CC BY
180
УДК 811.111.36
И. С. Лебедева, Е. Б. Павлова
Лебедева И. С., кандидат филологических наук,
доцент кафедры грамматики и истории английского языка
факультета английского языка МГЛУ;
e-mail: Lebedeva_Irina_68@yahoo.com
Павлова Е. Б., кандидат филологических наук,
доцент кафедры грамматики и истории английского языка
факультета английского языка МГЛУ; e-mail: lena.pavlova@live.ru
СПОСОБЫ РЕПРЕЗЕНТАЦИИ ИНТЕНСИФИКАЦИИ В АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ
В статье рассматриваются семантические и прагматические особенности употребления интенсификаторов в современном английском языке (в разговорном дискурсе и газетном стиле). Описываются процессы грамматикализации и делесикализации, которые лежат в основе развития интенсификаторов, также уделяется внимание их обновлению и сочетаемости. Обсуждаются современные классификации интенсификаторов. Анализу подвергаются два основных типа интенсификаторов: даунтонеры и эмпли-фаеры. Интенсификаторы располагаются на шкале в соответствии с выражаемой ими степенью интенсификации пропозиции. В статье приводятся статистические данные относительно частотности употребления интенси-фикаторов в разговорном английском языке и газетном стиле. Кроме того, получают освещение проблемы, связанные с классификацией и определением интенсификаторов.
Ключевые слова: интенсификатор; грамматикализация; делексикализа-ция; обновление; сочетаемость; эмплифаер; даунтонер; эмфасайзер; бустер; максимайзер; минимайзер; диминишер; компромайзер; аппроксиматор.
I. S. Lebedeva, E. B. Pavlova
Lebedeva I. S., Ph.D., Ass. Prof., Chair of Grammar and History of English, English Language Department, MSLU; e-mail: Lebedeva_Irina_68@yahoo.com
Pavlova E. B., Ph.D., Ass. Prof., Chair of Grammar and History of English, English Language Department, MSLU; e-mail: lena.pavlova@live.ru
INTENSIFIERS IN MODERN ENGLISH
The article looks into the use of intensifiers, their semantic and pragmatic features and peculiarities of their usage in the English language (colloquial
and newspaper). The two processes grammaticalisation and delexicalisation observed in the evolution of intensifiers are described as well as their renewal and boundedness. An overview of modern classifications of intensifiers is given. Two major classes of intensifiers are analyzed: down-toners and amplifiers. Intensifiers are arranged on the intensity scale according to the degree of intensification which they convey. Statistics on the frequency of occurrence of intensifiers are provided to illustrate their usage in spoken discourse and newspaper language. Some problems linked to classifying and defining intensifiers are discussed.
Key words: intensifier; grammaticalisation; delexicalisation; renewal; bounded-ness; amplifier; downtoner; emphasizer; booster; maximizer; minimizer; diminisher; compromiser; approximator.
The present paper looks into the use of intensifiers, their semantic and pragmatic features and peculiarities of their usage in the English language.
