2.HOW X IS IT? readily applicable not applicable not applicable
3.HOW X! readily applicable readily applicable not applicable
4.THE TYPE OF antonymy antonymy complementarity OPPOSITENESS
5.CRITERIAL VS. evaluative- evaluative-attributive criterial in nature EVALUATIVEFEATURES attributive
6.BOUNDEDNESS unbounded bounded bounded
7.THE TYPE OF DEGREE scalar modifiers totality modifiers totality modifiers MODIFIER THEY
COMBINE WITH
Table 3-2 The Typology of Gradable Adjectives
3.5.Contextual Modulation
Paradis clearly demonstrates some awareness of the fact that adjectives can not be rigidly categorized as either gradables or nongradables, or as exclusively scalar, extreme or limit adjectives, because there is a great deal of flexibility in the semantic make-up of adjectives, allowing for
modifications. Her analysis is based on the assumption that people conceptualize a system of various types of gradability. This system is a stable part of human cognitive apparatus. However, language users are not tied down to the system. There is a great deal of freedom in how to use the system. It is exactly this basic system in combination with the freedom of use that makes language flexible and adaptable to all kinds of situations and intentions. It makes possible for people to view the world in different ways for different purposes.
Two types of semantic difference in adjectives have been discussed in Section 3.3, namely, ‘‘polysemy’’ and ‘‘contextual modulation’’.
Polysemous adjectives have different meanings which are conventionalized.
Contextual modulation takes place within ‘‘monosemy’’, i.e. a contextually modulated adjective may in a certain context take on a particular reading which deviates from its established or biased meaning but does not necessarily leave any permanent trace. Some adjectives have a very strong bias towards one or the other reading, e.g. pictorial, sufficient, pleasant, whereas others can take on more than one disguise, e.g. clear, certain, new, and others again seem to be used for less conventional purposes. For instance, out of context true will be interpreted in terms of ‘‘either-or’’
conception. However, given the right context, true can easily be coerced into a scalar reading, for example by the addition of a degree modifier as in very true. The presence of very in the context of true invalidates the limit reading and promotes a scalar reading.
Paradis proceeds to point out that ‘‘contextual modulation’’ seems to be more common in the direction from limit to scalar, e.g. sober >fairly sober, clean >very clean, certain > very certain, possible > very possible. This is
natural, since it is probably easier to disregard existing limits than to create ad hoc boundaries. Since ‘‘contextual modulation’’ takes place within one meaning, it follows that ‘‘polysemy’’ and ‘‘contextual modulation’’ are not mutually exclusive. An adjective can very well be both polysemous and contextually modulated with respect to the feature of gradability. The case of sober serves as a good example taken by Paradis. Sober is polysemous in the following expressions: A sober man may mean either ‘‘somebody who is not drunk’’ or ‘‘somebody who is serious and thoughtful’’. Sober thus differs with respect to its ‘‘referential content’’. Also, there is a difference with respect to the ‘‘relator’’ in the two interpretations of a sober man. The first meaning ‘‘not drunk’’ can be spelled out as ‘‘X experiences sobriety’’.
Sober is then an adjective which is associated with a limit which can not be transgressed. This sober is biased towards a limit reading. Nevertheless, it can undergo ‘‘contextual modulation’’ and take on a scalar reading as in
‘‘The next day they were all rather sober’’. By the addition of rather the adjective is coerced into a scalar reading. The second meaning of sober, i.e.
‘‘X possesses a tendency towards seriousness’’, meaning ‘‘X is serious and thoughtful’’, is an inherently scalar adjective which can undergo comparison and be modified by scalar degree modifiers. This means that the phrase ‘‘a very sober man’’ is ambiguous between the meaning ‘‘vey thoughtful’ and a jocular, scalar reading of the ‘‘not drunk’’ meaning of sober which might be interpreted as the opposite ‘‘vey drunk’’.
This possibility of modulation without altering the meaning proper of the adjective is particularly common in spoken language. It reveals that there is a continuum between ‘‘complementarity’’ and ‘‘contrariety’’ in language use (Cruse 1986). The concepts of ‘‘complementarity’’ and ‘‘contrariety’’
themselves are clear-cut and in no way fuzzy, but there is a potential for English speakers to expand the expressiveness of language by exploiting the system rather than being constrained by it, and this potential has infinite possibilities in its wake. As it has already been pointed out there seems to be a general tendency towards shifts in the direction of scalar interpretations, that is, it is more common for limit adjectives very true, extreme adjectives rather disastrous, and also nongradables terribly Swedish to get a scalar reading than for scalar adjectives to get a nonscalar reading.
