf. Karin Aijimer, op. cit., p. 127 956 idem, p. 122 957 idem, p. 127 958 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 597f, i.e. mildly, partially, partly, quite, slightly, somewhat; in part, in some respects, to some extent; a bit, a little, least (of all); only, merely, simply, just (informal), but (formal and rather archaic). 959 ibid., i.e. barely, hardly, little, scarcely; in the least, in the slightest, at all, a bit 960 idem, p. 597

225

mildly, partially, partly, quite, slightly, somewhat; in part, in some respects, to some extent.961 Attitude diminishers imply that the force of the item concerned is limited and include merely, only, simply; just (informal), but (formal and rather archaic). Minimizers, also labelled negative maximizers,962 have been classified as negatives (little,963 barely, hardly, scarcely964) and non-assertives (a bit, at all, in the least, in the slightest). Quirk et al claim that the difference between diminishers and minimizers is not the nearness to the bottom of the scale, though most minimizers are indeed near the bottom, but their behaviour with respect to negation.965 Generally speaking, the effect of negation is to deny the truth value of what is denoted by the verb, as in They didnt praise him in the SLiGHTest. [They didn't praise him'] We don't like it a BIT. ['We don't like it']966 When diminishers are the focus of negation, which they usually are not, the effect is to push the scaling towards the top,967 as it is the case with the following utterances with fall-rise nuclei:
Ulf Bcklund classifies a little, a bit, a shade, a trifle, mildly, slightly and somewhat as adverbs expressing a low degree whose heads denote concepts which are, more or less consciously, registered as something unnatural or out of the ordinary. There have been distinguished four main semantic groups of heads, i.e. heads expressing (1) emotions of a negative/positive nature; (2) criticism; (3) something out of the ordinary (ideas chiefly negative in character or ideas that imply direction); (4) comparatives. (1973, p. 47-67) 962 Quirk et al 1985, p. 597 963 In Ulf Bcklund little is classified as an adverb expressing a low degree of a positive idea, used to modify positive concepts, expressing a shortcoming or a failure to reach a desirable state. (1973, p. 67ff) 964 Barely, hardly and scarcely, together wirh just are classified as adverbs expressing the minimum degree or the degree just above the non-presence of the concepts denoted by their heads. 965 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 600 966 ibid. 967 ibid.
961

226

They didn't praise him SLiGHTly. [They praised him a lot'] We don't like it a LITtle. ['We like it a lot'] 968 Minimizers, on the other hand, differ from other downtoners in providing a modification towards a version that is more strictly true rather than a denial of the truth value of what has been said. Thus, the second clause in each of the following examples turns the partial denial in the first clause into admitting a full denial:969 She scarcely/hardly [knows] me. (- in fact she doesn't know me). I can barely [understand] him. (- in fact I can't understand him). and his dream must have seemed so close that he [could] hardly [fail] to grasp it. (SF/GG: 188) With scarcely [a word] said, four of us, the chauffeur, butler, gardener, and I, hurried down to the pool. (SF/GG: 168) He little [realizes] the trouble he has caused. (- in fact he doesn't realize it). While I agree to the reasons that made Quirk et al distinguish between diminishers and minimizers, I consider that there is no need for too discrete a classification of this set of downtoners and have accordingly treated them all as members of the diminisher paradigm. 970 The members of the diminisher paradigm are bleached with respect to content meaning and they do not seem to differ as to their scaling force or attitudinal colouring.971 For Carita Paradis, 972 [d]iminishers are conceptualized in terms of a boundary from which

968 969

ibid. idem, p. 599 970 My view partly tallies with that of Carita Paradis 1997. She has only considered four items, all members of the diminisher paradigm, i.e. a (little) bit, slightly, somewhat, a little. 971 Carita Paradis, 1997, p. 76 972 ibid.

227

the degree expressed by the diminishers is measured.973 The adjectives in the opposite pair drunk: sober, for instance, are differently conceptualized. Drunk, an essentially scalar adjective, is bounded at one end and has a definite lower point, i.e. sober. As a limit adjective, sober, on the contrary, does not appear to have a definite lower starting-point from which a diminisher can take off.974 Therefore, we can hardly say ?a bit sober, but it is perfectly possible to say a bit drunk, just as it is possible to say totally/completely/very/almost/fairly/quite/rather sober. Very much like boosters and compromisers, diminishers preferably combine with typically scalar adjectives of a neutral or negative character, such as awkward, bleak, big, crazy, crude, curious, difficult, dirty, foggy, funny ('odd'), hard, nasty, odd, salty, shy, sick, slow, small, soft, stupid, tired, tough, wild, worried, young etc. 975 Moreover, apart from attenuating the force of the head that they apply to, the members of the paradigm are similar to compromisers in that they readily lend themselves to be used for understatement and thereby serve a reinforcing function.976 This inclination for excess is manifest in combination with both neutral and negative adjectives, as in a bit long, a little tired, slightly mad or somewhat depressing, and encompasses two aspects. On the one hand, in collocation with neutral adjectives, such as long and short, diminishers tend to express excess
ibid.. Carita Paradis notes that the adjectives in the pair drunk and sober are differently conceptualized. Drunk , which is bounded at one end, has a definite lower point, i. e. sober, while sober, a scalar adjective, does not appear to have a definite lower starting-point from which a diminisher can take off. It is therefore possible to say a bit drunk, but hardly ?a bit sober. Quite sober or rather sober are, however, possible, since they do not have this requirement. (ibid.) 974 ibid.. As a reflection of the semantic component which all the diminishers have in common, all diminishers view adjectives in a scalar fashion. (Cf. idem, p. 90). A bit tired, for example, represents the relevant degree of the actual property of the adjective, i.e. a bit of a scale. (idem, p. 53) 975 It is owing to their inclination to primarily combine with scalar adjectives that Carita Paradis classifies boosters, compromisers, and diminishers alike as scalar modifiers. (ibid.) 976 idem, p. 89f
973

228

and undesirability. In the sentence The discussion was a bit long, a bit long has the subaudition a bit too much of the actual property, on the verge of being too long or simply a bit too long.977 Someone who goes a bit far, takes something too far or pushes someone too far etc, behaves in an unacceptable or extreme way. Compare: Sometimes the press went too far and suffered accordingly The chastening of the trade unions, if not taken too far, will have been a salutary experience In 1963 he unwisely pushed the Americans too far That is probably going a bit far.978 With negatively loaded adjectives diminishers have the contrary effect of toning down the negativity of the excess.979 The requirement that the modified heads should express excess imposes cooccurrence restrictions on the adjectives in the range of diminishers. Thus, since positive adjectives cannot be viewed in terms of excess, it is quite natural for diminishers not to collocate with them. This restriction render combinations such as ?a little nice, slightly good, somewhat lovely sound awkward. A BIT is the most frequent diminisher.980 The colloquial character of a bit determines its collocations to a great extent. It combines with scalar adjectives, some of which are ambiguous between scalar and extreme readings, characterized by a negative content,981 eg: ashamed, banal, cruel, cynical, difficult, embarrassing, exhausting, shattered, mixed-up, muddied, pissed off, ominous, shattered, stupid, unsightly, weird, worried:982
idem, p. 76 ibid. 979 ibid. 980 Cf. LCDE, p. 829 The noun bit is much more common in spoken English than in written English. This is because a bit is more common than a little in spoken English, and bit is used in a lot of common spoken phrases. Both a bit and a lot are used as adverbials of frequency, as in We see each other a lot 981 idem, p. 90 982 Cf Bcklund, 1973, p. 54ff, in accordance with the classification of the semantic groups of diminisher heads,the semantic feature of downtoning is manifest with a bit in combination with the semantic groups of heads that
978 977

