Las violencias desde la perspectiva sistémica

Degree modifiers can be defined as elements which modify another element with respect to degree (Paradis 1997, 19). They are used to alter the intensity of the word they modify, making it more or less extreme, without qualitatively altering the meaning. By definition, they express the semantic role of degree, that is, they scale a property already present in their predicate (i.e. head) either upward or downward from an assumed norm. (Quirk et al.

1985). Therefore , the use of the term ‘‘intensifier’’ by scholars such as Bolinger, Quirk et al, etc. is fully justifiable on the ground that intensification does not only imply ‘‘reinforcement’’ but also ‘‘attenuation’’

(to use Paradis’ terms). Bolinger states ‘‘I use the term intensifier for any device that scales a quality, whether up or down or somewhere between the two’’ (1972, 17). The use of ‘‘any device’’ in Bolinger’s definition draws attention to the fact that apart from lexical means of intensification, there are also syntactic and prosodic means. For instance, repetition is used to strengthen the force of an expression. Terribly, terribly difficult is more difficult than just terribly difficult (Paradis 1997, 10). Even the use of stereotyped syntactic constructions is clearly evident, e.g. Was I pleased or was I? (Kastovsky 1976, 378). Besides, prosodic means such as intonation and emphatic stress play a significant part in signalling intensification. This is particularly evident in spoken language. However, it is only the lexical device which is of the primary concern of this study.

At this point it makes perfectly good sense to refer to what is being described as ‘‘semantic differential scale’’ by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957). It is, in fact, a graphic means of recognizing an intensifying element. In their attempt to measure meaning, Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum set up a liner scale in relation to some specific concept. They place polar opposite adjectives which can in some way be applied to a concept at each end of this liner scale and designate a specific number of positions along the line between them:

Polar term X --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Polar term Y 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

The scale positions are then defined as follows :

(1) extremely X (7) extremely Y (2) quite X (6) quite Y (3) slightly X (5) slightly Y

(4) neither X nor Y , equally X and equally Y

They assume that the terms ‘‘extremely’’, ‘‘quite’’, and ‘‘slightly’’ are more or less equal degrees of intensity of whatever representational process (X or Y) happen to be elicited. Thus, They try to represent graphically the

‘‘semantic differential’’ of a given expression and they actually specify the degree of intensity that the expression inherently possesses. On the very positions which they name on the scale, they recognize that intensifiers have varying degrees of force. Their ‘‘semantic differential scale’’ illustrates the departure from neutral position. Accordingly, degree modifiers are scalar devices, that is, they place the entities they apply to on a scale of intensity.

Before going any further, two distinctions need to be made. First, a line has to be drawn between degree modification and ‘‘quantification’’. Both notions have measurement in common (Paradis 1997) but they differ in respect of precision. Furthermore, Jackendoff (1977) specifically points out that adjectives can not take ‘‘quantifiers’’, whereas nouns can. Adjectives can only take degree words. Quirk et al (1985), too, restrict the term

‘‘quantifier’’ to modification of nominal, e.g. many pigs, much doubt. It is in order now to consider the second distinction which has to do with syntactic functions, namely, phrase-level degree modification versus clause-level degree modification. Syntactically, degree modifiers function either (a) inside a clause element, chiefly as premodifiers of adjectives very (funny), and adverbs perfectly (well), but occasionally of determiners absolutely (no reason), pronouns absolutely (nothing), and prepositional phrases quite (at ease), or (b) as adverbial ‘‘subjuncts’’ intensifying a predicate or part of a predicate entirely (agree) (Altenberg 1991, 128).

This study is primarily a descriptive account of modification of adjectives at phrase level. Therefore, the exclusion of clause-level modification is fully justifiable. In addition to this, degree modification is a functional category which can be realized for the most part by adverbs, but sometimes also by phrasal items such as noun phrases a little, prepositional phrases to a certain extent, modality hedges kind of, equatives as good as, pseudo-comparatives more than, even the use of single word items other than adverbs is evident such as adjectives real good, nouns crystal clear, and verbs participles bleeding fool (Lorenz 1999). Some of them are marked as colloquial usage especially taboo and euphemistic words which are mostly used by teenagers, such as damned, blinding, ruddy, etc. They are more

evident in informal spoken language than in formal or written language.