3.6.Paradis’ Model of Semantic Bidirectionalality
Bearing in mind the previous points concerning the classification of degree modifiers and the typology of gradable adjectives, Paradis (1994, 1997, 2000a, 2001, 2008) presents a model of ‘‘semantic bidirectionality’’ to account for why certain types of adjectives harmonize with ‘‘scalar modifiers’’ and others with ‘‘totality modifiers’’.
However, she explicitly acknowledges the fact that many adjectives can combine both with ‘‘totality modifiers’’ and ‘‘scalar modifiers’’, e.g.
absolutely/very certain, absolutely/very true, fairly/perfectly good. These examples show that the adjectives have a potential of being conceived of either in terms of a scale, or in terms of a point or a limit. Although many adjectives appear to be flexible with respect to their type of gradability, i.e.
‘‘bounded’’ or ‘‘unbounded’’, Paradis assumes that most adjectives have a more or less clearly biased interpretation with respect to gradability. When an adjective is not modified by degree modifier, it is naturally conceived of in its biased reading. For instance, in a restricted context such as I am certain, certain is clearly to be interpreted as ‘‘not uncertain’’. This
conceptualization is confirmed in combination with ‘‘totality modifiers’’, such as absolutely certain and almost certain, but in combination with
‘‘scalar degree modifiers’’, such as very certain and fairly certain, a scalar interpretation is drawn out. In the case of scalar interpretation, which is not the biased interpretation, this state of affair has to be explicitly expressed, for example, by means of a ‘‘scalar degree modifier’’. From this follows the importance of degree modifiers in determining the interpretation of the adjective. The relationship between the adjective and its degree modifier is illustrated in the Figure 3-6.
selects
(degree modifier) adjective
restricts the interpretation
Figure 3-6 The bidirectionality of semantic pressure between degree modifiers and adjectives
The Figure shows how both the adjective and the degree modifier exert semantic pressure on one another. The pressure is provided by the availability of a gradable feature in the adjective which can be identified by the degree modifier. The modifier in turn restricts the interpretation of the adjective, i.e. what type of gradability it maps onto. Thus, the adjective selects a degree modifier which in turn constrains the conceptualization of
the gradability of the adjective definitively. So, the type of gradability is decisive for the choice of degree modifiers. The most important feature regarding the selection of the type of degree modifier is whether the adjective is conceptualized in terms of an unbounded range, a point or a limit.
Scalar adjectives which are conceptualized as a range on a scale select scalar degree modifiers, e.g. very, fairly, slightly, etc. Limit adjectives are associated with a limit and they select totality modifiers, e.g. totally, absolutely, almost, etc. Limit adjectives are not associated with a scale but rather conceptualized in terms of ‘‘either-or’’. Extreme adjectives are much more indeterminate in relation to gradability than scalar adjectives and limit adjectives. They could be said to represent a mix between scalar and limit adjectives. They are similar to scalar adjectives in that they are conceptualized according to a scale, but they differ in that they do not represent a range of a scale, but rather an ultimate point. Extreme adjectives are similar to limit adjectives in that they do not represent a range, but they differ in that they are not associated with a limit of criteria nature. Extreme adjectives are not conceptualized in terms of ‘‘more-or-less’’ nor in ‘‘either-or’’, but rather have trait of both. In contrast to scalar and limit adjectives, extreme adjectives prefer degree modifiers which indicate an ultimate point either in terms of totality, preferably absolutely, utterly, quite (maximizers), and the scalar indicator of superlativity such as most. Attenuation is generally odd with extreme adjectives.
Paradis puts emphasis on the fact that there is a cline of gradability from typical gradable adjectives (scalar adjectives) to the least typical gradable adjectives (limit adjectives), which border on nongradability. The only
qualification for their inclusion in the category of gradables is the fact that limit adjectives can take degree modifiers, which is unusual with nongradables. At this point it should be clear that Paradis attaches too much significance to the notion of ‘‘boundedness’’ which is located in the domain of gradability. It is according to this notion she classifies the degree modifiers and the adjectives they apply to, and she uses it as a basis to establish their harmonization in this way:
Bounded degree modifier – Bounded adjective Unbounded degree modifier – Unbounded adjective
Infelicities in combination like ?very identical or ?fairly dead can be explicable in two ways:
1. There is a mismatch between the types of gradability of the participating items, i.e. Unbounded combined with Bounded
2. It is a matter of ‘’contextual modulation’’ in which the adjective is coerced into an Unbounded scalar reading.
3.7. Methodological Consideration
It should be mentioned that the notion of ‘‘boundedness’’ does appeal to the present study since its usefulness is rather unlimited. On the one hand, it can be employed, as has been done by Paradis, to form a basis for conceptualizing the grading function of degree modifiers, that is, whether the degree modifier grades the adjectival quality in terms of ‘‘either-or’’
(bounded) , or in terms of ‘‘more-or-less’’ (unbounded). Therefore, this study aims at applying the same principle for Quirkian scalar system presented in Section 3.2.1 and dividing the six functional categories into
‘‘totality’’ modifiers and ‘‘scalarity’’ modifiers. Accordingly, the grading functions of ‘‘maximizers’’ and ‘‘approximators’’ are conceptualized in term of ‘‘totality’’, i.e. (either-or) conception. While the grading functions of
‘‘booster’’, ‘‘compromizers’’, ‘‘diminishers’’ and ‘‘minimizers’’ are conceptualized in terms of ‘‘scalarity’’, i.e. (more-or-less) conception. It is clear that both among the scalar degree modifiers and the totality modifiers there are those that amplify and those that downtone certain gradable feature of the adjectives they apply to (see Figure 3-7)
Degree Modifiers
totality modifiers scalarity modifiers
amplifier downtoner amplifier downtoner
maximizer approximator booster
completely almost very
compromizer diminisher minimizer rather slightly hardly
Figure 3-7 The division of Quirkian scalar categories according to ‘‘boundedness’’
conception.
On the other hand, the notion of ‘‘boundedness’’ has been proved useful in identifying the type of gradability in adjectives. As it has been shown, Paradis exploits this notion, in addition to the type of oppositeness involved, to distinguish three types of gradable adjectives, namely, scalar adjectives, limit adjectives and extreme adjectives. Consequently, the present study can safely put gradable adjectives in the same frame of conceptualization, i.e.
‘‘bounded’’ versus ‘‘unbounded’’, and adopt Paradis’ typology and classification of gradable adjectives. Besides, it assumes that the model of
‘‘semantic bidirectionality’’ and the principle of ‘‘boundedness’’ presented here are applicable, at the highest level, for all adverb-adjective combinations in which the adverb, inherently or by implication, is capable of evoking an intensifying meaning.
In the subsequent chapters an attempt will be made to distinguish between adverbs which are particularly utilized for the purpose of degree modification in the context of adverb-adjective collocation, and those which are used to, in addition to degree modification, fulfil other functions. What is required for this purpose is to devise a semantic set of categories which can distinguish those adverbs with purely intensifying function from those which have an additional meaning .In order to identify the force of intensification, Quirkian scalar system is adopted. In the same way, to account for the combinatorial aspects such as restrictions and preferences, the present study resorts to the principle of ‘‘boundedness’’ and the model of ‘‘semantic bidirectionality’’.
Chapter Four:
The Semantic Category
‘’Degree’’
73
The Semantic Category ‘‘Degree’’
4.0. Introduction
In chapter three degree modifiers have been treated as a functional category having its own members. It has also been clearly stated that there are two conditions that have to be satisfied if any adverb is to be considered as a degree modifier, which are: (a) filling the syntactic slot preceding an adjective; and (b) semantically modifying the degree of the adjective it applies to. Degree modifiers are thus semantically licensed to occur in a certain syntactic position. This can be interpreted as a ‘‘semantic-syntactic licensing mechanism’’ (Paradis 1994).
To take the view that degree modifiers belong to the sphere of lexis is in a questionable state. In his treatment of degree words, Bolinger seems to recognize that the lexical status of intensifiers (or degree modifiers) is not so straightforward when he points out that although most degree modifiers are lexical, some of them are ‘‘relatively grammaticized’’ (1972, 22), or even completely grammaticalized as seems to be suggested in his comments on very: ‘‘if there are function words, very is surely one of them’’ (1972, 18).
The position of degree modifiers between grammar and lexis is explicitly admitted by Lorenz (1999, 2002) who defines them as a
‘‘lexicogrammatical’’ category. The present study has good reasons for implementing the same position and putting it into practice. It is noticeable that degree modification can be realized by closed-class adverbs such as very, too, so, etc. that simply carry grammatical meaning and their functions
as degree modifiers have long been established in grammar books. Similarly, it can also be realized by open-class adverbs like enormously, mildly, undoubtedly, etc. that carry semantic or conceptual meaning and their degree reading can be interpreted as either being contextually motivated or being the result of grammaticalization process.
