S u p e r v i s e d B yD r H o s h a n g F a r o o q J a w a d

Adverb-Adjective Collocation in English

Kurdistan Regional Government-Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research Koya University

A ThesisSubmitted to the Council of the Faculty of Humanities and Education-

Koya University in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the degree ofMaster of Arts

InEnglish Language and Linguistics

By

Dlnya Muhammad Ahmad(B.A./ Koya University /2005)

2011 1432

�ÜéŽuƆÖ]<�àÿÛłuƆÖ]�ÜéŽuƆÖ]<�àÿÛłuƆÖ]�ÜéŽuƆÖ]<�àÿÛłuƆÖ]�ÜéŽuƆÖ]<�àÿÛłuƆÖ] Žä×�Ö]Žä×�Ö]Žä×�Ö]Žä×�Ö] �ÜłŠŽe�ÜłŠŽe�ÜłŠŽe�ÜłŠŽe<

<<<<Üé¿ÃÖ]<Łä�×Ö]<Ñ‚‘Üé¿ÃÖ]<Łä�×Ö]<Ñ‚‘Üé¿ÃÖ]<Łä�×Ö]<Ñ‚‘Üé¿ÃÖ]<Łä�×Ö]<Ñ‚‘ <<<<

EEEEÐ×ÃÖ]Ð×ÃÖ]Ð×ÃÖ]Ð×ÃÖ]VVVV1IIII5DDDD <<<<

<<<<

ÿÐş×ÿ}<뎄�Ö]<şÔñeÿ…<�Üł‰^Že<Ğ_ÿ†ĞÎ]ÿÐş×ÿ}<뎄�Ö]<şÔñeÿ…<�Üł‰^Že<Ğ_ÿ†ĞÎ]ÿÐş×ÿ}<뎄�Ö]<şÔñeÿ…<�Üł‰^Že<Ğ_ÿ†ĞÎ]ÿÐş×ÿ}<뎄�Ö]<şÔñeÿ…<�Üł‰^Že<Ğ_ÿ†ĞÎ]EEEE1DDDD<<<<,Ðş×ÿÂ<łàŽÚ<ÿá^ÿŠÞ�dĞÖ]<ÿÐş×ÿ},Ðş×ÿÂ<łàŽÚ<ÿá^ÿŠÞ�dĞÖ]<ÿÐş×ÿ},Ðş×ÿÂ<łàŽÚ<ÿá^ÿŠÞ�dĞÖ]<ÿÐş×ÿ},Ðş×ÿÂ<łàŽÚ<ÿá^ÿŠÞ�dĞÖ]<ÿÐş×ÿ}EEEE2DDDD<<<<<şÔćeÿ…ÿæ<Ğ_ÿ†ĞÎ]<şÔćeÿ…ÿæ<Ğ_ÿ†ĞÎ]<şÔćeÿ…ÿæ<Ğ_ÿ†ĞÎ]<şÔćeÿ…ÿæ<Ğ_ÿ†ĞÎ]

ŁÝÿ†ĞÒş̀ĞÖ]ŁÝÿ†ĞÒş̀ĞÖ]ŁÝÿ†ĞÒş̀ĞÖ]ŁÝÿ†ĞÒş̀ĞÖ]EEEE3DDDD<<<<�ܺ׺ÏĞÖ^Že<ÿÜ�×ÿÂ<뎄�Ö]�ܺ׺ÏĞÖ^Že<ÿÜ�×ÿÂ<뎄�Ö]�ܺ׺ÏĞÖ^Že<ÿÜ�×ÿÂ<뎄�Ö]�ܺ׺ÏĞÖ^Že<ÿÜ�×ÿÂ<뎄�Ö]EEEE4DDDD<<<<łÜş×łÃÿè<łÜşÖ<^ÿÚ<ÿá^ÿŠÞ�dĞÖ]<ÿÜ�×ÿ³ܺ׳Ãÿè<łÜşÖ<^ÿÚ<ÿá^ÿŠÞ�dĞÖ]<ÿÜ�×ÿ³ܺ׳Ãÿè<łÜşÖ<^ÿÚ<ÿá^ÿŠÞ�dĞÖ]<ÿÜ�×ÿ³ܺ׳Ãÿè<łÜşÖ<^ÿÚ<ÿá^ÿŠÞ�dĞÖ]<ÿÜ�×ÿÂEEEE5DDDD

Dedicated to:

� My beloved wife

� My dear parents

� My brothers

� My sister.

III

Acknowledgements

In the course of my work with adverb-adjective collocation a number of

people have helped me in various ways.

My principal debts of gratitude are to my supervisor Dr Hosheng Faruq

Jawad. I would like to thank him for the knowledge he has shared with me,

for his constructive and efficient supervision, and for an abundance of

generous advice and encouragement. I consider it an honour to work with

him. I would also like to extend my thanks to Dr Salah Muhammad Salih for

helpful and stimulating discussions on the topic.

It is with immense gratitude that I acknowledge the support and help of

Professor Carita Paradis (from Lund University) who has sent me a number

of interesting articles on degree modification. I also share the credit of my

work with Dr Nadja Nesselhauf (from Heidelberg University) who has sent

me some articles on collocation.

I owe sincere and earnest thankfulness to my friends Bayad Saadi, Ladeh

Sardar, Araz Rzgar, Karwan Sabah, Jamal Anwar, Salih Ibrahim, Hemn

Adil, Aram Nassir, and Macok Aswad who have helped me in various ways.

My final thanks go to my wife and my parents for their constant support and

patience. They have been looking forward to seeing this mission

accomplished.

IV

Abstract

This study attempts to consider some aspects of adverb-adjective collocation

in English. It explores the semantic properties of some adverbs and their

collocating adjectives recorded in two collocation dictionaries, namely,

Oxford Collocations Dictionary (OCD) and the LTP Dictionary of Selected

Collocations (LTP). The central questions that have guided this analysis are:

what exactly does an adverb do to an adjective in Adverb-Adjective

Collocation? and what are the restrictions on the combinability of the two

lexical items?

This study is comprised of six chapters, including an introduction which

calls attention to the scope of the study, the problem, the aims, the

hypotheses, the procedures and the data of the study. Chapter two is a

preliminary one which gives a general overview of the notion of collocation.

It provides definitions, a historical background and classifications of

collocation. Besides, distinctions are made between collocation and other

types of word combinations.

Degree modification and the semantic feature of gradability in adjectives are

the focus of attention in chapter three. It is also the aim of the chapter to

bring up a semantic model capable of accounting for how both the adjective

and the degree modifier exert semantic pressure on one another. The

semantic category of ‘‘degree’’ is isolated for a detailed investigation in

chapter four. A morphological classification is made between open-class

‘‘degree’’ adverbs and closed-class ‘‘degree’’ adverbs. Besides, The process

of grammaticalization is given special attention in the chapter. Chapter five

is the discussion of other semantic categories of adverbs. The members of

V

each category are listed with the number of their potential collocating

adjectives. The intensifying force of the adverbs is tested against the

Quirkian scalar categories. In the last chapter, the most outstanding

conclusions are presented. The following are among the most important

ones that are drawn from the study:

In the construction of adverb-adjective collocation, the meaning

expressed by adverbs is grammatical in nature, while the meaning

conveyed by adjectives is semantic in nature. Therefore, it is the

adjective that is more important from a semantic point of view.

The adverbs under study are found to operate along five different

semantic dimensions: ‘’degree’, ‘’modal’’, ‘’evaluative’’,

‘’comparative’’ and ‘’semantic feature copying’’.

The ‘’degree’’ category can be seen as a drain of delexicalization. the

more delexicalized an adverb, the more likely it converges towards

the semantic category of ‘’degree’’.

Finally, the thesis ends with reference lists and abstracts in Kurdish and

Arabic.