229

Its a bit [frightening] to find out that someone else, even a friend, knows how things are with you. (SK/TB: 36) (a little/not too much frightening) Shes a proud old girl, but a bit [garrulous]. SM/LS: 154 I think it was a bit [thick] you telling your wife I wasnt a proper person for her to associate with. SM/LS: 154 If for all that Im a bit [blue], cant you guess why? SM/LS: 137 Since the need to tone down what is unpleasant or unnatural is greater in spoken language,983 it is but natural for a bit to be the most common minimizer in litotes. As far as the meaning of plain adjectives (i.e. adjectives in the basic/positive degree form) and of premodified adjectives is concerned, it seems that very [disappointed] and a bit [disappointed/suspicious] are more precise than just disappointed and suspicious.984 Apart from its collocation with negative adjectives, a bit also combines with neutral scalar adjectives, a combination which often calls forth a reading of excess that is not liked by the speaker. Thus, similarly to a bit long, already discussed above, a bit big reads too big or on the verge of being too big. The function of a bit in a bit pissed off is not, however, that of adding non-desired excess, but of softening the non-desired excess already inherent in pissed off.985 There is no expression of excess in the modulated nongradable adjective Japanese, in a bit Japanese, either. It has been noted that, in the cases where a bit gets
express: (1) negative emotions, i.e. feelings of fear, unrest and confusion (afraid, apprehensive, dizzy, embarrassed, frightened, jumpy, mixed up, nervous, uneasy, up and down) and positive emotions (relieved, in love with); (2) criticism, 50% of the combinations disclosing the ironical overtones in the make-up of a bit. Some of its heads are in themselves depreciatory in character, eg: dull, insipid, limited, spineless, and many of them are made derogatory by the context. (3) something out of the ordinary, eg: amusing, odd, out of the usual run, peculiar, queer, misty, close, deep and (4) comparatives, eg: closer, older. 983 idem, p. 53 984 Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 109 985 ibid.

230

its excess reading, both the actual adjective and its antonym can normally be modified by a bit, eg a bit long, a bit short, a bit fast, a bit slow,986 whereas, in collocations with negatively loaded adjectives, the opposite adjective cannot under normal circumstances be modified by a bit at all: a bit stupid, ?a bit clever, a bit cruel, ?a bit good. This is also true of limit adjectives: a bit uncertain, ?a bit certain, a bit different, ?a bit identical.987 Carita Paradis speaks about the incompatibility, or at least awkwardness, of combinations of diminishers and the type of zero-oriented limit adjectives, such as identical, safe, sober.988 It has been assumed that what accounts for this co-occurrence restriction is the fact that once the limit has been transgressed, it is not possible to view the adjective in terms of more-or-less.989 Collocations of a bit (1)fairly, slightly, but not very; a little, to a small extent or degree: He was a bit [deaf]. (CCD) I think youre a bit [young] to be watching this. (LDCE) Could you turn the radio down a bit, please? (LDCE) She plays the piano a bit. (LDCE) I speak French a bit. I used to act a bit when I was younger. (LDCE) Percivals a bit like me. (CCD) My sisters boots were a bit too small. (CCD) Stay a bit longer its still early. (LDCE) Would you like a bit more cake? (LDCE) Its a bit more expensive. (CCD) (2) very, quite a lot, to quite a large extent or degree; used to emphasize something or to make a particular statement sound less extreme. That sounds a bit complicated for me. (CCD)
986 987

idem, p. 91 ibid. 988 The antonymous pairs of safe and sober, namely dangerous and drunk, collocate with diminishers. 989 idem, p. 91

231

Youre a bit late, arent you? (CCD) Its all a bit depressing, really. (LDCE) She knows quite a bit about European history. (LDCE) Shes quite a bit older than me. (LDCE) (3) something a bit much, a bit steep, a bit strong is too extreme or excessive in some way; used especially when you want to criticize something without seeming aggressive. He kills the villains, and he gets the rich girl, and its all a bit much, like most of the plot. (CCD) Its asking a bit much to expect a lift. (CCD) I thought it was a bit much, asking me to drive him all the way home. (4) not a bit, especially in BrE, means not; very , not at all not; very and is used to make a strong negative statement: It was all very clean and tidy, not a bit like his back garden. (CCD) You [havent changed] a bit. (CCD) Are you frightened of me?Not a bit. (CCD) (5) a bit like means a little similar, eg: Shes a bit like my sister. (LDCE) (6) not a bit, especially in BrE, means not at all, eg: Youre not a bit like your brother, are you? (LDCE) I wasnt a bit worried. (LDCE) (7) every bit as + adjective + as means just as much as, I think shes every bit [as pretty as] her sister. Like a bit, other intensifiers, such as the booster much, the diminishers few and a few and little and a little are primarily (vague) quantifiers.990 Linguists usually analyse few - a few and little - a little contrastively. They speak about positive/negative contrast and variation in the intonational contour of diminishers (a) few [a small number] and (a) little [a small quantity], according to whether the indefinite article is used or not.991 According to Quirk et al, few and
990 991

Cf Carita Paradis 1994 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 263

232

little, although not morphologically negative, as distinct from a few and a little, are negative in meaning. Their behaviour of quantifiers corresponds to the positive many and much, as contrasted below: There were few visitors at the exhibition. [not many visitors] Few of the animals will survive the winter. [not many of the animals] They have many supporters, while we have few. There was little enthusiasm for the project. [not much enthusiasm] Little of the original building remains today. [not much] They have plenty of money, but we have comparatively little.992 As to their intonational contour, when a/an does not precede, few and little are stressed: He wrote a few 'books. (some, several, positive) 'few 'books. (not many, negative) a little 'poetry. (some, positive) 'little 'poetry. (not much, negative)993