However, the present study is concerned with degree modification only when it is realized by adverbs which are inherently or even by implication capable of doing so. From what has been mentioned so far, it should be clear that this study treats an adverb as a degree modifier when it fills the grammatical slot preceding an adjective and when it functions within this slot to modify the degree of the word following it.

It remains now to consider briefly some characteristics of degree modifiers and some terminological problems. Degree modifiers are best known for :

1. ‘‘Subjectivity’’, that is, they are particular markers of subjectivity.

Apart from projecting scalarity to the items they apply to, they show involvement on the part of the speaker/writer. In this respect they add to the emotive and subjective dimension of the discourse. This illustrates the potential polyfunctionality of degree manifestation (Athanasiadou 2007).

2. ‘‘Versatility’’ and ‘‘colour’’, which Bolinger refers to as the result of

‘‘fevered invention’’ (1972). A quotation taken from Partington may serve to illustrate versatility. To him degree modifiers are perceived as

‘‘...a vehicle for impressing, praising, persuading, insulting and generally influencing the listener’s reception of the message’’ (1993, 178).

3. Their capacity for rapid change and recycling of different forms. (Ito

& Tagliamote 2003)

More remains to be said later about the details and other features characterizing degree modifiers in chapter four. It seems appropriate now

to devote some attention to the terminological problems associated with the category of degree modifiers. There seems to be no consensus regarding the labelling of the lexical items which serve the function of degree modification. Various terms are encountered in the literature. The difficulties associated with labelling of these items are due to the complexity and fuzziness that characterize them (Paradis 1997). Halliday (1985, 27) points out that ‘‘there are in principle two significant ways of labelling a linguistic unit. One is to assign it to a morphological class; the other is to assign function to it’’.

From the standpoint of formal class, degree modifiers are not easily definable. They exhibit various forms, for example, while completely is an adverb derived from an adjective, quite is clearly non-derived, at least from a synchronic point of view, and as has already been stated, there are phrasal items and even single word items other than adverbs which can denote the degree, proportion, or extent of some property of the words they apply to. Therefore, it is not morphologically possible to assign degree modifiers to a particular word class category. Also, from a syntactic point of view, they cause problems in that they can modify different phrasal types. As it has been seen earlier, some degree modifiers go with a whole range of different phrases, consider the following examples:

(1) Their lifestyle is quite healthy. (AP) (2) It was quite a different job. (NP)

(3) That had been quite at the beginning of the war. (PP) (4) I quite agree with you.(VP)

On the other hand, the use of items such as very, pretty, fairly is more restricted since they are specialized in the role of modifiers of adjectives.

Consequently, different terminologies have been used to refer to the category of degree modifiers. The traditional term ‘‘adverb of degree’’

has long been employed as an umbrella term to refer to that special group of adverbs which serve the function of degree specification in general. It has been utilized by Allerton (1987) to refer to the kinship between degree modification of adjectival and degree modification of verbs.

Terms like ‘‘mood adjuncts’’ and ‘‘subjuncts’’ are function labels found in works of Halliday (1985) and Quirk et al. (1985) respectively to refer to degree modifiers as clause element adverbials.

The use of the term ‘‘intensifier’’ by Quirk et al. (1985) can be attributed to the influence of Bolinger (1972). As it has been pointed out by Lorenz (1999), the use of this term has given rise to frequent misunderstanding, referring, as it does, to an adverbial class which not only comprises of

‘‘amplifiers’’ such as strongly, completely, or infinitely, but also

‘‘downtoners’’ such as rather, slightly or scarcely. The latter, of course, tend to have a lowering, mitigating effect on the meaning of their focus which is not really inferred, at the first sight, from the category label

‘‘intensifier’’. Thus, the Quirkian term ‘‘intensifier’’ has been employed as an umbrella term to refer to all kinds of degree words except quantifiers, that is, any items capable of indicating a point on an intensity scale, and the point indicated may be relatively low or relatively high.

‘‘Degree modifier’’ is a preferred terminology in this study, borrowed from Paradis to label all lexical items which select a degree of the

adjectival qualities they apply to. It is, however, semantically equivalent to Quirkian terminology ‘‘intensifier’’ in that it does not only refer to the lexical items whereby an increase in intensification is expressed. Rather, degree modifiers indicate a point on a scale. Therefore the two terms

‘‘degree modifiers’’ and ‘‘intensifiers’’ can safely be used interchangeably.