VI

List of Abbreviations and Notations

AP Adjective phrase

BBI Benson M., Benson I. and Ilson

CCD Collins Cobuild Dictionary (on CD-Rom)

CCEG Collins Cobuild English Grammar

EA Extreme adjective

LA Limit adjective

LTP The LTP dictionary of Selected Collocations

MED Macmillan English Dictionary (for advanced learners)

NP Noun phrase

OCD Oxford Collocation Dictionary (for students of English)

PP Prepositional phrase

SA Scalar adjective

VP Verb phrase

* Unacceptable combination

? The combination is in a questionable state

VII

List of Tables

Table Title Page

2-1 Collocations vs. Free Word Combinations 21

2-2 Collocations vs. Idioms 23

3-1 Totality Modifiers and Scalar Modifiers Combined with Levels of Degree

45

3-2 The Typology of Gradable Adjectives 64

5-1 ‘‘Modal’’ Adverbs and the Number of their Collocating Adjectives

110

5-2 ‘‘Evaluative’’ Adverbs and the Number of their Collocating Adjectives

118

5-3 ‘‘Comparative’’ Adverbs and the Number of their Collocating Adjectives

125

VIII

List of Figures

Figure Title Page

3-1 Quirkian Scalar System 40

3-2 Warren’s Semantic Model of the Meaning of an Adjective

48

3-3 The Semantic Elements of Nervous 49

3-4 The Conceptualization of the Scalar Adjectives Short and Long

55

3-5 The Combined Scale-Hyponymy Relation of Good and Bad

58

3-6 The Bidirectionality of Semantic Pressure between Degree Modifiers and Adjectives

68

3-7 The Division of Quirkian Scalar Categories According to ‘‘Boundedness’’ Conception

71

4-1 The Closed-class ‘’Degree’’ Members 87

4-2 The Open-class ‘‘Degree’’ Members 99

5-1 The Arrangement of ‘‘Modal’’ Category in Keeping with Quirkian Scalar System and ‘‘Boundedness’’ Notion

112

5-2 Essential classification of ‘‘Evaluative’’ Category 120

5-3 ‘‘Evaluative’’ Category in Relation with Degree Modification

123

5-4 The Arrangement of ‘‘Comparative’’ Items in accordance with Quirkian Scalar System and ‘‘Boundedness’’ Notion

126

5-5 ‘‘Degree’’ Category in Relation with other Semantic Categories

130

IX

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………...……………………III

ABSTRACT……………………………....……………………………IV

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONS ............................VI

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................VII

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................VIII

CHAPTER ONE

1. Introduction

1.1 The Scope of the Study………...…………..……………….…...……1

1.2 The Problem.........................................................................................1

1.3 The Aims of the Study............……………………...…………….......1

1.4 The Hypotheses…………………………………………………..…..2

1.5 The Procedures…………..………………………………………..….2

1.6 The Data of the Study..…………………..….......………………...….3

CHAPTER TWO

2. Collocations: A Literature Review

2.0 Introduction……………………………..…..………………….….....4

2.1 Definitions of Collocation................................………………......…..5

2.2 Collocation: A Historical Background...............................……........11

2.3 Collocations vs. Other Types of Word Combinations........................15

2.3.1 Collocations vs. Free Combinations.............................................18

2.3.2 Collocations vs. Idioms................................................................21

2.4 The Nature of Collocational Restrictions...........................................24

2.5 Classifications of Collocations...........................................................27

X

CHAPTER THREE

3. Degree Modification and Gradable Adjectives

3.0 Introduction…………………………………………………..……..31

3.1 Degree Modifiers: An Overview…………….………..................….33

3.2 Earlier Classifications.........................................................................39

3.2.1 Quirk et al. (1985)........................................................................39

3.2.2 Bolinger (1972)............................................................................41

3.2.3 Allerton (1987).............................................................................42

3.2.4 Paradis (1997, 2000a, 2003, 2008)...............................................44

3.3 Adjectives and Gradability.................................................................45

3.4 Classification of Gradable Adjectives................................................50

3.4.1 Scalar Adjectives..........................................................................53

3.4.2 Extreme Adjectives.......................................................................56

3.4.3 Limit Adjectives...........................................................................61

3.5. Contextual Modulation......................................................................64

3.6 Paradis’ Model of Semantic Bidirectionality.....................................67

3.7 Methodological Consideration...........................................................70

CHAPTER FOUR

4. The Semantic Category ‘‘Degree’’

4.0 Introduction………………………………………..……..………....73

4.1 ‘‘Degree’’ Adverbs.............................................................................76

4.2 Grammaticalization of ‘‘Degree’’ Adverbs........................................80

4.3 A Morphological Classification of ‘‘Degree’’ Adverbs.....................84

4.4 Closed-class ‘‘Degree’’ Adverbs: A Miscellaneous Collection.........86

4.4.1 Very and Much..............................................................................87

4.4.2 Quite between Maximizing and Compromizing Function...........89

4.4.3 Most, So and Indeed.....................................................................90

4.4.4 Too and Well.................................................................................92

XI

4.4.5 Rather and Pretty..........................................................................94

4.4.6 Almost and Somewhat...................................................................95

4.5 Open-class ‘‘Degree’’ Adverbs..........................................................97

4.5.1 –Ly ‘‘Degree’ Maximizers.........................................................100

4.5.2 –Ly ‘‘Degree’’ Approximators...................................................102

4.5.3 –Ly ‘‘Degree’’ Boosters.............................................................102

4.5.4 –Ly ‘‘Degree’’ Compromizers...................................................104

4.5.5 –Ly ‘‘Degree’’ Diminishers.......................................................105

4.5.6 –Ly ‘‘Degree’’ Minimizers........................................................105

CHAPTER FIVE

5. Other Semantic Categories of Adverbs

5.0 Introduction……………………….…….…………………………107

5.1 The Semantic Category ‘‘Modal’’....................................................109

5.1.1 ‘‘Modal’’ OCD and LTP Data....................................................109

5.1.2 Modality and Intensification: A Semantic Relation...................115

5.2 The Semantic Category ‘‘Evaluative’’.............................................117

5.3 The Semantic Category ‘‘Comparative’’.........................................125

5.4 The Semantic Category ‘‘Semantic Feature Copying’’...................130

5.4.1 Copying conceptual meaning: Enhancing and reducing force...132

5.4.2 Copying (almost) all Features: Intensifying Hendiadys.............135

5.4.3 Copying Collocative Meaning: Emotive Boosters.....................136

CHAPTER SIX

6. Summary Conclusions and Suggestions for Further Study

6.0 Introduction......................................................................................139

6.1 Summary Conclusions......................................................................139

6.2 Suggestions for Further Studies........................................................143

XII

REFERENCES....………………………...…………................……..145

APPENDICES

Appendix Ia: Closed-class ‘‘Degree’’ Category....................................156

Appendix Ib: Open-class ‘‘Degree’’ Category.......................................164

Appendix II: ‘‘Modal’’ Category...........................................................175

Appendix III: ‘‘Evaluative’’ Category...................................................181

Appendix IV: ‘‘Comparative’’ Category...............................................186

Appendix V: ‘‘Semantic Feature Copying’’ Category...........................188

Chapter One:

Introduction

1

Chapter One Introduction

1.1. The Scope of the Study

Among the different types of collocations identified in scholarly writings,

only one lexical type, namely, adverb-adjective collocation, is the focus of

the present study. Besides, the study recognizes a vital necessity to

concentrate on degree modification as being a direct or indirect outcome of

the resulting phrase. Therefore, the collocation of ‘‘viewpoint’’ adverbs with

adjectives falls outside the scope of the study since they produce a different

effect.

1.2. The Problem

There are constraints on the possible combinations of adverbs and

adjectives. It is possible to say absolutely amazing, while ?absolutely nice is

strange. Likewise, quite sufficient is a perfect match, while ?very sufficient is

awkward. Wonderfully refreshing is fine, but ?ridiculously refreshing is

unnatural. The question which arises from this is whether these constraints

are predictable or not. The present study represents an endeavour to trace

these problems and suggests appropriate solutions to them.

1.3. The Aims of the Study

In addition to explaining the combinatorial restrictions governing the choice

of particular lexical items in the construction under consideration, it is also

the principal aim of the study to determine the outcome of adverb-adjective

2

collocation, i.e. finding out exactly what does the adverb do to the adjective

or to what effect the adjective modification is made. If the effect is degree

modification, the study endeavours to specify by what capacities adverbs

that belong to the semantic fields other than ‘‘degree’’ can achieve this.

1.4. The Hypotheses

This study is mainly based on two testable hypotheses:

1- An analysis of the semantic relation between degree modifiers and

adjectives has something to contribute to some of the combinatorial

restrictions on adverb-adjective collocation at the higher level, i.e. some of

these restrictions are partly explicable in terms of a semantic model of

‘’bidirectionality’’.

2- An adverb that has a great number of collocating adjectives is the one that

(a) has become the most delexicalized among others in a particular semantic

field and (b) is an ideal candidate to resign its original semantic membership

and apply for new membership in the semantic category of ‘‘degree’’.