Joanna Channell disagrees with Quirk et als labelling of few and a few as negative and as positive quantifier, respectively. She puts the blame on the usually small number of invented examples, which disregard pragmatic aspects. To illustrate this inadequacy, she has suggested the following context, where the negativity is rendered by a few:994 My garden has few weeds. (good) My garden has a few weeds. ( also good) Quirk et als analysis of few and a few is considered most likely incomplete in that they have been influenced by the choice of the generic reference books as the collocate of the two quantifiers. In
992 993

idem, p. 392 ibid. 994 idem, p. 113

233

Joanna Channells opinion, their analysis tallies with the popular view according to which writing books can be evaluated as a good thing, while to write few books is bad.995 She notices that in the Cobuild corpus both few and a few mostly occur with generic reference: a few travellers cheques, few people, but are not unusual with specific reference either, which is much less frequent with a few. A notable feature of this corpus is that both few and a few often collocate in spoken English with nouns denoting time, hence a few days, few months, a few minutes, few years. A LITTLE and LITTLE A little, like a bit, has various interpretations and constraints on collocability and it is preferred by adjectives with a negative tinge, such as afraid, daring, insensitive, naughty, prejudiced, restive, sick, sticky, tired. It also collocates with a few neutral adjectives, eg: high, slow, with a number of not very strongly biased limit adjectives: different, idiosyncratic, reluctant, as well as some weakly biased extreme adjectives, eg: appalled, distraught. Little especially modifies ed-adjectives and comparatives. It may also occur in (highly) formal registers, eg: It little reduces her dependence on him. It little increased our confidence in him. He little knows the trouble hes caused.996 Diminisher little, like booster much, can be modified by booster so, which diminishes its semantic force. Compare: so little time/money: so much time/money Much and (a) little co-occur only with noncount nouns: She hasnt got much money. She has only got (a) little money.997 There are restrictions on the use of much with singular nouns and of many with plural nouns, the corresponding open-class
995 996

ibid. ibid. 997 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 262

234

determiners a lot of and lots of being widely used instead.998 Much is typically used in nonassertive contexts, while in assertive contexts usually a lot of (chiefly in informal style), or a similar colloquial determiner, is used: We dont have much time We have plenty of/bags of /a lot of/lots of /loads of time.999 Compare also the following assertive/nonassertive pair of sentences: There was a good chance somebody would come. There was little chance anybody would come. 1000 They may also be preceded by central determiners other than the indefinite article a, eg: these few days, that little money.1001 Many and few can also be used predicatively in formal style: His faults were many/few. 1002 Many can also function as predeterminer in prearticle position, with singular count nouns. The rather formal many a good student is used as a synonym of many good students. A few determines plural count nouns (a few books), and a little determines noncount nouns (a little poetry). Since neither of these two noun classes cooccurs with the indefinite article, it will be clear that in these instances a belongs to the quantifier alone.1003 The multal and paucal group of pronouns, and their matching postdeterminers, are seen as synonyms with a similar distribution. Many (a large number) contrasts with a few (a few number), and much (a large amount) contrasts with a little (a small amount) 1004 in the following examples:
998 999

idem, p. 384 idem, p. 262 1000 idem, p. 390 1001 idem, p. 263n [a] 1002 idem, p. 263n [c] 1003 idem, p. 263 1004 idem, p. 385

235

now.1007

I know many/a few people in Boston. Many/A few (of my friends) were there. There were only a few/very few/many/several mistakes in your essay1005 There are very few people that feel that they have to work to help their parents1006 I have eaten too much/a little (of the food). There is little/not much/not a great deal else we can do

Much has been said about the cost of medicine. 1008 Much and, to a lesser extent, many have acquired some nonassertive force, with the result that they are rarely used, at least in informal English, without some negative or interrogative implication. Sentences like We have endured ?much are uncharacteristic of modern idiomatic English, and there is preference for open-class quantifiers such as a great deal (of), as in We have endured a great deal.1009 Similarly, informal English shows preference for plenty of and a lot of rather than many as in She has plenty of/a lot of/many good ideas. 1010 As gradable lexical items, quantifiers many, much, few and little can be premodified by intensifying adverbs, such as very, too, so, as, enough: too much, very few, etc. While quite can only occur in pre-article position in quite a few [a considerable number], very can only follow the indefinite article in a very few:1011 Very few [people] believe it. very little food. Intensifiers extremely and so can also premodify few and little:
1005 1006

idem, p. 262 Joanna Channell, op. cit., p. 113 1007 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 454 1008 idem, p. 384 1009 ibid. 1010 idem, p. 385 1011 ibid.

236

extremely few visitors. And I got an election when I wouldnt have got Elihu, knowing so few men. (FSF/TN: 5) As postdeterminer and as substitute pronoun, many can occur with premodification in post article position in the intensifying structure: the many dangers we face. The quantifier, followed in this pattern by a restrictive relative clause, takes on the meaning of a nonrestrictive modifier, so that I am well aware of the many dangers (that) we face. can be paraphrased as I am well aware of the dangers we face and there are many of them. Few and little may be used attributively following determiner the, and also predicatively: the little money I have left. What we have is but little. the few friends he has. His faults are few. Few can also occur in the pattern: determiner + few + verb: [Some] few [acquired] great credit from having prophesied, the day before yesterday, exactly when it would come to pass. (ChD/NN: 459) A: Have you seen (very) many houses for sale? B: Yes, Ive seen quite a few. No, Ive seen only a very few. Most of us enjoy reading.

In the following example, the definite article the has optionally been added to most and to fewest/least in the sense the greatest number (of)1012 and the smallest number, respectively. In this constituency, the Labour Party often polls (the) most votes, and the Tory Party (the) fewest/least. But this
1012

idem, p. 386

237

time, the Tories had more success than usual.1013 Many, like few, has a predicative use (numerous) in formal and literary English: His sins were many and his friends were few.1014 Many/much and a few/a little can precede the comparative forms more, fewer and less in the comparison of different totals or amounts: more many We have had fewer (apples) a few more (plums) much less (rain)

this year than last year.1015

Collocations of little (1) Little as a quantifier means only a small amount or hardly any of something/or almost none at all, often when this is not enough, eg: We had little chance of success. (CCD) I paid little attention to what the others were saying. (LDCE) John and I had very little money left (CCD) Little of equipment was standardized. (CCD) She ate little. Food sickened her. (CCD) There is little to worry about. (CCD) Theres little to be gained from an official complaint. (LDCE) He should say as little as possible. (CCD) (2) Little also means barely, hardly, not much or only slightly, almost not at all, or to only a very limited extent. (a) little of, eg: Little of their wealth now remains. (LDCE) (b) (very) little The pattern of life here has changed little since I was a
1013 1014

ibid. idem, p. 386n [b] 1015 idem, p. 386n [c]

238

boy. (LDCE) The situation has improved very little, in spite of all our efforts. (LDCE) Richardson interrupted very little. (CCD) a city that is so far very little damaged. (CCD) During that period I ate very little and slept even less. (LDCE) Theres very little money left. (LDCE) There seems very little point in continuing this discussion. (LDCE) (c) little known/understood etc means not known etc by many people: a little known corner of the world. (LDCE) (d) little or no peasants who have little or no land. (LDCE) (3) as little as possible means the smallest amount that you can have or do: We tried to influence their play as little as possible. (CCD) I try to disturb her as little as possible when shes working. (LDCE) He always writes as little as possible. (LDCE) (4) little + comparative His voice was little more than a whisper. (LDCE) (5) little did sb think/realize also sb little thought/realized, a fairly formal use, meaning not much or only slightly, is used to mean that someone did not think or realize that something was true: Little did he realize that we were watching his every move. (LDCE) Little did I know when I embarked on this quest where it would lead me. (CCD) She little thought that everything was about to change. (CCD) Little is known about these areas of the moon. (LDCE) (6) (just) that little bit extra/harder/better etc means more, harder etc by a small amount that will have an important effect, eg:

239

 people who work just that little bit harder than anyone else. (LDCE) Collocations of a little (1) A little of something means some, a small amount of it, but not very much, to a considerable/appreciable though not extensive amount or degree/not great extent or degree, 1016 eg He spoke a little (bit of) French. (CCD) Dont worry, everything will be OK, it just needs a little time, thats all. (CCD) Fortunately I had a little time to spare (LDCE) The head waiter ceremoniously poured a little wine into a huge, deep glass. (CCD) He did look a little [like] a poodle and he had the poodles soft, intelligent and shining eyes. SM/MC: 122 Try to persuade her to eat a little. (CCD) I thought he was a little bit afraid. (CCD) (2) A little (bit) means a bit, to a small extent or degree: I was a little bit disappointed with my test results LDCE) It was, however, a little disappointing. (CCD) He sometimes gets a little carried away. (CCD) He frowned a little and then closed his eyes. (CCD) She trembled a little as she spoke (LDCE) something thats always worried me a little bit. (CCD) I told him a little bit about it. (LDCE) (3) a little of The city is regaining a little of its former splendour. (LDCE) (4) for a short time or distance, eg: We went on a little, and then stopped again. (CCD) We walked on a little and then turned back. (LDCE) He sits there for a little (CCD) moving a little to the left.. (CCD) A little over half the class can swim. (LDCE) a little over 60 years ago. We walked on a little and then turned back. (LDCE)
1016

Bcklund, 1973, p. 47f

240

(5) a little + comparative a little later that evening. (CCD) He poured me out a little more wine. (LDCE) Would you like some more coffee? Just a little, thanks. (LDCE) We shall have to wait a little longer to see what happens. (6) what little + verb means the small amount that there is, that is possible etc, eg: We did what little we could to help. (LDCE) The firemen recovered what little remained of the bodies. (LDCE) A TRIFLE is a fairly formal expression, means slightly, rather,to a small extent or degree You seem a trifle [nervous]. (LDCE) She was a trifle [breathless]. (CCD) They seemed very nice men, she added, a trifle [wistfully]. (CCD) For a man at all particular in such matters it might be a trifle too [snug]. (ChD/NN: 304) He was about two or three and fifty, and a trifle [below the middle size]. (ChD/NN: 48) SLIGHTLY means a bit, not considerably/significantly and it is felt to express the conception of degree much more precisely than the other diminishers which are more or less vague or flexible as to the degree expressed and, which, in many cases, are used for the sake of variety in style.1017 The toning down of unnatural and unpleasant ideas seems to be particularly distinct in the case of slightly, partly because of the small and exact amount of degree expressed by slightly, partly because of the associations of the adjective1018 with the verb
Bcklund 1973, p. 47 Cf. CCD, p. 1368, something that is slight is very small in degree or quantity, He had a slight German accent Not at the moment, she said after a slight hesitation The differences between us are really quite slight Hed had a slight stroke The slightest noise startled him I
1018 1017

241

slight. Like a bit, slightly, co-occurs mainly with negatively loaded adjectives, eg: annoyed, crazy, odd, but it differs from a bit in that it coerces quite a few limit adjectives into a scalar reading eg: different, dormant, illiterate, misplaced, stuck.1019 Within the range of slightly there is a relatively large number of adjectives expressing vague, obscure, awe-inspiring or threatening ideas, eg: faint, hostile, lurid, magic, menacing, sinister. Moreover, slightly, in comparison with a little, a bit and a trifle is more neutral in nature, lacking any emotional overtones,1020 but its heads are usually stronger. slightly + [adjective] (base/-ed/comparative) I am greatly obliged to you cried Isabel with a slightly [nervous] laugh.(HJ) Ignatius, are you in that dump? Myrna demanded in her flat, direct, slightly [hostile] voice. (JK/CD: 452) Osmond turned slightly [pale]. (HJ) Persons who are slightly [imbecile] tend to act in everything by routine or habit.(CD) White wine should be slightly [chilled]. (CCD) She wore the slightly [fixed] smile of someone who is being sung at in a musical comedy (DL) He was a little larger than life, every line of his figure slightly [exaggerated], like a cartoon character.(DL) Each step he took was slightly [tentative]. (CCD) The visitor had been slightly [startled] but her manner was none the less gracious. (HJ) The proportions are sometimes slightly [disturbed] by unknown causes. (CD) Her voice was strong but melodious, slightly [American] in accent. (DL) I hope you can see slightly [more clearly] what is going on. (CCD)
havent the slightest idea what youre talking about. 1019 Paradis 1997, p. 91 1020 Bcklund 1973, p. 61

242

Her husband was slightly [shorter than] she was. (CCD) Do you know him?-Slightly. (CCD) Phrases: not in the slightest is used to intensify a negative statement: My tennis hadnt improved in the slightest. (CCD) Your fathers not suffering in the slightest. (CCD) Do you mind?-Not in the slightest. (CCD) SOMEWHAT is a rather formal, infrequent word, which means to a fairly large extent or degree and combines with both negatively loaded adjectives, eg: bleak, dirty, lengthy, inflationary, nasty, and with limit adjectives, eg: analogous, different, predictable. It is synonymous to slightly and a little in that its heads express feelings of inhibition, of being hampered. The difference between slightly and somewhat is that the former is exact while the latter has a vague, inexact character.1021 The heads of somewhat express ideas implying that something has been reduced, hampered or repressed,1022 eg: somewhat + [adjective] (base/-ed/-ing/comparative) Her sister was considered somewhat vain and proud (C. Doyle) The conversation threatened to take a somewhat angry tone (HJ) Except Mr. Sherlock Holmes said my companion with a somewhat bitter smile.(C. Doyle) He looks somewhat changed. My own part was fascinating, if somewhat alarming. (CCD) Yes, she answered, somewhat louder that before. somewhat + [verb] The accident somewhat influenced his actions in later life. Communication has altered things somewhat. (CCD) somewhat + [preposition] I found, somewhat to my surprise, that I enjoyed myself. (CCD)
1021 1022

idem, p. 63 idem, p. 61

243

somewhat + [adverb] It would appear so and somewhat suddenly. (C. Doyle) Stopping them somewhat abruptly, Mr. Holmes(C. Doyle)

Diminishers1023 barely, hardly, scarcely and little form a subset. By comparison, while hardly most often has a rather strong emotional connotation, scarcely, due to its underlying adjective base, scarce, has mainly a quantifying function, and lacks in such connotations.1024 They are themselves negative and cannot be negated. On the rare occasions when they are positioned initially, there is subject-operator inversion. Of these four, hardly,1025 scarcely, and barely can co-occur with nonassertive forms1026 or with vague quantifiers like a thing:1027
Collocations of hardly, scarcely, and barely Elvis could hardly bear to let Gladys out of his sight when her condition grew worse. (71) We hardly needed it at all. She scarcely knows me.1028 The headstones were small, tilted, pockmarked, spotted with fungus or moss, the names and dates barely legible. (97) Winnie was barely into her thirties but she had a sane and
They are classified as minimizers in Quirk et al. 1985, p. 598f. Cf. Bcklund 1973, p. 41 1025 Cf. idem, p. 39, hardly is used in more emotional contexts, to a great extent expressing failure to reach a desirable standard, whereas scarcely seems to occur more often in neutral collocations 1026 Cf. Quirk et al. 1985, p. 780, hardly, scarcely, and barely, as well as few and little can effect clause negation. The sentences in which they are used usually require a positive tag question, eg: They scarcely seem to care, do they?; They hardly have any friends, do they? Scarcely any wine has yet arrived, has it? 1027 In idem, p. 599, the noun phrases a thing and a wink are classified as minimizers. 1028 idem, p. 598
1024 1023