From the 20th century onwards, numerous studies have been conducted on the use of intensifiers, i.e. degree words that scale a quality up or down to a certain degree [21; 6; 3; 19; 20]. These studies have greatly contributed to the structural description and semantic categorization of intensifiers. Huddleston & Pullum [8] argue that intensifiers are not to be regarded as a primarily grammatical or lexical category, they possess grammatical properties, although are insufficiently defined unless we describe their functional significance. Some of these early studies already referred to the processes of grammaticalisation and delexicalisation, which could be defined as the reduction of the lexical content of a word [18, p. 183] so that it comes to fulfill a particular function, in our case it is intensification. More recent studies [9; 15] predominantly focused on the constant change (renewal) of intensifiers during the last decades. Renewal takes place when "existing meanings may take on new forms" [7, p. 122]. This is generally characterized by coming up with new ways of saying roughly the same things. For instance, the meaning of "to a high degree" can be expressed by older forms that are completely grammaticalised, such as very, or newer and more expressive forms, such as extremely and tremendously. The more a linguistic item is grammaticalised, the more it collocates with a variety of adjectives and verbs, which increases its frequency. The development of intensifiers is a good example of renewal since this process demonstrates how older and newer layers can coexist and display different meanings over time [7, p. 121]. A large inventory
of intensifiers allows to avoid repetition and increase expressivity. Méndez-Naya [13, p. 372] notes that because intensifiers are used for a markedly emotional function, they are especially inclined to undergo renewal, as their function of boosting decreases over time, due to, for instance, overuse. This indicates that intensifiers are only used until felt to be inadequate to create a certain kind of impact, and, consequently, new forms are adopted to place new emphasis on the expression. Hopper and Traugott [7] state that over the past centuries very has alternated with e.g. terribly, really, pretty, surprisingly, extremely, and highly, depending on which word was in vogue at the time. The continuous evolution of degree words can be explained by the speaker's urge to "achieve expressivity" [11, p. 143], as well as by "the fluid patterns of language use" [7, p. 2]. Therefore, the more unexpected and unusual an intensifier is in a given context, the more it will add expressivity to what is being said [11, p. 143]. These linguistic elements "afford a picture of fevered invention and competition that would be hard to come by elsewhere, for in their nature they are unsettled" [3, p. 18]. Intensifiers are, thus, continuously changing due to the diachronic and synchronic process of grammaticalisation and the speaker's need to add emphasis to what is being said. Therefore, they are utterly interesting language phenomena if one wants to gain insight into language change processes in general and grammaticalisation more specifically.
The meaning of intensifiers depends on the context in which they occur. Since intensifiers are used to emphasize or weaken propositions and express the speaker's stance, their individual connotation depends on the quality and type of the linguistic item that is being modified, primarily adjective. Paradis [17] notes that different characteristics should be attributed to intensifiers based on their positive and negative scaling and degree of boundedness, which indicates to which extent they collocate with a particular type of adjectives. The more words an intensifier collocates with, the more delexicalised it is. New intensifiers are expected to have fewer collocates, whereas older ones are used with a wide array of adjectives. More recent intensifiers have an ambiguous meaning. For instance, intensifiers such as terribly and awfUlly, still retain their meaning of 'terror', although they have gradually acquired a more grammatical meaning of intensification [17, p. 338]. According to Stoffel, awfully was not yet considered part of normal conversations, but a manifestation of
"slang" at the beginning of the twentieth century [21, p. 121]. Partington, however, claims that terribly and awfully used to "excite terror or dread" [18, p. 183] while now they have almost completely disposed of these lexical meanings in favour of a more neutral intensifying function. Yet, if we observe the adjectival collocations of terribly in the BNC and COCA, the most frequently modified adjectives still express a negative quality. The five most popular adjectives collocated with terribly are wrong, important, sorry, difficult and sad in the COCA and sorry, important, difficult, wrong and hard in the BNC [4; 5].
Tagliamonte [24, p. 362] states that the reason why intensification is so popular and provides researchers with an opportunity to study linguistic change is three-fold: they are "an ideal choice" because of their versatility and color, capacity for rapid change and recycling of different forms. Intensifiers should be used with great care. Although they are unable to change the semantics of the utterance, they can considerably modify its meaning. Incorrect usage of intensification could have an unexpected pragmatic outcome. For example, L. Long and W. Christensen [10] observe that overuse of intensifiers (very, clearly, obviously and the like) negatively affects the persuasiveness and credibility of a legal argument. The authors measure intensifier use against outcomes. They prove that excessive intensification in appellate briefs is usually associated with a significant increase in adverse outcomes for the party using the intensifiers.
The definition of the intensifier varies from scholar to scholar, as no unified terminology has widely been accepted so far. Intensifiers, degree words [3, p. 18] or adverbs of degree [1, p. 7], as they are also known, serve to "convey the degree or the exact value of the quality expressed by the item they modify" [14, p. 213]. The word 'degree' is often used in connection with this linguistic phenomenon, because this class of words is often said to modify gradable adjectives and signal different degrees of intensification on the intensity scale [2; 20]. Various books on grammar [3; 2; 19; 20] present somewhat different views on the classification of degree adverbs, which will be discussed below (see Table 1).