1.5. The Procedures

These are the procedures followed in this study:

1- presenting a semantic classification of adverbs, i.e. recognizing a number

of semantic resources from which adverbs can be taken,

2- compiling an inventory of some outstanding members of each semantic

category,

3- searching for their potential collocating adjectives in collocation

dictionaries and then listing them,

3

4- describing the functions of the adverbs and testing the intensifying force

in their combination with adjectives, and

5- explaining some of the combinatorial restrictions and testing the model of

‘’semantic bidirectionality’’.

1.6. The Data of the Study

The material used in this study is mainly based on Oxford Collocations

Dictionary (OCD) and LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations (LTP). In

addition, some citations are drawn from Macmillan English Dictionary

(MED) and Collins Cobuild Dictionary (CCD). For some reasons the study

has preferred to use the collocation dictionaries to any type of corpora.

Collocation dictionaries covers the entire language. Their aim is to give the

full range of collocations – from the fairly weak, e.g. extremely complicated,

through the medium-strength, e.g. highly intelligent, to the strongest and

most restricted, e.g. blindingly obvious – for thousands of headwords.

Totally free combinations are excluded and so are the idioms. The

usefulness of corpus data, on the other hand, is rather limited. Any corpus

should be clearly defined in terms of the variety of language (spoken versus

written), the style (formal versus informal), the subject matter (religious,

political, sport event, etc.), and other factors relating to the speaker or writer

such as age, sex, socio-economic background, education, region, etc. So, the

choice of one corpus rather than another restricts the analysis and makes the

analyst rather unable to make general statements.

Chapter

Two:

Collocations: A Literature Review

4

Chapter Two Collocations: A Literature Review

2.0. Introduction

In natural languages, words are not combined randomly. Although

constrained by grammar and syntax, words also have preferences. Firth

(1957a) named such preferential word combinations as ‘‘collocation’’. For

instance, in English it is proper to say strong tea but not powerful tea. Some

forms are conventionally acceptable and others are not, and this appears to

have arisen arbitrarily in the course of language evolution.

Moreover, different interesting terminologies have been employed to refer to

this lexical phenomenon. Among these we can refer to prefabricated units,

prefabs, phraseological units, lexical chunks, multi-word units, formulaic

sequences, etc.(Nesselhauf 2005, 1). They are all evidences of transcending

the boundaries of individual words and the establishment of numerous

complex units that semantically behave as single units. To some linguists, it

is collocation rather than individual words to be considered as the

fundamental building blocks of a language. According to Bolinger, ‘‘our

language does not expect us to build everything starting with lumber, nails,

and blueprints. Instead it provides us with an incredibly large number of

prefabs.’’ (1979, 96)

The use of these prefabricated units contributes to the precision in conveying

our message as well as facilitating comprehension from the side of the

recipient. Undoubtedly, they play an essential role in bringing about fluency

and producing natural sounding speech and writing. In addition, they can be

5

used for disambiguation, including both lexical and structural

disambiguation. This task is based on Firth’s principle that one can ‘‘know a

word by the company it keeps’’. For instance, a word in a particular sense

tends to co-occur with a different set of words than when it is used in

another sense. Thus, bank might co-occur with river in one sense and

savings and loan when used in the financial sense.

This chapter gives a general overview of the notion of collocation. Various

definitions of the term ‘‘collocation’’ have been formulated by different

linguists and lexicographers as it can be looked at from different viewpoints.

A lexicographic view might be different from a linguistic or pedagogic view.

Each endeavors to approach the topic from a different angle. With particular

reference to previous works on collocation, this chapter refers to a number of

definitions and uncover similarities and differences of opinions among them.

A historical background to the term is given in a separate section. The

position of collocation among other types of word combinations is another

part of this chapter. Due to the fact that collocation has been utilized in

widely different and fairly vague senses, distinguishing collocation from free

combinations and idioms is of a vital importance. It has something of value

to explain the nature of the collocational restrictions and to devote a separate

section in this chapter. Classification of collocation is the final part.

2.1.Definitions of Collocation.

There seems to be no general consensus as to an exhaustive and uniform

definition of collocation which widely varies from one linguist to another

depending upon one’s orientation and paradigm he/she subscribes to. The

only common denominator to these definitions is the explicit statement of

6

the syntagmatic relation of words. It makes a good sense to start with the

founder of the British contextualist tradition, namely, J. R. Firth. It is Firth

who is widely credited with having initiated the study of collocation. As part

of his overall theory of meaning, Firth introduces the notion of collocation to

deal with the lexical meaning. He defines collocation as an ‘‘abstraction at

the syntagmatic level and is not directly concerned with the conceptual or

idea approach to the meaning of words’’ (1957b, 196). He commits himself

to a belief that the meaning of a word is determined by the co-occurring

words at the syntagmatic level. A part of the meaning of a word is the fact

that it collocates with another word. Thus, one might not hope to explain the

meaning of a word without incorporating a mention of its possibility to

collocate with the other preferential item. For instance, ‘‘one of the

meanings of night is its collocability with dark and of dark , of course,

collocation with night.’’ (197)

The notion is further developed by Firth’s successors, noticeably, M. A. K.

Halliday and J. M. Sinclair. In his recent work, Halliday (2004, 11) refers to

collocation as ‘‘the tendency of words to keep company with each other, like

fork goes with knife, lend goes with money, theatre goes with play’’. To him

collocation is purely lexical relationship, that is, it is an association between

one word and another irrespective of what they mean. It can be defined

quantitatively as the degree to which the probability of a word Y occurring is

increased by the presence of another word X. For instance, if you meet

injure, you may expect to find pain somewhere around, i.e. given the

presence of the word injure, the probability of the word pain occurring

becomes higher than that determined by its overall frequency in the English

language as a whole.

7

In his previous work in association with Hasan, collocation is referred to as a

cohesive device. Halliday and Hasan (1976, 287) describe collocation as a

‘‘cover term for the kind of cohesion that results from the co-occurrence of

lexical items that are in some way or other typically associated with one

another, because they tend to occur in similar environment’’. Hoey (2005)

comments on their definition by pointing out that the type of the association

discussed in their definition is a psychological one, in which words are

regularly associated in mind because of the way they are regularly

encountered in similar contexts.

Another psychological definition comes from Leech who talks of

‘‘collocative meaning’’ which he says, ‘‘consists of the associations a word

acquires on account of the meanings of words which tend to occur in its

environment’’ (1981, 17). This definition implies that the word acquires

connotation as a result of the words tend to surround it. According to Hoey,

Leech’s definition successfully accounts for the statistical reality and the

psychological reality and, moreover, suggests a causal connection between

the two.

Sinclair (1991, 170) defines collocation as ‘‘the occurrence of two or more

words within a short space of each other in a text’’. A short space, or

‘‘span’’ is usually defined as a distance of around four words to right and

left of the word under investigation, which is called ‘‘node’’. If, for

example, in a given amount of text, the word house is analyzed, and the

word occurs in an environment such as He went back to the house. When he

opened the door, the dog barked. The words went, back, to, the, when, he,

opened, the are all considered to form collocations with the node house,

these words are then called ‘‘collocates’’. This definition of collocation does

8

not consider the existence of any syntactic link between the words.

According to Partington (1998), Sinclair’s definition is a textual definition.

It is not useful and can result in a woolly confusion of single instances of co-

occurrence with repeated patterns of co-occurrence.

As has been maintained by Hausmann (1984), collocations are recurrent

combinations of two linguistic elements with limited combinatorial capacity

which have a syntactic relationship. One of the elements of the collocation,

called ‘‘base’’ keeps its usual meaning (autosemantic words) while the

other, the ‘‘collocate’’ is dependent on the base (synsemantic words) and

usually has a less transparent meaning. The definition mainly concentrates

on the binary status of collocation as well as semantically unequal status of

the two parts of collocation. The ‘‘base’’ is the prominent element while the

‘‘collocate’’ depends on the base.

A position similar to that of Hausmann is taken up by Heid (1994), stating

that collocations are combinations of exactly two lexemes, realizing two

concepts where the choice of one depends on or is restricted by the other.

According to this definition, collocations are considered as lexicalized

phrases. Thus function words are implicitly excluded in this definition.

Hoey (1991a, 7) provides a statistical definition of collocation by saying that

collocation is the ‘‘relationship a lexical item has with items that appear with

greater than random probability in its context’’

For Manning and Schutze (1999) collocations denote well-formed

expressions representing a conventional way of saying things. Cowie (1978)

defines collocation as the co-occurrence of two or more lexical items as

realization of structural elements within a given syntactic pattern.