244

practiced eye for the half-concealed disasters that constitute a life. (228) The other borders seem to prefer it that way. He barely exists we feel. (237) Hardly anyone wants the job1029 I can barely speak to any of my colleagues1030 Few changes have ever taken so many people by surprise.1031 I scarcely got/slept a wink last night. We scarcely/hardly/barely1032 need a thing.1033 The subject operator inversion, regarded as an emotional fronting of a quantitative expression, is not uncommon with diminishers either, eg: Scarcely ever has the British nation suffered so much obloquy.1034 Hardly had he hung up when the phone rang. Little do they care what happens to me. Little did I expect such enthusiasm from so many.1035 Few/Many are the opportunities that come our way. The downtoners scarcely, hardly and barely function within a a noun-phrase subject, effecting clause negation, as in Scarcely any wine has yet arrived, has it ?1036 Barely any arms were accumulated before the war.1037 Little help can be expected from Peter1038
1029 1030

idem, p. 780 ibid. 1031 ibid. 1032 Cf. idem, p. 600, for some people, the cooccurrence of these nonassertives or minimizers is marginally acceptable with barely. 1033 idem, p. 600 1034 idem, p. 781 1035 ibid. 1036 idem, p. 781 1037 ibid. 1038 ibid.

245

3.2.2.3.1 Collocations of Diminishers in Corpus1039 diminisher + [adjective] Shes a little bossy, dont you think?(36) I reflected that our current predicament seemed to be of merely glancing interest to some of us. (159) diminisher + [verb] He little realizes what trouble he has caused. The incident somewhat influenced his actions in later life. They have always mildly disliked him. I partly agree with you. I was only joking. She'll just be out for a few minutes. I don't like his attitude a bit. This conviction gives them a kind of rude health. They glow a little. (6) We don't mind in the slightest. I didn't enjoy it in the least. They don't support her at all. We know them slightly. I can admire his courage to some extent. diminisher + [adverb] Other times we walked slightly apart (237) diminisher + [noun] Murrays hands clasped behind his back. a somewhat worried touch. (237) It was merely a matter of finance. It seems but yesterday. To sum up, diminishers typically combine with adjectives that have a negative content. In combination with neutral adjectives they imply excess. Negative adjectives tend to be inherently excessive in
1039 Part of the corpus used in this section has been extracted from White Noise by Don Delillo. The bracketed numbers mark the page of the book.

246

that they often imply a superfluous and non-desired property. 1040 Neutral adjectives get an excessive interpretation by implication, i.e. by an understood too. Thus, a bit insensitive reads too little of the property of sensitivity and a bit tired too little or too much of the property tiredness. 1041 Carita Paradis assumes that, since in collocation with scalar adjectives diminishers indicate a limited part of the scale implied by the adjective, this means that there has to be an inferable starting-point for this scale.1042 3.3 Position of Intensifiers Intensifiers may fill in different positions in the sentence. They may function as premodifiers of adjectives, adverbs, verbs, nouns and comparative words, eg: fairly accurate/small/regularly, a rather good man/rather a good man, utter fool, bloody idiot, ferocious appetite. Their position of intensifiers especially varies with verbs: He rather likes her. (premodifier) He likes her a lot. (postmodifier) She doesnt worry about us a bit. (postmodifier) They completely failed/failed completely. (pre/postmodifier). Most amplifiers fill in M- and E- positions, whereas noun phrases and prepositional phrases are placed in end position. In order to denote the absolute upper extreme of the intensity scale, Eposition will be preferred with a subset of maximizers. For example, in M- position, the maximizer completely has scaling effect similar to that of a booster. Where the absolute meaning is expected, some speakers find only end position acceptable. Compare: He denied it completely. (in every respect) He completely denied it. (strongly/really) They divided up the money completely. (the whole of the money) ?They completely divided up the money.
1040 1041

Paradis 1997, p. 91 ibid. 1042 ibid.

247

M-position of maximizers will convey a scaling effect similar to that of boosters, which denote a high degree on the scale, but not the upper extreme of the scale, as maximizers do. Most downtoners favour e-M position, some of them (quite, rather, all but) being restricted to it. Others (barely, hardly, scarcely), tend to be restricted either to M-position or to I-M position: I have everything I need and I am quite comfortable.1043 I was rather pleased to hear it.1044 He seemed scarcely to be thinking of it at all.1045 A few downtoners are restricted to medial position in positive clauses, and to initial-medial position in negative ones (kind of, sort of, almost, nearly), eg: The teaching staff is composed almost solely of New York migrs. (DD, WN:9) Nothing had been seen of him down here for nearly six months. (AC:19) Other downtoners favour e-position (a bit, at all) or are largely restricted to end position (enough, a little, a bit). Intensifiers enough, and at all occur mainly in post modification: I was wearing a heavy sweater and felt comfortable enough in the cold air. (DD, WN: 115) Most letters he didnt read at all. (JH, C-22:8) Can I do anything at all to help you? (idem:13) Beside their usual premodifier and postmodifier function, the great majority of intensifiers may occur both in front and postposition as focalizers of the message: I think shes missing him a lot. She is rather. Are you sure of that? Quite. Are you in love with him? Utterly. Is he dedicated to his family? Completely.
1043 1044

JH, C- 22:13 AC:33 1045 JH, C- 22:305

248

How do you feel about Africa? Overwhelmingly. Absolutely [fabulous]! 3.3.1 Position of Amplifiers Most amplifiers occcur in M and E position. Whereas in negative, interrogative and imperative clauses E position is normal in all cases, in positive declarative clauses, both boosters and maximizers mainly occur in M position, when we want to express a scaling upwards. E position is preferred for maximizers when we want to denote the absolute upper extreme of the scale.1046 Hence, it is the M position of maximizer completely that accounts for its scaling booster effect, similar to that of booster strongly or the emphasizer really. Consider He completely denied it. He strongly/really denied it.1047 In E position, eg: He denied it completely, completely is closer to: He denied it in every respect.1048 Where the absolute meaning is expected, some people find only E position acceptable. Compare ?He completely dissected the animal. ?They completely divided up the money. He dissected the animal completely. [into all the prescribed parts] They divided up the money completely. [the whole of the money]1049
1046 1047

idem, p. 595 idem, p.596 1048 ibid. 1049 ibid.. Violently is similarly interpreted. Thus, in M position, in They violently attacked him, violently is likely to be interpreted as a booster ['strongly'] and attacked will then be equivalent to 'condemned', a verbal assault. Violently in E position, on the other hand, as in They attacked him violently, is likely to be interpreted literally ['with violence'] as a manner process adjunct, with attacked referring to physical assault.

