Lec III Intensifiers

5

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 1 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.

6

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 3 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).

7

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 9 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).

8

of suprasegmental phonetics,13 or as a marker of emotive meaning, alongside emphasis and accentuation.

In David Crystal, intensity14 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 emphasis16 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 13 David Crystal includes intensity in the entry for loudness (op. cit., p. 207). 14 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).

9

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.

10

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/extra-lexemic 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.

11

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 de-intensification/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.

25 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

12

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.

13

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 28 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..

14

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 Rusiecki38 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. 32 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 semantico-syntactic classes, i.e. linear/gradable adjectives and non-linear/non-gradable (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.

15

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.

16

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, 48 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.

17

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

53 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.

18

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 idem, p. 366. 57 Jan Rusiecki, op. cit., p. 3. 58 The most common tense scales contrast the progressive and the non-progressive 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

19

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) (jam) (the beer) many birds a lot of jam 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

20

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.

21

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

69 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.

22

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

73 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.

23

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 81 Ibid.. 82 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.

24

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 88 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.

25

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 96 R.L.Trask, op. cit., p. 74. 97 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.

26

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 lexico-grammatical 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 Quirk et al 1985, p. 90. 102 The term intensifier is an umbrella-term interchangeably used with that of degree adverb.

27

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.

103 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.

28

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

29

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

30

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 three-

term inflectional contrast between absolute,111 comparative and 109 idem, p. 527f 110 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

31

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

32

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] Jane is [healthi]er than her sister (is). less [healthy]116 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 114 idem, p. 1128 115 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,

33

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.

34

(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

35

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)

36

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 and bigger], [more and more puzzled] and [curiouser and curiouser]. The game became [more and more dangerous] and [thrilling]. The dog became [less and less nervous] and [more and more docile].

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

37

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 123Alice Bdescu, Gramatica limbii engleze, Editura didactic i prdagogic, Bucureti, 1963, p. 151 124 CCD, p. 484

38

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].

Its (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.

somewhat [easi]er

Its rather [better] than anyone expected it to be.

a lot/lots126[short]er 125 By far highlights the idea of superlativity.

39

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 informal 127 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

40

subdivide the adjective class into central and peripheral adjectives. The former are the most adjectival items133 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 Quirk et al., op. cit., p. 437 134 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,

41

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.

42

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. 146 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

43

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 non-inherent 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.

44

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 long-standing 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

45

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.

155 ibid. 156 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)

46

[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 height