9

Noticeably, this definition calls for the existence of a syntactic relation

between the words typically occurring together and this might be referred to

a significant defining criterion for collocation.

Lewis (2000) defines collocation as a subcategory of multi-word items,

made up of individual words which habitually co-occur and can be found

within a free-fixed collocational continuum. That is, a class of word

combination that lies between totally free, unrestricted combination and

totally fixed, invariable ones .

In his treatment of the problems with pinning down word meaning, Saeed

(2003, 60) refers to collocation as the tendency for words to occur together

repeatedly. He then points out that collocations can undergo fossilization

process until they become fixed and conventional expressions.

Wouden defines collocation as an ‘‘idiosyncratic restriction on the

combinability of lexical items’’ (1997, 5) .The word ‘‘idiosyncratic’’ in this

definition is an indicator of the fact that the restriction is beyond the scope of

semantic and syntactic regularities. That is, it is not understandable why the

distribution of blond is restricted to human hair or why we can have a drink

when we can not have an eat.(Wierzbicka 1982)

Stubbs (2001, 29) looks at collocation as an accompaniment of two or more

words. He agrees with the statistical view that not all types of co-

occurrences are to be considered as collocations. To him collocation is

frequent co-occurrences. Co-occurrence is the number of times a ‘‘node’’ is

accompanied by one or more ‘‘collocates’’. Stubbs provides a more specific

definition of ‘‘collocate’’ when he says that it is a ‘‘word form or lemma

which co-occur with a node in a corpus’’ a lemma is a concept traditionally

10

referred to by the term ‘‘word’’. For example, a learner who knows the word

want and who can distinguish between want, wants, wanted, and wanting

knows one lemma want, and four word forms. Lemma are abstract classes of

word forms.

To sum up, reading the abovementioned definitions of the term is likely to

raise awareness of the following points:

1. The vagueness of the term and difficulties to define it due to the fact

that it has been utilized with various acceptance in linguistic and

lexicographic literature.

2. Despite their differences in motivation and orientation, they appear to

share one basic feature in common, namely, the reference to the

syntagmatic relation of words at the level of lexis in language.

3. The following are among the significant points that bring the

definitions into conflict :

a The number of the participating elements involved in the

structure of collocation. Some definitions suggest two elements

e.g. (Hausmann, Heid, etc) while others allow more than two

e.g.(Sinclair, Cowie, etc)

b The morphological realization of the elements, that is, whether

the collocability relation is between lexical items (base forms,

lemmas, roots, etc) or between word forms (lexemes,

morphologically derived forms, etc) is a matter of debate. For

instance, a strong argument, he argued strongly, the strength of

the argument, and his argument was strengthened to be

considered as instances of the same collocation or different

collocations is arguable.

11

c The existence of a syntactic relation between the collocating

members. While some of them consider this as a basic

requirement for defining collocation (such as Cowie’s

definition) others do not suggest such a requirement, for

example, Sinclair’s definition.

d The semantic status of the elements in question, that is, the

equality and inequality of the constituents in terms of meaning

dependency.

e The inclusion of grammatical collocation , i.e. while some of

them refer to collocation only as lexical collocation, others

expand the term to include grammatical ones as well.

f The basic requirement for combination to be considered as

collocation. For some of them it is frequency which is a

defining criterion for collocation, while others regard

‘‘substitutional restriction’’ and ‘‘fixedness’’ as a basic

requirement. (See section 2.3.)

It should be mentioned that ‘‘collocation’’ in the present study is used to

refer to a bond of varying strength, from fairly weak, e.g. completely

difficult, through the medium-strength, e.g. highly sensitive, to the strongest

and most restricted one, e.g. spotlessly clean, between exactly two words as

realization of structural elements (adverbs and adjectives) within a given

syntactic pattern (AP) . The choice of one depends or is restricted by the

other.

2.2.Collocation: A Historical Background

The first recorded mention of the term collocation in a definitely linguistic

context, as has been stated by Bartsch (2004, 28), listed under the entry for

12

‘‘collocation’’ in the second edition of Oxford English Dictionary (OED 2nd)

dates back to a quotation by Harris of the year (1750) ‘‘the accusative..in

modern languages..being subsequent to its verb, in the collocation of the

words. Etymologically, the term goes back to Latin collocat-us, the past

participle of collocare ‘to place side by side’, from col-(con-) ‘together’ +

locare ‘to place’ ’’. What is noticeable in this quotation is that the word

collocation is used in the sense of ‘‘colligation’’, the grammatical

juxtaposition of words in sentences. No mention is made of the strongly

lexical character that is nowadays associated with the concept of collocation

over and above the grammatical relations holding between their constituents.

In the following two quotations by Trager dated 1940 which are also cited in

the same OED 2nd entry, the term collocation is used to denote the general

combinatorial properties of linguistic elements. ‘‘Collocation establishes

categories by stating the elements with which the element being studied

enters into possible combinations’’, ‘‘It is now necessary to establish the

collocations of the various forms to see what their functions are’’. This is a

perspective of collocation which is more closely in correspondence with the

semantic and syntactic combinatorial properties attributed to individual word

forms.

Trager’s second quotation refers to the fact that it is the individual word

forms rather than the base form of the word that enters into different, distinct

and characteristic collocational relations. Accordingly, different

morphosyntactic instantiations of a word might act differently in

collocational patterns. Thus, each one is an independent linguistic unit which

potentially enters into its own distinct set of collocations within its

individual set of contexts of occurrence. There might be at least some partial

13

overlaps between individual word forms and the underlying root in terms of

the establishment of the collocational relations, but after all individual word

forms of a given word tend to enter into their own specific set of

collocational relations. Another interesting position in Trager’s second

quotation is the necessity of studying the functional properties of

collocations. In Trager’s day, collocation was a new and by no means well

established linguistic concept, and much less was there consensus regarding

the status of collocations in language system.

Bartsch points out that it is not entirely clear who was the first linguist to use

the term ‘‘collocation’’ in the sense of recurrent, relatively fixed word

combination. In fact, the appearance of quotations like those mentioned

above in linguistic and lexicographic literature might encourage questioning

the validity of regarding Firth to be the father of collocation. Publications of

Tragers and a book by Palmer, A Grammar of English Words (1938), using

the term ‘‘collocation’’ in its subtitle suggest that Firth might not have been

first to use the term in the present sense. There is, indeed, reason to believe

that Jesperson (1917, 21) might have been the first to use the term

collocation ‘‘Little and few are also incomplete negatives: note the frequent

collocation with no : there is little or no danger’’. Nevertheless, it is Firth

who is commonly credited with systematically introducing the concept of

collocation into linguistic theory and is among the first linguists to base a

theory of meaning on the notion of meaning by collocation. The following

quotation might illustrate this position ‘‘I propose to bring forward as a

technical term, meaning by ‘‘collocation’’, and to apply the test of

collocability’’ (Firth 1957b, 197)

14

In the contextual theory of meaning, Firth’s attention is firmly focused on

the assumption that being meaningful, or having meaning is a matter of

functioning appropriately in context. The meaning of any component at any

level, i.e. phonological, lexicological, grammatical, etc. is described in terms

of its function as an element in the structure of units of the level above. The

structure of the higher level units are the contexts in which the lower level

units function and have meaning (Lyons 1977, 2:612). Along these lines,

Firth’s famous slogan in his modes of meaning (1957) ‘‘you shall know a

word by the company it keeps’’ is reasonably explicable in that the regular

and habitual appearance of words in each others accompaniment at the

syntagmatic level is the context of their occurrence, to say the components

have meaning, they should have functions and their functions are their

contribution to the overall meaning of the combination.

Although Firth uses to be lamentably vague about his precise understanding

of his concept (Evert 2005), nevertheless, he paves the way for a more

detailed exploration and future investigation to deepen the theoretical and

methodological aspect of the phenomenon. His empowering experiences

have significant ramifications for the postulation of more precise and

systematic theories. Consequently, the term was further elaborated and

developed by his successors, often referred to as ‘‘New Ferthian’’, most

noticeably, Halliday and Sinclair. With the development of technology and

electronic devices, a computer-assisted approach has been suggested by

Sinclair in 1970s. This period is described by Hori (2004) as a pilot or

experimental period in the history of the collocational studies. From the

1980s onward, results and achievements of the study of collocation begin to

appear.