249

E position of completely is normal in negative, interrogative, and imperative clauses.1050 Absolutely, altogether, completely, entirely and totally occur in all positions. In E position, as deleted elements, they have an emphasizing function, as focalizers of the message: Completely ruined, he Totally disappointed Utterly cut off from. Evelyn was back home; but not entirely. Extremely, most and, when no comparative clause follows, more, usually occur in E position, whereas exclamatory how, only occurs in I position. 1051 Boosters so and well occasionally appear in iM position, usually (but not necessarily) when they are themselves intensified or before an emphatic auxiliary and especially when the utterances follow an associated statement: A: I'd prefer to see them tomorrow. B: And I| very MUCH| would prefer to see them tomorrow. I so did want to meet them. I well can understand your problem.1052 Although some speakers find it odd, for other speakers, iM position is common for very much as in ?I very much would like to speak to you sometime today. M position would, however, be far more usual for so and very much, as in I would very much prefer I did so want... etc.1053 3.3.2 Position of Downtoners Most downtoners favour eM position and some are restricted to it (fairly, quite, pretty, rather; all but, as good as) while others
1050 1051

ibid. ibid. 1052 ibid. 1053 ibid.

250

tend to be restricted either to M or iM (barely, hardly, scarcely, practically, virtually): He must have been rather in a difficulty. She may have as good as finished the painting by now. (informal) She had all but finished the painting when the burglary took place. *She may all but have finished 1054 He could hardly be described as an expert.1055 She will virtually have finished by the time they arrive. She scarcely has had any sleep. (has scarcely had is more common) Compromisers kind of and sort of and approximators almost and nearly are restricted to M in a positive clause, whereas in a negative clause they can occur at iM. Compare She was kind of listening to him... She kind of wasnt listening to him. He almost fainted ... He didnt Lmost faint | He F`AINTED. WHERE? Diminishers a bit and at all favour E position, while a little and enough are largely restricted to E,1056 eg She hasnt changed a bit/at all. Youve helped me a little/enough. 3.4 Romanian Intensifiers The wide range of English intensifiers, outnumber by far Romanian patterns.Amplifiers, and certain approximators, for instance, are either rendered in Romanian by similar lexical items, or
1054 1055

idem, p. 602 Cf. idem, p. 583, in very informal use, hardly can be at E without prosodic weight eg:(She used to write a lot but now) she doesn't write at ALL hardly. [more usual: 'she hardly writes at all]. 1056 idem, p. 602

251

by prepositional phrases: absolutely (absolut), completely (complet), perfectly (perfect); altogether, completely, fully, entirely,highly, totally, thoroughly, tremendously, wholly: n totalitate/ntregime. The structure adverb + de + adjective/adverb is the most common one, 1057 eg extremely, enormously, frightfully, horribly, immesurably, incredibly, remarkably, terribly, outstandingly, utterly: extrem/extraordinar/fantastic/formidabil /incredibil/nemaipomenit/teribil de; a great deal, a good deal, a lot: o mulime de; enough: destul/ndeajuns/suficient/potrivit de. Semantically, Gabriela Pan Dindelegan distinguishes between ,,determinani definii de evaluare gradual n o n s u p e r l a t i v (destul de, ndeajuns de, suficient/insuficient de; potrivit de) and ,,determinani definii de evaluare gradual s u p e r l a t i v . The latter include ,,determinani marcai semantic cantitativ-gradual implicnd n matricea lor semantic seme g r a d u a l c a n t i t a t i v e (colosal de, enorm de, fabulos de, imens de, infinit de), as well as ,,determinani din seria excesiv de, exagerat de, coninnd seme cantitattive care indic depirea unei anumite limite, extrem de, al crui sem cantitativ indic deprtarea maxim fa de un punct de referin, as well as a set of ,,construcii din registrul popular, care ncorporeaz ideea de cantitate, adesea n sensul depirii unei
Gabriela Pan Dindelegan, op. cit., p. 85ff, calls this structure ,,un tipar sintactic specific predicatelor verbal i adverbiale, nentlnit la predicatul verbal, care este ,,extrem de interesant att din punct de vedere sintactic (pentruineditul legturii sintactice i pentru restriciile de topic pe care le comport), ct i pentru specificul semantic, constnd n ncorporarea unei varieti de nuane i de mijloace de gradare, de cuantificare i de modalizare. Cu puine excepii (care includ ,,determinani n construcii exclamative: ,,teribil eti de frumoas), grupul determinant + de ,,nu permite, n mod curent, disocierea. From a semantic point of view, nota comun a construciilor aparinnd acestui tipar sintactic este dat de ,,funcia componentului adverbial: de e v a l u a r e c a n t i t a t i v , deci de individualizare cantitativ a gradului n care un obiect posed nsuirea (sau o aciune posed caracteristica), intervenind, n aceast evaluare, un element m o d a l i z a t o r, deci de apreciere subiectivp de ctre vorbitor a specificrii cantitativ graduale. Toi determinanii snt c u a n t i f i c a t o r i c a r d i n a l i (opui cuantificatorilor logici) i, de cele mai multe ori, n o n n u m e r i c i (diferii de numerale) i, cu totul excepional, n u m e r i c i.
1057

252

limite cantitative (eg: idei din cale afar de originale, peste msur de fierbinte, peste ateptri de istea; dunre de mnios). With other modifiers ,,constatm trecerea din plan c a n t i t a t i v n plan gradual c a l i t a t i v, aprecierea gradual realizndu-se prin seme superlative din zona calitii (desvrit/extraordinar/ fantastic/formidabil de; cumplit/groaznic/fioros de). 3.5 Degree, Manner and Modality Adverbs and Quantifiers One of the most uncertain border areas in semantics is the division between coexisting aspects of degree, manner, modality and quantification. Both Eugen Borst1058 and Gustav Kirchner 1059 have been censured for having included in their lists of adverbs of degree an enormous sample of adverbs which are predominantly adverbs of manner as well.1060 To avoid overlapping, Ulf Bcklund has set up two criteria that are meant to distinguish adverbs of degree from adverbs of manner in attributive position: 1. they are not, in all their collocations, yielded by constituents which can be generated on the basis of the corresponding adjective; 2. and/or they do not fit in the frame he acted and answer the question how ?1061 It is on these grounds that he ousted from his list adverbs such as abominably, annoyingly, appallingly, badly, bitterly, blatantly, brilliantly, fiercely, moderately and unexpectedly whose basic function is to express manner although they all contain an

Op. cit. Op. cit. 1060 Ulf Bcklund 1973, p. 8 1061 idem, p.13. Thus, while awfully, in Its awfully [good] of you to join us in this Godforsaken spot, satisfies the criteria, unusually, in Its unusually [complex] lock (i.e. Its complexity is unusual; He acted unusually), does not, and will accordingly be classified as manner adverbial.
1059