Overview of classifications of intensifiers in the English language
Table 1
Author(s) Scaling upwards Scaling downwards
Bolinger (2013) Boosters She is terribly selfish. Compromisers She is fairly happy. Diminishers They were little disposed to argue. Minimizers He's a bit of an idiot.
Quirk & Greenbaum (1982) Amplifiers: Maximizers: completely absolutely, most, utterly Boosters: badly, deeply Emphasizers: actually, honestly, certainly, clearly, obviously, definitely, frankly, really, just Downtoners Compromisers: kind of, sort of, more or less, quite, rather Approximators: almost, nearly, as good as, all but Diminishers: slightly partly,, a little, somewhat Minimizers: hardly, barely, a bit
Quirk et al. (1985) Amplifiers Maximizers absolutely, totally altogether Downtoners Approximators almost, virtually, practically
Compromisers kind of, quite, rather sort of
Boosters highly, badly, deeply, intensely, so really Diminishers somewhat, quite, slightly
Minimizers scarcely, barely, hardly
Biber et al. (1999) Amplifiers / Intensifiers so, more, awfully, very, too, perfectly, extremely Diminishers / Downtoners somewhat, less, quite, rather, slightly
S
n
OS
s
TO §
Sfl
bi ?
g o
05 Ö
The Intensity Scale
Intensifiers signal different degrees of intensification on the intensity scale [2; 20] and are not limited to indicating an increase in intensity; they indicate a point on the intensity scale which may be high or low. Intensifiers are first thing divided into amplifiers [20] or intensives [21] that scale upwards from an assumed norm and down-toners that have a lowering effect, usually scaling downwards from the neutral [2; 20]. Amplifiers are further divided into:
• emphasizers (which indicate a high degree of the modified proposition), e.g.:
I was never really fat, but I always struggled with just being kind of on the verge.
She actually called these hearings a charade and a farce when she wrote. She's following this procession, clearly encouraged. Well, I think Dole is frankly in the better position right now. I honestly think that we do need some type of change.
• boosters (which denote a higher degree of the modified proposition), e.g.:
Both groups strongly supported making English the nation's official language.
A badly beaten Stefan claims he was attacked by a creditor.
A State Department spokesman last week called Teng's case "deeply
disturbing."
Reports of Tony Hart's second death are greatly exaggerated. Immediately, though everything else remained as before, dim and dark, the shapes became terribly clear.
People are saying it's going to be bitterly cold tomorrow tonight. Simpson is intensely depressed.
• and maximizers (which denote the upper extreme on the intensity scale), e.g.:
It's an old-fashioned, down-to-earth club that operates entirely contrary to the grotesque excesses of the 1990s.
It's polarizing and creates the illusion that the clash of utterly biased accounts produces the truth.
Many analysts and policymakers focus most closely on the so-called core CPI, which excludes changes in... I believe that he is fully aware of it. I was extremely ashamed of my situation.
Down-toners, in their turn, fall into:
• compromisers / approximators (which indicate a low degree of the modified proposition)1, e.g.:
.he doubts it will be good enough for the craft to make it into orbit.
So, you know, her English is still pretty basic.
You can see the wind is still rather significant here.
But it's fairly easy to distinguish teal from those other species.
It appears, from the ground, as a moderately bright star.
• diminishers (which denote a lower degree of the modified proposition), e.g.:
I believe he's a little better than average.
We normally get a slightly nervous phone call or e-mail.
Spector had told his son and his friends that he was somewhat crazy,
a manic depressive.
After leaving Chicago, Sun Ra and his Arkestra became somewhat famous.
• and minimizers (that occupy the lowest end on the intensity scale), e.g.:
And you told me she didn't do you hardly any good.
So, you know, those are barely books.
Scopus, scarcely a month after the Six-Day War.