15

2.3.Collocations vs. Other Types of Word Combinations

Kelly and Stone (1975) have noted that our psychological lexicon contains

large numbers of multi-word units – stock phrases of various sorts. Their

number is probably as many as that of single words, but not significantly

more. Quigley (2005) defines a multi-word unit as a string of two or more

words which acts as a single unit.

To explain the way in which language texts are produced and interpreted,

Sinclair (1991, 109) advances two different principles, that is, ‘‘open-choice

principle’’ and ‘‘idiom-principle’’. The first one, is also sometimes referred

to as ‘’slot and filler model’’, uses grammaticality as the only constraint in

language production. Idiom principle, on the other hand, assumes that

language users have available to them a large number of ‘‘semi-

preconstructed’’ phrases that constitute single choices. In his later work

Sinclair (2000) renames idiom principle by calling it ‘‘co-selection

principle’’. The main idea behind the so called ‘‘co-selection principle’’ is

that the choice of certain words is affected by the choice of others in their

vicinity. In fact, collocation is a concept which works on the co-selection

level.

Given the fact that the existence of these pre-constructed and ready made

chunks is not deniable, various attempts have been made to distinguish

between different types of word combinations. Since these phraseological

units are not clearly delimitable, they form a continuum, a position held by

most of, if not all, the lexicographers working in this area. Kjellmer (1990)

claims that English words are scattered across a continuum which extends

from those items whose contextual company is entirely predictable to those

whose contextual company is entirely unpredictable. According to the

16

results of his researches, most words tend to appear towards the beginning of

the continuum. Then it extends from totally free , unrestricted combination

to totally fixed and invariable ones.

Benson, Benson and IIson (1986, 252) distinguish five major types of lexical

combinations on the basis of their degree of cohesion: ‘‘free combinations’’,

‘‘idioms’’, ‘‘collocations’’, ‘‘transitional combinations’’ and ‘‘compounds’’.

Lewis (2000) maintains that languages consist of chunks which are ‘‘fixed’’

and ‘‘semi-fixed prefabricated’’ items, and that language chunks are of

different types: ‘‘words’’, ‘‘collocations’’, ‘‘fixed expressions’’ and ‘‘semi-

fixed expressions’’. For him fixed expressions encompass ‘‘institutionalized

expressions’’ and ‘‘idioms’’. Institutionalized expressions are ‘‘sentence-

like units’’ with a primarily pragmatic function, e.g. How are you?, Good

morning, etc. Semi-fixed expressions, like fixed expressions, are sentence-

like units but they differ from fixed expressions in their degree of fixedness,

e.g. I haven’t seen you + time expressions, etc.

Hausmann (1984) first distinguishes ‘‘fixed’’ from ‘‘non-fixed

expressions’’. For him fixed combinations are ‘‘idioms’’, ‘‘compounds’’,

etc. Non-fixed expressions are subdivided into three types : ‘‘co-creation’’,

‘‘collocation’’ and ‘‘counter creation’’. By co-creations, he means free

combinations that are creatively combined by the speaker, e.g. a pleasant

home, while counter-creations refer to unusual collocations that are mainly

found in literature and advertisement. Mel'čuk (1998) makes a distinction

between sentence– and word-like units. He refers to word like units as

‘‘semantic phrasemes’’ ( as opposed to ‘‘pragmatic phrasemes’’) and

subdivides them into: ‘‘full phrasemes’’ (idioms), ‘‘quasi- phrasemes’’

(quasi-idioms) and ‘‘semi phrasemes’’ (collocations).

17

Cowie (1994) divides word combinations into two main types: ‘‘composite’’

and ‘‘formulae’’. Formulae refers to the institutionalized expressions.

Collocations belong to the group of composites. The distinction in the group

of composites are made on the basis of two criteria, that is, the criterion of

(transparency) and the criterion of (commutability). Thus, he distinguishes

four types of combinations: ‘‘free combinations’’, ‘‘restricted collocations’’,

‘‘figurative idioms’’ and ‘‘pure idioms’’.

So far, different classifications of word combinations have been presented so

as to draw a phraseological sketch. An attempt is made here to differentiate

three types of word combinations, that is, free combinations, collocations

and idioms. In accordance with a number of criteria that have been

suggested for this purpose, and with reference to the works that have been

conducted in this area by different scholars, collocations would be

distinguished from free combination then from idioms.

It should not be forgotten that the borderline between them is not remarkably

straightforward. They are seen as establishing a phraseological continuum. A

widely held view among scholars concerning the continuum is that: at the

one end of the continuum, one can imagine completely free associations of

words where any meaningful concatenation may occur, the other end would

be that most invariable sequence of words, frozen idioms. The middle

ground between the two extremes is a murky territory where one can find

collocations. The point that seems to bring the scholars into divergences is

their inclinations towards the suggesting procedure and criteria for dealing

with such demarcation. Among the most reliable criteria are : ‘‘fixedness’’

including restrictions on both syntactic and lexical variability, ‘‘semantic

18

transparency’’ or ‘‘semantic compositionality’’, ‘‘frequency’’ of co-

occurrence, and ‘‘restricted sense’’.

2.3.1 Collocations vs. Free Combinations

In line with Sinclair’s ‘‘open choice principle’’, free combinations can be

defined as sequences of words that adhere to the grammatical and syntactic

rules of a given language. With particular reference to the abovementioned

criteria, free combinations can be characterized as non- fixed combinations

whose elements are freely substitutable. This is not to be taken as a denial of

any restriction on the substitutability of the elements in question. The

restriction is semantically motivated, i.e. it is due to the semantic properties

of the elements of the combination. This type of restriction is often referred

to as ‘‘selectional restriction’’ in generative grammar. For instance, in the

combination read a newspaper, the reason that *drink a newspaper and

* read water are not possible is that read selects a noun which is

semantically restricted to a property of ‘containing written language’

(Nesselhauf 2003, 225) .

Free combinations are semantically transparent, i.e. the meaning of the

whole combination can easily be arrived at through our prior understanding

of the meaning of the constituent parts. To put it another way, the elements

are used in their literal senses, e.g. heavy bag, heavy basket, heavy stone, and

beautiful flower, yellow flower, red flower (Maurer-Stroh 2004, 26) . The

notion of semantic transparency is in correspondence with the ‘‘semantic

compositionality’’ discussed by Cruse (2000, 67). According to him, ‘‘the

meaning of a grammatically complex form is a compositional function of the

meaning of its grammatical constituents’’. Van der Linden (1993) takes both

19

aspects of free word combinations into consideration, i.e. production

(encoding) and comprehension (decoding). According to him the meaning of

free word combinations is compositional both for encoding and decoding.

Accordingly, collocations are recognizable as loosely fixed, semantically

transparent, arbitrary, conventionalized and recurrent combinations of words

in a language. Two points should be discussed with respect to loose

fixedness of collocations. The first point is about the restriction on syntactic

variability which is not so strict. For instance, heavy rain vs. rain heavily,

strong argument vs. argue strongly, are possible collocations. The second

point is about the restriction on the substitutability or lexical variability.

Here, the restriction is not semantically motivated, i.e. due to the semantic

properties of the constituents involved, but rather it is an arbitrary restriction.

Thus substitution is admissible but is arbitrarily limited. The following

example illustrates this. In the context of solar eclipse, one can talk about

total eclipse, or full eclipse, while combinations with absolute, complete,

entire, or whole are usually not acceptable.(Maurer-Stroh 2004, 26). This

example serves as an indicator that the link between the constituent parts is

lexical rather than semantic. This has also been pointed out by Sinclair

(1991).

Concerning the semantic transparency of collocation, while it is indisputable

that the meaning of the whole construction is semantically transparent, but it

is not always the case that all the constituent parts involved in collocation

are used in their literal senses. According to Cowie (1998), at least one

element of collocation should have a literal meaning and at least one

element should be used in its non-literal sense. Van der Linden concludes

20

that the meaning of collocations is compositional for encoding and non-

compositional for decoding.

According to Benson (1985), the most reliable criteria to discriminate

collocations from free combinations are ‘‘restricted commutability’’ and

‘‘frequency’’ of co-occurrence. Thus , to commit murder differs from free

combinations such as to analyze / boast of / condemn / describe murder in

two ways. Firstly the synonymy of the verb is restricted. In this instance the

only synonym seems to be to perpetrate . Secondly, the combination to

commit murder is used frequently; it springs readily to mind; it is

psychologically salient. (Wouden 1997, 9)

Nesselhauf (2003, 225) has attractively proposed the notion of ‘‘restricted

sense’’ for delimitations of different types of word combinations. According

to this notion, the sense of a word is said to be restricted if it satisfies one of

the following criteria:

1. Its sense is so specific that its combinability is limited to a small

number of words.