1058

253

element of degree1062 A point of view that Carita Paradis1063 and Quirk et al1064 share is that modality adverbials and degree adverbials are similar in their semantic effect.1065 Compare: Shes probably awake. Shes almost awake. (probably, not really/exactly, hardly) There is a modality component, a quantifying component and a manner component that co-occur with the role of degree to a greater or lesser extent1066 in degree modifiers, and which make [m]odality modifiers and degree modifiers shade off into one another. 1067 Linguists seem to agree that degree modifiers tend to be subjective in character and show involvement on the part of the speaker. The lexical class of amplifiers/reinforcers, for instance, can be used for non-propositional functions, in that they may convey both modal and affective meaning. While modal meaning is speaker-oriented and has to do with the speaker's judgement of the degree of certainty of what he/she is saying, affective meaning is listener-oriented. There is a blend of modal and affective meaning in reinforcers, for example, as in Its awfully [good] of you to join us. Its terribly [important] to get it. Apart from the lowering effect that downtoners/attenuators have on the word they apply to, they also have a modal function of marking uncertainty with respect to the proposition, as well as an affective function of showing deference vis--vis the hearer1068 as in Ive almost [finished]; Its rather [cold] in here, isnt it?; I kind of [agreed]. Emphasizer really and booster so,1069 are primarily modal and affective in meaning but get
1062 1063

idem, p.14 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 19 1064 Quirk et al. 1985, 485ff 1065 Cf. ibid., adverbs of degree are concerned with the assessment of gradable constituents in relation to an imaginary scale. 1066 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 19 1067 ibid. 1068 Cf. Carita Paradis 1997, p. 19 1069 Due to their rather unspecific, wide collocational ranges, so, such, what

254

an intensifying semantic value similar to that of the degree modifiers very, extremely, terribly in collocations with scalar adjectives such as nice and good: really [nice], so [good].1070 Just has a semantic effect similar to absolutely in the sentence It is just [marvellous]. 1071 William Labov considers that in the Black English Vernacular (BEV) the adverb just has the same privileges of occurrence as really,1072 but has a much wider range of meanings. Just can be a minimizer as in I didnt yell and scream, I just went like this [gesture], where it can be interpreted as no more than the following. When it modifies a strong action or expression, just can be interpreted in the opposite manner, with the intensive meaning no less than this, 1073 a semantic effect similar to absolutely in sentences such as It is just [marvellous].1074 Modality, a less direct way of disclosing our attitude, is a matter of d e g r e e because one modal concept may have v a r i o u s i n t e n s i t i e s.1075 While there is agreement on establishing
and how may rather be regarded as degree operators than intensifiers proper. 1070 In order to sift away modifiers whose primary function is modality, i.e. really, truly, Paradis (idem, p. 20) uses these items in a frame with contrastive focus. The degree modifiers selected to be investigated in her study are used to give specifications of degree and function as conveyors of speaker attitudes. 1070 idem, p. 13 1071 idem, p. 19 1072 idem, p. 21 Really is ambiguous between modality, meaning something like in truth, and a degree of reinforcement similar to very. Since it is used to give emphasis to an adjective which would not normally vary in degree, but its degree aspect is not predominant, really was not included in the category of degree modifiers. 1073 William Labov, op. cit., p. 68n. There are also in BEV several elements of the grammatical system usually considered aspect markers which appear to have shifted into the mood system with the intensive feature as a major semantic element: be, be done and done. 1074 Cf. Carita Paradis 1997, p. 19 1075 Elena Croitoru Mood and Modality, Institutul European, 2002, p. 18. In pragmatic terms, modality has been defined as the attitude of the speaker towards communication, attitude that includes, besides manifestations of our intellect and will, feelings and emotions signalled by the modals especially in indirect speech acts. This aspect has led linguists to consider

255

primary values of modal hierarchies, hierarchization of modality values has been found to be a difficult enterprise. Besides some variation in the setting up of accurate hierarchies for the modal verbs corresponding to their actual use in discourse,1076 this aspect can best be illustrated by the semantic scaling of our remarks according to politeness,1077 as in Im sorry to intrude upon you, but Im terribly sorry to intrude upon you, but Will you open the door, please? Would you mind opening the door, please? Would you be so kind and/as to open the door, please? An aspect of immediate interest in the context of approaches to intensification is the range of adverb-modal combinations that are used to enhance the speakers authority by enabling him to comment on the adjoining clause.1078 Some adverbials, especially subjuncts (emphasizers and intensifiers), besides conveying modality themselves and being intrisically intensifying or emphatic in meaning, can combine with modals in collocations with various degrees of idiomaticity. Modals most commonly combine with emphasizers actually, certainly, clearly, definitely, possibly, really, surely; frankly, honestly: They [will] certainly/surely object to my departure. She [may] really not have heard about the accident. Diminishers, in their negative minimizer role,1079 like certain emphasizers,1080 and non-assertive frequency adverbs, appear in restricted environments. This would be the case of possibly and conceivably, when they operate upon can or could in non-assertive clauses. This use of possibly and conceivably should be
three types of modality, namely intellective, emotional and volitional. (idem, p. 20) 1076 idem, p. 19 What accounts for that is their high context-sensitivity, i.e. their potentially ambiguous semantic values, often varying between deontic and epistemic modalities, which can only be cleared up by the linguistic and extralinguistic context. 1077 Geoffrey Leech, op. cit, p. 15 1078 Apud idem, p. 283 1079 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 600 1080 idem, p. 588f idem

256

distinguished from their use as disjuncts which express some degree of doubt. 1081 Compare You [cant] possibly leave now. (You cant under any circumstances leave now.)1082 [minimizer] They possibly can't leave now. [disjunct Its possible that they cant leave now] [Can] he conceivably want to see me? (Is it possible to imagine that he wants...?) She [will] never talk to me today. (She will not under any circumstances talk to me today.) I [can] barely understand him. 1083 ( in fact he could not walk) The indefinite adverb ever has the role of a negative minimizer in: You will never catch the train tonight. [You will not under any circumstances catch the train tonight]1084 In nonassertive clauses, such as rhetorical questions, ever (with some retention of temporal meaning) can replace never as minimizer: Will they (n)ever stop talking? Won't they ever learn? (*Won't they never learn? I wondered if the train would (n)ever arrive. Ever is also used for emphasis in combination with never:1085 Ill never ever stay with them again. Will you (n)ever mind my advice?
idem, p. 620 The minimizer and disjunct functions of possibly and conceivably have been pointed out in Quirk et al 1985, p. 600, and in Elena Croitoru 2002, p. 286. 1083 Quirk et al (1985, op. cit., p. 599) read this statement in fact I cant understand him. 1084 idem, p. 601: The presence of an adverbial referring to a specific future time such as tonight rules out the temporal meaning of never. This tallies with the behaviour of always, which can function as an emphasizer, in similar contexts. (p. 588) 1085 idem, p. 787n [e]
1082 1081

257

Wont they ever follow my advice? To imply probability, modals can, could, may and might collocate with unmodified emphasizer well in positive declarative clauses: It [may/might/can/could] well be true that he missed the train. (It may indeed be true that /It is likely to be true that ) Well can also be fronted in some emphatic structures: We hope they will call on us and well they [may]. as well they [may/should/ought]. which they [may] well do.