There's scarcely a single native organism in San Francisco Bay anymore.
1 Compromisers and approximators are represented by different intensifiers, however, they occupy the same position on the intensity scale, as the degree of attenuation which they create is approximately the same.
Table 2
The intensity scale
DOWNTONERS
NEUTRAL
Minimizers
Compromisers / Approximators
Diminishers
AMPLIFIERS
1 1
Emphasizers Maximizers
> i
Boosters
The problem with intensifies and their classification lies in their ability to be used for both purposes - scaling something up (amplifiers) and downwards (down-toners) depending on the speaker's intention [20]. Such difficulties often arise with quite, which can be used to indicate both functions, depending on the context and interpretation. Although they are labeled as down-toners by Biber et al. [2] they can also have an amplifying effect. Quirk et al. [20] argue that quite can be both a maximizer and a compromiser.
Quite usually means fairly / reasonably if used as an amplifier, e.g.:
The film is quite good.
And this is also true of ... uhm this ... uh ... quite famous caricature of Carlo Name's Triumphant Entry into Leadenhall Street.
In articulatory terms the secondary articulatory resonance of the liquids in these two words is quite different.
British speakers also use quite in the meaning of absolutely usually before words with an extreme meaning. In cases like this quite is stressed in speech [12], e.g.:
His contributions to the science are quite remarkable. According to M. Swan [22], quite (especially in BE) suggests a higher degree than fairly. This ambiguity may be one of the reasons why downtoners are so often ignored in studies [24; 23].
An intensifier similar to quite is pretty which can be both a booster and a compromiser, e.g.:
So, you know, her English is still pretty basic (compromiser).
He has three kids, and his wife Janie keeps a pretty close eye on him
(booster).
I tried to assess that and decided that I could see pretty clearly a pattern of
why I went where I went (booster).
However, the Oxford English Dictionary [16] defines pretty as an intensifying adverb modifying an adjective or adverb and meaning to a considerable extent; fairly, moderately; rather, quite / very. As time passed pretty acquired a more amplifying meaning.
The intensifier little usually functions as a minimizer, while a little is a diminisher in most cases, which points to controversy in this area and indicates that there is a lack of clear boundary between these two groups, e.g.:
These little known rules of the road help you drive smarter (minimizer).
Examples (23) and (25) are a little dubious.
Another downtoner which arouses ambiguity is partly which functions as a diminisher and a compromiser, e.g.:
What you say is only partly true (diminisher).
It's partly my fault (compromiser).
The uniceller plant is always partly fluid, but never entirely so (diminisher).
He had been at least partly responsible for dashing her hopes (diminisher).
For the purpose of the paper we have analyzed the use of intensifiers in British and American spoken and newspaper language during the past decade.
Maximizers in spoken and newspaper American and British English
In BE the rate of occurrence of very was the highest. Most ranked second and quite occupied the third position among all the maximizers found in the British national corpus for both spoken and newspaper language. However, considerable differences were observed in the use of the three most common intensifiers in newspaper and spoken language. Very was three times as frequent in spoken discourse as in the newspaper language and quite was five times more frequent in spoken discourse than in the newspaper language. The frequency of occurrence of most was twice
as high in newspaper English as in spoken discourse. In AmE the same intensifiers (most, very, quite) were the most frequent as well among all the intensifiers which were subjected to analysis. However, most turned out to be more frequent than very, unlike BE. Very was predominantly used in spoken AmE (six times as frequently as in newspaper AmE) and most was equally common in both spoken and newspaper AmE. The frequency of quite was higher in Spoken American. Among other less frequently used intensifiers we observed absolutely, completely, fully and extremely both in BE and AmE. Of these absolutely and completely were more common in spoken discourse in BE and AmE. Fully was more frequent in newspaper language in both varieties. The usage of extremely was different in BE and AmE: in BE it was typical of newspaper language, while in AE it prevailed in spoken discourse. Among the least frequent intensifiers are: unbelievably, delightfully, strikingly and amazingly. In BE unbelievably and delightfully are more common in newspaper language than in spoken discourse. In AmE, however, unbelievably was more common in spoken language, whereas delightfully was more frequent in newspaper language as in BE.