2. It can not be used in this sense with all words that are syntactically

and semantically possible.

For example, the sense of the word want is considered unrestricted since it

can combine with a great number of words such as toys, a child, a drink, a

car, truth , etc. While dial is considered as having restricted sense as it can

only combine with one (or at most very few ) words, e.g. number.

Consequently, she distinguishes between collocations and free word

combinations, saying that the component elements of free combinations are

used in their unrestricted sense, while at least one of the participating

21

constituents of collocations should be used in restricted sense, e.g. take a

picture / *take a film.

All the aforementioned points can be recapitulated in the table below

Table 2-1 Collocations vs. Free Word Combinations.

2.3.2 Collocations vs. Idioms

Idioms are sequences of words which are semantically and syntactically

restricted, so that they function as single units (Crystal 2003, 226).

Free Combination e.g. heavy bag

Collocation e.g. heavy rain

1-The syntactic and morphological variability of the elements is admissible but determined by the grammar of the given language, e.g. heavy bags, the heaviest bag.

1-They are loosely fixed which indicates that there is a place for syntactic and morphological variability, e.g. heavy rain, rain heavily.

2-The restriction on the substitutability is semantically motivated.

2-The restriction on the substitutability is arbitrary.

3-The component elements involved are used in their literal senses.

3-At least one of the elements should be used in literal sense and one is used in non-literal sense.

4-The constituents do not have restricted senses.

4-At least one of the elements is used in restricted sense and one is used in non-restricted sense.

5-Their meanings are compositional both for encoding and decoding.

5-Their meanings are compositional for encoding but non-compositional for decoding.

22

Semantically speaking, they are characterized as having meanings not

deducible from those of the individual words. Thus, their meanings, as has

been stated by Van der Linden, are non-compositional both for encoding and

decoding. The criterion of ‘’semantic opacity’’ of idioms is defined by

Sweet: ‘’the meaning of each idiom is an isolated fact which cannot be

inferred from the meaning of the words of which the idiom is made up.’’

(1900, 140). To give somebody a red carpet , to borrow Maurer-Stroh’s

examples, does not actually mean handing over a red carpet, but rather give

them a special welcome; and similarly, when someone makes heavy weather

of something, this has nothing to do with an atmospheric condition, but they

make things more complicated than they need to be. (2004, 27)

From a syntactic perspective, the words often do not permit the usual

variability they display in other contexts. For instance, it is raining cats and

dogs can not undergo any syntactic operations such as postposition or pre-

position, etc. nor can it allow for any morphological variability. Thus, *it is

raining a cat and a dog/ dogs and cats, etc. are not admissible. (Crystal

2003, 226)

A point which has attracted considerable discussions is the extent to which

degrees and kinds of idiomaticness can be established. Some idioms do

permit a degree of internal change, and are somewhat more literal than

others, e.g. it’s worth her while / the job will be worth my while, etc. Cowie

(1994) distinguishes between ‘‘figurative idioms’’ such as do a U-turn and

‘‘pure idioms’’ such as blow the gaff. According to him, figurative idioms

preserve a current literal interpretation. Substitution of their elements are

seldom possible. Pure idioms are those which have a purely figurative

meaning and do not preserve the current literal interpretation, and

23

substitution of the elements is impossible. Nesselhauf (2003) points out that

all the elements of the idioms are used in restricted senses and their

substitution is either impossible or at least very limited. Below is a table that

briefly makes a distinction between idioms and collocations according to

their defining criteria:

Idiom

e.g. heavy weather

Collocation

e.g. heavy rain

1-Often the elements involved in idioms are syntactically and morphologically invariable, variation is only permissible within a limited scope of idiomaticity.

1-The restriction on variability is not as strict as that of idioms. They are loosely fixed.

2-The substitution of the elements is either impossible or extremely limited.

2-The substitution of the elements is arbitrarily restricted.

3-All the component elements are used in non-literal senses, i.e. they are semantically not transparent.

3-Only one of the component elements is used in non-literal sense.

4-All the component elements have restricted senses.

4-Only one of the elements is used in restricted sense.

5-Their meanings are non-compositional both for encoding and decoding.

5-Their meanings are compositional for encoding and non-compositional for decoding.

Table 2-2 Collocations vs. Idioms

24

2.4.The Nature of Collocational Restrictions

It has already been pointed out that collocation as a lexical phenomenon can

be perceived as the tendency for words to occur together repeatedly. On the

one hand, this tendency leads to combinatorial predictability and semantic

dependency of the constituent elements of collocation. On the other hand, it

can successfully contribute to the establishment of collocational restrictions.

This interestingly raises an important question: what is the nature of the

collocational restrictions? To offer an appropriate answer to this question, it

might be useful to consider other types of restrictions discussed in some

linguistic theories.

Within the framework of Chomsky’s generative grammar, two types of

restrictions have been identified that govern the relationship between heads

and complements, namely, ‘’categorical restrictions’’ also known as

‘’subcategorization’’, and semantic or ‘’selectional restrictions’’. In addition

to the phonological, morphological, syntactic and semantic information,

there is also information about categorical restrictions and selectional

restrictions. They are altogether associated with any lexical entry in the

speaker’s lexicon. Lexicon is the native speaker’s intuition. It simply means

mental dictionary. Subcategorization restrictions are purely syntactic in

nature. They hold between given lexical items (predicates) and their

complements. Syntactically, cook is a verb which subcategorizes an NP as a

direct object for its complement, that is, it is to be followed by an NP. While

subcategorization is syntactic in nature, selectional restriction is semantic or

pragmatic in nature. For instance, it is the semantic property of the verb

convince that its object is presupposed to be a rational being (mind

possessing), but the degree to which a particular individual accepts a

25

sentence like I convinced my computer as a well formed sentence depends

on pragmatic factor, i.e. the individual’s beliefs. Selectional restrictions hold

between given items (predicates) and their participants (arguments). To say

that a verb like cook subcategorizes an NP for its complement does not

imply that the NP can be any NP. It should not violate the semantic

agreement it holds with its predicate, hence, it must be cookable (Chomsky

1965)

There is no way to consider collocational restriction as a type of selectional

restrictions or subcategorizations, since they are sharply distinguishable.

Collocational restrictions typically deal with the restrictions between heads

and complements at the individual level, whereas in cases of syntactic and

semantic restrictions, any member of the syntactic and semantic class or

category will do to satisfy the restriction (Wouden 1997). It is for a

collocational reason a native speaker rejects a combination like *quick food

and favours fast food, although quick and fast belong to the same syntactic

category and semantic field.

An interesting aspect of the collocational restrictions is the semantic

dependency or ‘‘semantic tailoring’’ (Allerton 1984). The case of adjective-

noun collocation might best illustrate the point. Consider the following

collocations:

a. heavy rain ‘a lot of‘

b. heavy schedule ‘busy’

c. heavy furniture ‘large and solid’

d. heavy sigh ‘loud and deep’

e. heavy soil ‘wet and sticky’

26

The meaning of heavy is interpreted relative to the noun it modifies. Thus,

heavy is semantically tailored to the nouns, i.e. it is the noun that decides on

the semantic interpretation of the adjective heavy (Maurer-Stroh 2004,

26).This example serves as an evidence for the collocation’s context

sensitivity as the contribution of heavy is different from context to context.

The incapability of making general statements about the collocational

behaviour seems to be another aspect of collocations. If it happens to find an

appropriate syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, etc. explanation for a particular

collocation, it will be unworkable to convert it into a more general statement

about collocation as a whole. For example, if the collocability of deep and

sleep is easily explainable in terms of conventional metaphor in the sense of

Lakoff and Johnson (1980) that sleep is a pit in which one can fall, from

which one can rise, etc. For many other intensifiers the case is not clear.

To go back to the previous question: what is the nature of the collocational

restrictions? If the restrictions are neither interpretable in terms of syntax nor

of semantics, then what are they? Wouden (1997, 54) uses the word

‘‘idiosyncratic’’ to describe the nature of the collocational restrictions. The

use of this adjective is justifiable on the ground of unavailability of general

syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, etc. statements about collocational

behaviour: ‘’‘collocation’ turned out to refer to that part of the junkyard of

linguistics where all relationships between lexical items that do not fit

elsewhere in the theory are thrown, never to be looked at by most linguists’’.

It seems that the most comfortable accommodation for collocation is the

speaker’s mental lexicon.