Degree and modality components can also be sensed in the category of courtesy subjuncts, such as cordially, graciously, kindly, please, which are used in rather formulaic expressions of politeness and propriety,1086 as illustated below: He very/most kindly offered to help us.1087 We cordially invite you to our party. Will you kindly take your seats/wait here?1088 Style and content disjuncts, are also emphatic in meaning. Some style disjuncts of the modality and manner type can be paraphrased by means of various more or less emphatic grammatical structures. Frankly, for example, in Frankly, I dont know, can be rephrased as in all frankness (prepositional phrase), To be frank/To speak frankly/To put it frankly (infinitive clause), Frankly speaking (-ing clause), put it frankly (ed-clause) and If I can speak frankly, If I may be frank (finite clause). Most of these disjuncts can, however, only be rendered by infinitive and finite clauses. Content disjuncts that express degrees of truth may convey
1086 1087

idem, p. 569 The subjunct function of kindly contrasts with the adjunct of manner function: He spoke kindly to everybody. 1088 Except please and kindly (in questions and requests), which are commonly used to tone down the abruptness of a command, the other courtesy subjuncts can be modified by very. (idem p. 569ff)

258

conviction (certaily, clearly, definitely, evidently, indeed, indisputably, indubitably, obviously, surely, undoubtedly), doubt (arguably, apparently, (most // quite) likely, perhaps, possibly, presumably), as well as the truthfulness or falsity of the statement that is being made (actually, (only) apparently, hypothetically, officiall, really): Is mother willing to come, perhaps/by any chance? Alternative means have been suggested:1089 Is mother coming, I wonder/would you happen to know? Mother is not coming, I suppose. More often than not a quantifying component present in the semantic make-up of degree modifiers adds to their fuzziness. The fact that the categories of intensification and quantification have measurement in common has made researchers assign a series of lexical items to both categories.1090 Many items that are intensifiers are also used to denote a measure of quantity or of duration, or of frequency in time,1091 turning into quantifiers, frequentatives and duratives. This includes most of the minimizers, the diminishers a bit <informal>, a little, least, somewhat, to some extent, the compromisers enough, sufficiently and the boosters much, a lot <informal>, a good deal, a great deal. To substantiate their assumption, Quirk et al exemplify with the various functions of a lot: I like them a lot (to a great extent - booster intensifier) I paid him a lot for his work. (a large amount quantifier) I see him a lot. (often frequency)1092 I slept a lot last night. (a long time duration)1093 A. Vermeire1094 describes the relation between degree and quantification in terms of countability and precision. Both degree and quantification involve measurement, but they differ with respect to
1089 1090

Quirk et al 1985, p. 620 Joanna Channell, op. cit. Quirk et al 1985,, restrict the term quantifier to the modification of nominals. 1091 Quirk et al. 1985, p. 602 1092 Also, He drinks beer a lot. (often) 1093 ibid. 1094 Cf Carita Paradis 1997, op. cit. p. 12

259

precision. Real quantity, in its literal sense, requires countable units and can be expressed numerically, whereas quantity that applies to uncountable units merges into degree, which is characterized by imprecision. 1095 Different situations require different degrees of exactness, i.e. precise measurement, such as a temperature of 40, or some vague reference, i.e. extremely/quite/rather hot.1096 Vermeire is of the opinion that we have to accept fuzziness since there are no criteria which are rigid enough to provide clear-cut borderlines,1097 much in the same vein with Labov, who maintains that [t]he most common forms of intensification set the basis for the recognition of the feature of intensity when it occurs in more covert settings. Adverbs of intensity play a major role in the resolution of semantic ambiguity in the study of quantifiers.1098 However, the position on the scale of intensity of expressions with both markers of intensification and deintesification is indeterminate, since there is no way of assessing the quantitative value of such marks at present.1099 A valuable conclusion in Carita Paradis is that the semantic features of degree and modality are capable of getting on well together without creating ambiguity and that degree should be perceived as a non-numerical specification of quantity/degree which potentially encompasses modality.1100 Unlike opinions to the contrary, we reckon that, since there is a degree component implicit to any quantifying device, degree intensifiers proper and degree intensifier and quantifier blends alike should make the object of a study on intensification. This may be accounted for by the fact that nouns can be intensified in a purely
1095

J.R.Martin, op. cit., p. 367 shares Vermeires opinion: Grading systems respond in general to degree questions, usually containing the word how. They contrast with systems of measurement which give absolute as opposed to relative values, as follows: How long was he here? Ages:Three hours; How many were there? A few:Three 1096 ibid. 1097 idem, p. 20 1098 William Labov, op. cit., p. 45 1099 idem, p. 67n 1100 Carita Paradis 1997, p. 13

260

quantitative sense or in a degree sense.1101 Thus, amplifier much and diminisher little can intensify either way, many is quantitative only and compromiser rather is degree only.1102 3.6 Conclusions This short survey of the literature on intensifiers was meant to point out two convergent approaches to the subclass of degree adverbials generally referred to as intensifiers or degree modifiers. The term intensifier does not refer only to a means whereby an increase in intensification is expressed. Intensifiers have been conceptualized as two general sets that perform opposing roles, namely amplifiers or reinforcers, which are concerned with assessing a generalized relatively high degree, and downtoners or attenuators, which are concerned with assessing a relatively low degree. These two types have further been subdivided into five subtypes in terms of their semantic force on the intensification cline. Ranging from the least to the most intensifying values on the intensification cline, amplifiers surface as maximizers and boosters, whereas downtoners encompass the subsets of compromisers/moderators, approximators and diminishers. In contrast to the often superficial treatment of the synonymy sense relations holding between intensifiers in lexicographic works, the cognitive grammar approach may be considered a breakthrough in the field. Like adjectives, intensifiers are conceptualized against a schematic domain and a content domain. The degree adverbials of each subset are viewed as members of a notional paradigm, their relationship involving both sameness and difference. They are the same in the schematic domain, that is, in function, sharing one or more central traits within a certain type of gradability, or mode of construal. The differences between them are marked in the content domain, that is, in their peripheral traits, or more exactly in their various lexical collocations. It is both these aspects that we had in mind when we discussed similarities in their collocational ranges or we dealt with the collocations of each member of the intensifier
1101 1102

Dwight Bolinger 1972, p. 58 ibid.

261

paradigms and the idiosyncratic collocational restrictions that they are subject to. Although scalar modifiers have been found to harmonize with scalar adjectives, and totality modifiers have been found to harmonize with limit and extreme adjectives, there are often stylistic considerations which make other types of combination to be emotionally loaded. This may be due to the fact that the predominantly attributive-evaluative scalar and extreme adjectives can often be freely applied by the speaker (eg: awfully charming). A similar judgement may work for limit adjectives, with a feature of attitude about them (eg: almost sober). Some intensifiers have in the course of time undergone a process of gramaticalization from open-class lexical words, or content words, represented by their underlying basic adjective forms, to lexically bleached function words. It is this evolution that may, for instance, account for the use of quite as both compromiser and maximizer, or of diminishers as amplifiers (a bit long). From a pragmatic point of view, most downtoners act as voluntary markers of imprecision and modifiers of illocutionary force. Thus, in addition to marking uncertainty towards a proposition, they mark degrees of politeness or deference towards the addresee in discourse. Interactionally, they constitute lexical means for the expression of non-imposing verbal behaviour, serving to communicate in a specific conventional way certain degrees of politeness. Due to their semantic fluidity, discourse markers primarily contribute to a certain informality of style or intimacy of relationship.1103 By boosting the force of the verb, amplifiers have quite the opposite effect of downtoners, indicating, in positive terms, the reliability of a proposition. In addition to marking certainty and convinction towards the proposition, they can, like downtoners, signal solidarity with the listener. It should be observed that intensifiers, as central markers of intensification, and peripheral markers cluster. Moreover, an
1103

Allan R. James, op. cit., p.205

262

interplay between the syntactic, the semantic and the phonological structures may render a message more or less imprecise.

263