Considerable attention has been paid in the literature to -ly adverbs, from an array of different perspectives, both synchronic and diachronic (e.g. Lorenz 2002; Paradis 2003; Paradis & Bergmark ...2003; Tao 2007; Aijmer 2011; Defour 2012; Núñez-Pertejo 2013; Núñez-Pertejo & Palacios-Martínez 2014; Vandenbergen & Taverniers 2014). However, to date the adverb practically has not been the object of a great deal of discussion. Here we will show how this adverb has followed a line of development similar to that of other -ly adverbs, and hence emerges as a manner adverb with the meaning 'in a practical manner', 'in practice' (frequently opposed to 'theoretically' or 'speculatively'), before evolving into a degree modifier of the approximating type with the meaning 'almost', 'in effect', 'nearly'. This paper seeks to contribute to the history of practically by examining its process of subjectification (cf. Traugott 1995; Swan 1997), using a corpus-based methodology. To this end, the Corpus of Late Modern English Texts, version 3.0 (De Smet, Diller & Tyrkkö 2013) has been used, supplemented with additional evidence from the Old Bailey Corpus, version 2.0 (Huber, Nissel & Puga 2016a; 2016b).
Even though intensifiers have received a good deal of attention over the past few decades, downtoners, comprising diminishers and minimizers, have remained by and large a neglected category (but cf. ...Brinton, this issue). Among downtoners, the adverb little or a little stands out as the most frequent item. It is multifunctional and serves as a diminishing and minimizing intensifier and also in non-degree uses as a quantifier, frequentative, and durative. Therefore, the present paper is devoted to the structural and functional profile of (a) little in Late Modern English speech-related data. The data source is the socio-pragmatically annotated Old Bailey Corpus (OBC, version 2.0), which allows, among other things, the investigation of the usage of the item among different speaker groups. Our research charts the semantic and formal uses of adverbial little. Downtoner uses outnumber non-degree uses in the data, and diminishing uses are more common than minimizing uses. The formal realization is predominantly a little, with very rare determinerless or modified instances, such as very little. Little modifies a wide range of “targets,” but most frequently adjectives and prepositional phrases, focusing on human states and circumstantial detail. With regard to variation and change, adverbial little declines in use over the 200 years and is used more commonly by speakers from the lower social ranks and by the lay, non-professional participants in the courtroom.
This paper examines the syntactic distribution of degree modifiers in both spoken and written English. The results of the empirical case studies show that degree modifiers, both amplifiers (e.g., ...very, extremely) and downtoners (e.g., quite, pretty), are generally more often used in predication than in attribution, a result that is in line with earlier observations of the distribution of individual modifiers. This synchronic trend is also evident in diachronic developments: corpus data show that the recent frequency increase of intensifying this and that has largely taken place in predication, and the adjectivization of a class of -ed participles (e.g., interested, scared) can also be connected to their frequent co-occurrence with degree modifiers after be. Finally, the connection between degree modifiers and predicative usage has recently become stronger for a subset of modifiers (e.g., so, this, that) due to the decline of the “Big Mess” construction (e.g., so good an idea). From a theoretical perspective, this paper promotes a dynamic, usage-based model of word classes where frequency of use plays a role in categorization. The data investigated in the article are mainly discussed from the perspective of usage-based Construction Grammar, and the theoretical implications of the findings are examined both in light of a more traditional Construction Grammar network model of language and some recent ideas of overlapping word classes.
In Present-Day English, nearly functions as an approximator downtoner meaning ‘almost, all but, virtually,’ as do earlier variants based on the same root—nigh, nighly, near, next (to)—though more ...rarely and in more restricted contexts. Nigh functions as an approximator downtoner in Old and Middle English. When near displaces nigh, nigh is retained as a downtoner with lexical adjectives expressing negative semantic prosody. Near is used as a downtoner in later Middle and Early Modern English. However, degree adjunct uses are not well attested, thus pointing to incomplete grammaticalization. During the eighteenth century, the new -ly form (nearly) takes over the innovative downtoner function and the old form (near) is retained in the original locative sense, with some remnant downtoner uses. Next (to) grammaticalizes as a downtoner, but proceeds only to the degree modifier stage and involves a high degree of idiomaticization, thus suggesting incipient grammaticalization. As spatial adverbs, nigh/near/next (to)/nearly represent one of the well-known sources for the grammaticalization of degree adverbs. However, these forms seem to follow a pathway where the degree modifier use (adjective/participle modifier) precedes the degree adjunct use (verb modifier), contrary to the reverse pathway postulated for other degree adverbs.
The concepts mismatch, type-shifting, and coercion are central to much recent work on cognitive linguistics. In a number of papers, Michaelis has investigated entity and event coercion (Michaelis ...2003a, b, 2004 a, b). I address her question “what conditions favor the diachronic development of shift constructions” (Michaelis 2004a: 8) from the perspective of grammaticalization, with particular reference to the development of partitive constructions like a bit of apple into degree modifier constructions like a bit of a hypocrite. I show why these are different constructions, and conclude that the most important factors have to do with matching quantitative implicatures to already extant quantifying degree modifiers with NP heads, and with the strategies for expressing how much “pragmatic slack” (Lasersohn 1999) is available in computing denotations.
This paper discusses the ambiguity of the Bulgarian quantity word mnogo and argues that it is not an intensifier stricto sensu, although it can also have such a usage. Comparing mnogo with its ...Italian counterparts troppo, tanto, and molto, we show that it corresponds more precisely to Italian tanto (English much), which can be modified by overt intensifiers like cosi (cosi tanto) or silent ones like molto/troppo (tanto), etc. (cf. English so/ very /too much). However, mnogo can also function as an intensifier, much like Italian molto and English much: toj njama mnogo pari; non ha molti soldi; he doesn't have much money. As to its interpretation as troppo, we argue that mnogo is modified by the silent degree modifier tvarde, as in: tvarde mnogo. Keywords Quantity Word; Intensifier; Degree Modifier; Bulgarian; Italian; English; Slavic.
부사 ‘완전’ 분석 강아름; Kang Arum
언어연구,
11/2022, Letnik:
38, Številka:
3
Journal Article
The current paper aims to identify the semantico-pragmatic role of the adverb wancen in Korean. Rather than treating wancen as a typical degree modifier, we propose the novel role of wancen as an ...illocutionary intensifier in this paper. Specifically, we suggest the core properties of wancen as follows: First, unlike the usual degree intensifiers, the illocutionary intensifier wancen targets a scale in the speaker’s epistemic attitude towards the proposition. By using wancen, the illocutionary effect of assertion can be maximally strengthened. Second, wancen gives rise to a pragmatic intensification effect by means of a subjective speaker-oriented adverb as a weak PPI (Ernst, 2009). The theoretical implication of the current study is to provide a widened view of cross-linguistic variation to cases where the intensifier does not necessarily have a lexical degree modifier, and languages parameterize the semantics and pragmatics of their illocutionary intensifier. (Chungnam National University)
The Japanese degree modifier "kanari" 'quite' is puzzling in that it is compatible with both open-scale and closed-scale adjectives and in that it apparently has unrelated meanings in the two cases. ...With an open-scale adjective, "kanari" means that the
object in question has the property to a degree that is significantly (but not extraordinarily) high; with a closed-scale adjective, it means that the object almost (but not fully) has the property. This paper proposes a uniform analysis of "kanari" that attributes the apparent difference
of its meaning(s) to an independently motivated difference in the properties of open-scale and closed-scale adjectives.
PDF