27

2.5.Classifications of Collocations

Various classifications of collocations are approachable through

investigations of different criteria which form basis for the classifications. In

his study of collocation, Firth (1957b) includes not only ‘‘usual

collocations’’ but also ‘‘unusual collocations’’. This classification seems to

be based on the frequency of co-occurrence since usual collocations are

more frequent and can be utilized in various fields while unusual

collocations are more restricted technical or personal collocations. Sinclair

(1991, 115) uses the same criterion as he makes a distinction between

‘‘significant’’ and ‘‘casual’’ collocations. According to him, a collocation is

said to be ‘’significant’’ if the probability of co-occurrence is in a higher

degree than that of what he calls ‘’casual’’ collocations. The words dog and

bark would very likely to constitute a significant collocation since bark is

expectedly to be found near the word dog. He is inclined to exclude those

items that are very frequent in all kinds of texts - noticeably grammatical

words - to be participating members of significant collocations. Perhaps this

inclination is based on his commitment to a view that lexis is a separate and

independent level of grammar.

Later on Sinclair slightly changes his attitude and forms an integrated

approach by which both lexical and grammatical aspects of collocations are

taken into consideration. As a result, he divides collocations into two

categories : ‘‘upward’’ and ‘‘downward’’ collocations. The first group

consist of words which habitually collocate with those items that are more

frequently used than the words themselves, e.g. back collocates with

at/down/from/into/on all of which are more frequent words than back .

likewise, the ‘’downward’’ collocations are words which habitually

28

collocate with those items that are less frequent than the words themselves,

e.g. arrive and bring are less frequently occurring collocates of back. He

makes a sharp distinctions between those two categories claiming that the

elements of ‘’upward’’ collocations (mostly prepositions, adverbs,

conjunctions, pronouns) tend to form grammatical frames while the elements

of the ‘’downward’’ collocations (mostly nouns and verbs) by contrast give

a semantic analysis of a word.

Benson, Benson and IIson (1990) advocate the view of non-separability of

lexis and grammar. They divide collocations into grammatical (G) and

lexical (L) collocations. Grammatical collocations usually consist of the

main words (a noun, an adjective or a verb) plus a preposition or

grammatical structure such as ‘to-infinitive’ or ‘that-clause’, and is

characterized by eight basic types of collocations, the types are designated

by G1, G2, etc.

G1 : Noun + Preposition: e.g. blockade against, apathy towards.

G2 : Noun + to-infinitive: e.g. it was a pleasure to do it. They felt a

compulsion to do it

G3 : Noun + that-clause: e.g. we reached an agreement that she

would represent us in court. He took an oath that he would do

his duty.

G4 : Preposition + Noun: e.g. by accident, in advance.

G5 : Adjective + Preposition: e.g. fond of children , hungry for

news.

G6 : Adjective + to-infinitive: e.g. it was necessary to work. She is

ready to go.

G7 : Adjective + that-clause: e.g. she was afraid that she would fail

29

the examination. It is necessary that he be replaced

immediately.

G8 : Consists of nineteen English verb patterns, e.g. (Verb + to-

infinitive) they began to speak., (Verb + bare infinitive ) we

must work and others.

Lexical collocations, in contrast to grammatical collocations, normally do

not contain prepositions, infinitives, or clauses, but consist of nouns,

adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. There are seven types of them designated by

L1, L2, etc.

L1: Verb (denoting creation and /or activation) + Noun/ pronoun

or prepositional phrase, e.g. make an impression , set an alarm.

L2: Verb (denoting eradication and/or nullification) + Noun. e.g.

lift a blockade, withdraw an offer.

L3: Adjective + Noun or (Noun used attributively + Noun) e.g. a

chronic alcohol, land reform .

L4: Noun + Verb (the verb names an action characteristic of the

person or thing designated by the noun) e.g. blood

circulates, bomb explode.

L5: Quantifier + Noun. e.g. a colony of bees, an article of

clothing.

L6: Adverb + Adjective . e.g. deeply absorbed,

hopelessly addicted.

L7: Verb + Adverb. e.g. anchor firmly, amuse thoroughly.

30

Lewis (2000, 63) lays down the criterion of ‘‘collocational strength’’ to

classify collocations. His classification is pedagogically motivated. For him

collocations are of four types: ‘‘unique collocations’’, ‘‘strong

collocations’’, ‘‘medium strength collocations’’ and ‘‘weak collocations’’.

In a unique collocation like foot the bills we can not imagine footing the

invoice or footing the coffee. This shows the uniqueness of foot in the

collocation. Similarly, we shrug our shoulders but not other parts of our

anatomy. Examples of strong collocations are trenchant criticism or rancid

butter. Although this does not mean that other things cannot be trenchant or

rancid, the collocational bond is too strong. In his view the medium strength

collocations are of the prime importance in expanding learners mental

lexicons. Make a mistake and significantly different are examples of medium

strong collocations. A white shirt and red wine represent weak collocations.

Although many things can be white or red but there is something more

predictable and so more collocational about these examples.

Chapter Three: Degree Modification and

Gradable Adjectives

31

Chapter Three Degree Modification and Gradable Adjectives

3.0. Introduction

This chapter endeavours to make a number of general points which will be

taken for granted in all that follows. The first point concerns the question of

degree modification. The rationale for having degree modification and

making it the focus of attention in this chapter is that: in the context of

adverb-adjective collocation, most adverbs tend to modify the degree or

extent of adjectival qualities they apply to. Bolinger’s dictum might best

illustrate the point as he states that ‘’Investigation will probably reveal that

virtually any adverb modifying an adjective tends to have or to develop an

intensifying meaning. Ordinarily these...limit a quality in some way, the

process of limitation itself tending to augment or reduce the scope of the

quality: ...One who is innately good is one who is more than ordinarily good;

one who is coldly polite is less than ordinarily polite’’ (1972, 23). Another

quotation taken this time from Allerton serves to make the point clearer.

Allerton (1987, 17) gives examples like cautiously optimistic, clearly visible

and easily accessible and he points out that ‘’although they express the

manner of display of the adjectival quality, the manner in this adjectival

context implies a particular degree of the adjectival quality: thus cautiously

optimistic means something like ‘’slightly optimistic’’, and easily accessible

is close to ‘very accessible’. Like many semantic divisions, the one between

manner and degree intensifiers therefore has an uncertain border area’’.

32

The present study assumes that an analysis of the semantic relation between

degree modifiers and adjectives contributes, to a certain extent, to the

combinatorial restrictions on adverb-adjective collocations at a higher level.

Therefore, a good account of degree modification becomes a primary

concern of this chapter. Meanwhile, it should be mentioned that, naturally,

not all adjective modifiers function to modify degree. Adverbs which are

semantically classed as ‘‘viewpoint’’ or ‘‘respect’’ (Quirk et al. 1985) do not

have intensifying force, but rather restrict the application of adjectival

qualities, e.g. politically balanced, emotionally unstable, etc. However, in

some less clear-cut cases, the merest elements of degree modification is felt.

For instance, theoretically in theoretically possible can be said to have a

somewhat reducing effect on the adjective; theoretically possible is slightly

less possible than unmarked possible (Lorenz 1999, 123).

Having considered the adverb’s functional tendency to modify degree, this

chapter gives a significant portion to a discussion of degree modifiers and

their categorization. The second point relates to the semantic feature of

gradability. Due to the fact that degree modifiers are concerned with an

assessment of a gradable constituent, any discussion of degree modification

would be incomplete without some detailed considerations of the question of

gradability. Therefore, gradability in adjectives should undergo a serious

scrutiny and takes up a greater part of this chapter. Finally, it is part of the

interest of the chapter to bring up a semantic model capable of accounting

for how both the adjective and the degree modifier exert semantic pressure

on one another. If such a model can successfully bring together the semantic

features of degree modifiers and adjectives which characterize their

combinatorial aspects, then it will be assumed that it can be applied in the

33

same way for all adverb-adjective combinations in which the adverb is

interpreted as having degree reading plus something else, e.g. undoubtedly

true, breathtakingly beautiful, comparatively easy, heavily overweight, etc.

3.1.Degree Modifiers : An Overview

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.

34

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.

35

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, pseudo-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

36

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

37

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)

38

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

39

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.