Boosters in spoken and newspaper American and British English
So and really are the most common boosters in the two varieties of the English language. Both of them are more typical of spoken discourse than newspaper language. Highly, which occupies the third position, as far as frequency is concerned, is more frequent in the newspaper style. Strongly and badly were more common in BE. Considerable differences were observed in the use of these intensifiers in the newspaper style in BE: boldly turned out to be twice as frequent in newspaper language as strongly, while there were no differences observed in spoken discourse. In AmE the two aforementioned intensifiers were used in both spoken and newspaper language with equal frequency. Deeply was equally frequent in the two varieties of the English language: in AmE it was equally found in spoken and newspaper language, whereas in BE it was four times more frequent in newspaper language than in spoken discourse. Greatly was more common in BE, in both varieties it was more typical of the newspaper style. Terribly was equally common in the two varieties and was predominantly used in spoken language. Among other less frequently used boosters we observed
bitterly, immensely and intensely. Of these three bitterly and intensely were typical of the newspaper style, while immensely was equally present in spoken and newspaper language both in BE and AmE.
Emphasizers in spoken and newspaper American and British English
In the two varieties of the English language just, actually and certainly were the most frequently observed emphasizers, they were much more common in spoken discourse. Clearly, obviously, definitely, frankly and honestly were also typical of spoken discourse rather than newspaper language in BE and AmE. It is noteworthy that none of the emphasizers is typical of newspaper language, which suggests that the degree of emphasis they give is not enough for the purpose of the newspaper - to influence the reader. Newspaper contributors opt for stronger amplifiers on the intensity scale such as boosters (highly, bitterly, intensely, immensely) and maximizers such as most (AmE), very (BE) and fully (both in BE and AmE). No less also functions as an emphasizer, for example: Your second point is no less important.
Compromisers in spoken and newspaper American and British English
Compromisers belong to the class of down-toners which attenuate the force of the proposition expressed by the utterance. Enough has the highest frequency of occurrence in BE, whereas the most common compromiser in AmE is rather. In BE enough is more typical of the newspaper style, while in AmE its rate of occurrence is much higher in spoken language. Rather prevails in spoken English in both varieties, thus being twice as frequent in BE as in AmE. Quite ranks third in both British and American English and is predominantly used in spoken language in the two varieties. The intensifier pretty, which ranks fifth, is mainly used in spoken English. It has two meanings similar to fairly and very, e.g.:
So, you know, her English is still pretty basic (fairly).
We've had a pretty decent crop (very).
Yes, I think our hearts are beating pretty fast right now (very).
The intensifying adverbs fairly and partly are two times more frequent in BE than in AmE. Partly is more common in the newspaper style in both varieties, while fairly is typical of British and American spoken discourse.
In British English the intensifier partly is four and a half times more frequent than partially. Partially and moderately show an equal frequency of occurrence in the newspaper style in the two varieties. The least frequent intensifier in both BE and AmE is moderately.
Approximators in spoken and newspaper American and British English
The purpose of approximators is approximation of the proposition. Almost has the highest frequency of occurrence in both varieties, although it is more common in AmE. In AmE the use of this intensifier is slightly higher in spoken discourse than in the newspaper style. In BE almost is more typical of newspaper language. Nearly ranks second being more frequent in the newspaper style in both varieties. Virtually, which ranks third, is more common in the newspaper style in both BE and AmE. Practically shows the lowest rate of occurrence. The frequency of this modifier in spoken British discourse almost two times outnumbers its frequency in the newspaper style. In American English this intensifier is slightly more common in the newspaper style.
Diminishers in spoken and newspaper American and British English
Diminishers are degree adverbs which decrease the effect of the modified proposition. The frequency rate of little is the highest in both varieties. It is more common in the newspaper style in BE and AmE. Quite ranks second prevailing in spoken language in the two varieties. It is far more common in spoken BE than in AmE. Slightly, which ranks third, prevails in American newspapers. This intensifier is more frequent in spoken BE as compared to spoken AmE with a difference of 31 %. The least frequent intensifier is partly.