The present study goes beyond the question of degree modification and expands the scope of its analysis so that other aspects of adverb-adjective combinations will be covered. Being inspired by scholars like: Lorenz (1999, 2002), Greenbaum(1969), Johansson (1993) and Quirk et al. (1985), this study aims to present a semantic classification of adverbs that co-occur with adjectives. This classification is based on the assumption that the richness of the conceptual meaning and the semantic character of adverbs determine their function in their combination with adjectives. Accordingly, an adverb that is semantically weak can not contribute to the meaning of the adjective it applies to, and thus it does no more than modifying the degree of certain gradable feature of a quality present in the adjective. While a semantically rich adverb can, in addition to degree modification, fulfil other functions such as: value judgement, truth attesting, etc.
It should be noted that the semantic classification is not to be taken in a way that the study only attaches semantic labels to adverbs that co-occur with adjectives without specifying to what effect the modification is made, that is, if the effect is degree modification, as predominantly it is, by what capacity adverbs of manner, sentential adverbs, etc, given the right context, are able to achieve it. So, devising a semantic set of categories is to be understood as a way to illustrate by what capacities adverbs can function as degree modifiers. Having established this, the combinatorial aspects of
adverb-adjective collocations will be easy to elucidate in terms of the ‘‘semantic bidirectionality’’ model and the principle of ‘‘boundedness’’ mentioned in chapter three. Another aim of the semantic classification, which is in the same line with Lorenz, is to distinguish adverbs with purely scalar function from those which have a meaning of ‘‘scalar plus X’’ (1999, 94). As it has been stated earlier, the Quirkian scalar system will be used to depict the force of intensification.
The first category to be distinguished and isolated for a detailed investigation in this chapter is labelled ‘‘degree’’ category. The adverbs assigned to this semantic field have no function other than that of selecting the degree to which the adjective is foregrounded, i.e. scalar function or more particularly degree modification. The first part of the chapter examines the nature and significance of adverbs under the semantic field of ‘‘degree’’.
It is interesting to note that the adverbs that are semantically weak are the adverbs that have, more or less, undergone the process of grammaticalization. As a result, their lexical denotations are semantically diluted in favour of the development of a grammatical meaning as they are more often used to serve grammatical functions. It is precisely the intermediate position between lexis and grammar that turns ‘‘degree’’
adverbs into a very interesting category to study from the point of view of grammaticalization. Hence, the second part of the chapter deals with the process of grammaticalization and semantic change with respect to
‘‘degree’’ adverbs. The final part of the chapter concerns itself with a distinction drawn between open-class ‘‘degree’’ adverbs and closed-class
‘‘degree’’ adverbs. With a particular reference to the points mentioned in
chapter three, a separate section is given to a discussion of each one of these in detail.
4.1. ‘‘Degree’’ Adverbs
The semantic field of ‘‘degree’’ covers a large number of adverbs like: very, too, almost, so, rather, completely, entirely, extremely, absolutely, slightly, etc. that are semantically associated with the notion of ‘‘degree’’. The adverbs assigned to this group are inherently scalar items. They have the effect of intensifying the adjectives they modify. They are used to give specifications of degree. They can successfully pass the criteria established so far to diagnose the membership in the category of degree modifiers.
Therefore, they are intrinsically degree modifiers. As degree modification is the only purpose the adverbs under the category of ‘‘degree’’ are used for, directing attention to the nature and significance of degree modification is found to be useful in characterizing and identifying the function of
‘‘degree’’ adverbs.
It has already been pointed out that degree modifiers are characterized as being subjective, versatile and capable of passing in and out of fashion. To elaborate on the subjectivity of degree modifiers, it can be said that they are emphatic by nature and their being emphatic conveys a great deal about the speaker’s or writer’s point of view, i.e. the importance and personal involvement they assign to value judgements and their own propositions.
Through intensification the speakers or writers can tell that what is being said is sincerely vouched for (Partington 1993). So it is especially important to accurate communication of meaning. Intensification satisfies a basic human need to emphasize. People rely on intensification to underline the
meaning of their statements since there is a fear that the full impact of what is being said might not be comprehended by the listeners/readers (Benzinger
meaning of their statements since there is a fear that the full impact of what is being said might not be comprehended by the listeners/readers (Benzinger