Minimizers in spoken and newspaper American and British English
Minimizers occupy the lower end of the intensity scale and minimize the quality of the modified proposition, usually an adjective. Minimizers are more frequent in American English. Little has the highest rate of occurrence. The frequency of little in spoken language more than two times outnumbers its frequency in the newspaper style in both varieties. Hardly ranks second, prevailing in the newspaper style in BE and AmE.
Barely, which ranks third, is more common in newspaper language in the
two varieties. The least frequent intensifier is scarcely. It is more typical of
the newspaper style.
REFERENCES
1. Backlund U. The Collocation of Adverbs of Degree in English. - Uppsala : Almqvist and Wiksell, 1973. - 310 p.
2. Biber D., Johansson S., Leech G., Conrad S. and Finegan E. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. - Harlow : Longman, 1999. - 1204 p.
3. BolingerD. Degree Words. - The Hague : Walter de Gruyter, Inc., 2013. - 324 p.
4. British National Corpus URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
5. Corpus of Contemporary American English URL: http://corpus.byu.edu/ coca/
6. Fries C. American English Grammar: The Grammatical Structure of Present-Day American English with Especial Reference to Social Differences or Class Dialects. - New York : Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1940. - 313 p.
7. Hopper P. & Traugott E. Grammaticalization. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1993. - 276 p.
8. Huddleston R. & Pullum G. Adjectives and Adverbs: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. - Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2002. -1860 p.
9. Ito R. & Tagliamonte S. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers // Language in Society. - 2003. -32(2). - P. 257-279.
10. Long L. & Christensen W. Clearly, Using Intensifiers Is Very Bad - Or Is It? // Unpublished paper from the selected works of Lance N. Long, 2008. - URL : http://works.bepress.com/lance_long/1Z
11. Lorenz G. Really Worthwhile or Not Really Significant? A Corpus-based Approach to the Delexicalization and Grammaticalization of Intensifiers in Modern English // New Reflections on Grammaticalization / I. Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds.). - Amsterdam : Benjamins, 2002. - P. 143-161.
12. Mann R., Newbrook J. &Wilson J. New Proficiency Gold Exam Maximizer. -Harlow : Pearson Education Limited, 2002. - 175 p.
13. Mendez-Naya B. On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of swipe // English Studies. - 2003. - 84. - P. 372-391.
14. Mendez-Naya B. Special issue on English intensifiers // English Language and Linguistics. - 2008. - 12 (2). - P. 213-219.
15. Murphy B. Corpus and Sociolinguistics: Investigating Age and Gender in Female Talk. - Amsterdam : Benjamins, 2010. - 252 p.
16. Oxford English Dictionary. - Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2012. - 1620 p.
Вестник МГЛУ. Выпуск 21 (760) / 2016
17. Paradis C. Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree // English Language and Linguistics. - 2008. - 12(2). - P. 317-343.
18. Partington A. Corpus evidence of language change: The case of intensifies // Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair / Baker M. et al. (eds.). -Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993. - P. 177-192.
19. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A University Grammar of English / под ред. И. П. Верховской [Text] / R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik. - M. : Высш. шк., 1982. - 391 c.
20. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G. &, Svartvik J. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. - London : Longman, 1985. - 1779 p.
21. Stoffel C. Intensives and Down-toners: A Study in English Adverbs. - Winter's universitatsbuchhandlung, 1901. - 156 p.
22. Swan M. Practical English Usage. - 3rd ed. - Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2005. - 658 p.
23. Tagliamonte, S. & Roberts C. So weird; So cool; So innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends // American Speech. - 2005. -80(3). - P. 280-300. - URL : http://americanspeech.dukejournals.org/cgi/ reprint/80/3/280.pdf
24. Tagliamonte S. A. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada // English Language and Linguistics, 2008. - 12(2). - P. 361-394.