3.2. Earlier Classifications

With an eye on the similarities and differences among the members of the

category of degree modifiers, various attempts have been made to

categorize them by scholars working in this area of language. The

members of this category are similar in that they all indicate a certain

graded value of the item they apply to. The differences among them arise

out of the differences in their grading function, that is, they indicate

different values of some feature of the item they modify. Therefore, this

section is particularly devoted to the purpose of their categorization. Here

is a discussion of a number of scholars’ view in this respect:

3.2.1.Quirk et al. (1985)

Among the taxonomies suggested in previous treatments of degree

modification, Quirkian scalar system seems to be the most

comprehensive one. Quirk et al. (1985: 445) divide degree modifiers into

two distinct groups, namely, ‘‘amplifiers’’ and ‘‘downtoners’’. While

amplifiers ‘‘scale upwards from an assumed norm’’, downtoners ‘‘have a

lowering effect, usually scaling downwards from an assumed norm’’.

Then a more delicate subdivision of amplifiers and downtoners is made

40

into ‘‘maximizers’’, and ‘‘boosters’’ on the one hand, and

‘‘approximators’’, ‘‘compromizers’’, ‘‘diminishers’’, and ‘‘minimizers’’

on the other. Thus, the six functional categories are meant to represent

different ranges of a scale, each grade the meaning of their focus to the

respective degree, from the bare minimum ‘‘minimizers’’ to the perfect

or full extent ‘‘maximizers’’(See Figure 3-1) :

AMPLIFIERS Maximizers (e.g. completely, entirely, etc)

Booster (e.g. very, terribly, etc.)

DOWNTONERS Approximators (e.g. almost, nearly, etc.)

Compromizers (e.g. quite, rather, etc.)

Diminishers (e.g. partly, slightly, etc.)

Minimizers (e.g. hardly, scarcely, etc.)

Figure 3-1 Quirkian scalar system.

According to their system, ‘‘maximizers’’ can denote the upper extreme

on the scale, and ‘‘boosters’’ denote a high degree, a high point on the

scale. ‘‘Approximators’’ serve to indicate that the item which the degree

modifier applies to express more than is relevant. ‘‘Compromizers’’ have

only a slightly lowering effect and tend to call in question the

appropriateness of the item concerned. ‘‘Diminishers’’ scale downwards

and roughly mean ‘‘to a small extent’’. Finally, ‘‘minimizers’’, according

to their view, are negative maximizers meaning ‘‘(not) to any extent’’.

Despite the fact that no reason for different treatment of degree modifiers

of adjectives is felt, Quirkian system is particularly designed for degree

modifiers in their capacity as ‘‘subjuncts’’, that is, such adverbials which

41

have the clause level function of degree modification of verbs. In their

discussion of adjective modification, Quirk et al. (1985) only make a

very general distinction between ‘‘amplifiers’’ and ‘‘downtoners’’

without subdivisions. Research in this area has demonstrated the full

applicability of Quirkian system to modification of adjectives (cf. Lorenz

1999). Admittedly, Quirkian system is the most exhaustive one which has

been proved to be very useful for the identification of various degrees on

the scale. Therefore, it is this system that the present study employs to

test the intensifying force of the adverbs collocating with adjectives.

3.2.2. Bolinger (1972)

It is interesting to note that Bolinger (1972) had already applied the same

logic of classification and indeed distinguishes four functional categories,

namely, ‘‘boosters’’, ‘‘compromizers’’, ‘‘diminishers’’ and

‘‘minimizers’’, this is according to the place they occupy on the scale of

intensity (upper or lower part) and the direction in which they point

(upwards or downwards). The four categories, as can be noted, are all

part of the Quirkian taxonomy. Restricting himself to these four

categories, Bolinger passes over ‘‘maximizers’’ and ‘‘approximator’’. In

view of his analysis, this omission can hardly have been a matter of near

neglect. It is far more likely that Bolinger purposely avoids these two

categories due to his programmatic interest in degree words only.

Strictly speaking, the members of the two sets – ‘‘approximators’’ in

particular - do not scale the meaning of their focus. Corpus based

investigations in this respect have demonstrated their tendency to

collocate with adjectives which are not even scalable (cf. Altenberg 1991;

42

Paradis 1997; Lorenz 1999; Kamoen et al. 2011). Lorenz explains ‘‘If

something is almost impossible, almost indestructible, or nearly equal , it

is not ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ on a scale of possibility, destructibility or

equality, and if someone is almost dead or almost omnipotent, they are

likewise not ‘more’ or ‘less’ so’’ (1999, 90). In all these cases the

adjectives are in effect negated, but with the added information that what

is being described is close to reaching the adjectival quality. Therefore,

someone who is referred to as almost dead is in fact not dead but only

‘barely alive’. He also asserts that ‘‘maximizers’’, in much the same way,

do not really grade the meaning of their focus, but only assert their ‘full’

value. The collocates of maximizers are typically non-scalar, e.g.

completely innocent, entirely truthful, totally perfect, etc. Due to the fact

that the present study is concerned with all aspects of adverb-adjective

collocations, it cannot afford to make such an exclusion.

3.2.3.Allerton (1987)

Allerton (1987), like most researchers in this area, recognizes the basic

dichotomy between modifiers which point out an increasing value and

modifiers which point out a decreasing value. His contribution to the

discussion of degree modifiers is a classification where four subgroups

are distinguished according to the gradable feature involved. His

classification can be summarised as follows:

1. Scalar Modifiers indicate different parts of a mental scale of

degree which ranges from immeasurably high to zero, e.g.

extremely, very, pretty, rather, fairly, somewhat, slightly, not at all.

43

Within this group Allerton distinguishes ‘‘boosters’’,

‘‘moderators’’, ‘‘diminishers’’ and ‘‘zeroisers’’ which correspond

to Quirk et al’s subgroups except for their ‘‘maximizers’’.

2. Telic Modifiers relate the actual degree of the modified item to the

degree required for some purpose and place it above or below that

mark, e.g. easily, just, hardly, virtually, nearly.

3. Absolutive Modifiers indicate that the degree of the modified item

is ‘‘superlative’’, e.g. absolutely, utterly, totally, entirely, etc.

Absolutive modifiers, according to Allerton’s analysis, combine

with ‘‘superlative’’ types of adjectives. This group corresponds to

the category of ‘‘maximizers’’ in Quirkian system.

4. Differential Modifiers indicate the difference of degree between

the item being described and some reference point. They include

far, much, a lot, marginally, slightly, a bit, etc. in combination with

comparatives.

Two points need to be made with regard to Allerton’s classification.

First, he is basically concerned with the description of degree modifiers

of adjectives. Therefore, his classification is particularly projected for

this purpose. Second, what seems to form a basis for his classification is

the semantic features that correspond to the name of the groups.

Consequently, a number of differences can be found between his

classification and others. However, to economise on laborious detail, the

differences are not incorporated here.

44

3.2.4. Paradis (1997, 2000a, 2003, 2008)

In her treatment of the category of degree modifiers of adjectives, Paradis

(1997, 2000a, 2003, 2008) postulates that degree modifiers form five

different paradigms, namely, ‘‘maximizers’, ‘‘boosters’’,

‘‘approximators’’, ‘‘moderators’’ and ‘‘diminishers’’, the members of

which express more or less the same degree. The employment of such

terms indicates that she is strongly influenced by Quirk et al’s and

Allerton’s classifications. Apparently, she prefers the terms

‘‘reinforcers’’ and ‘‘attenuators’’ to Quirk et al’s ‘‘amplifiers’’ and

‘‘downtoners’’. She maintains that the grading force expressed by the

members of the five paradigms form a scale, or rather a cline, ranging

from strongly reinforcing modifiers to strongly attenuating modifiers.

The modifiers are conceived of as occupying different positions on this

continuum. ‘‘Maximizers’’ exhibit the strongest degree of reinforcement

followed by ‘‘boosters’’. ‘‘Approximators’’ and ‘‘moderators’’ are just

slightly attenuating, whereas ‘‘diminishers’’ have a stronger attenuating

force.

Taking into consideration the type of grading involved in the different

paradigms of the category of degree modifiers, she rightly asserts that

they fall into two subsets. One subset involves grading in terms of

‘‘totality’’, i.e. (either-or), and the other subset involves scaling, i.e.

(more-or-less). Both among ‘‘scalar degree modifiers’’ and ‘‘totality

modifiers’’ there are those that reinforce and those that attenuate some

value of the adjective in question (see Table 3-1). It is important to note

that this basic difference is missing in all the three classifications

described in this section.

45

DEGREE TOTALITY MODIFIERS SCALAR MODIFIERS

REINFORCER maximizer completely (full) booster very (tired)

ATTENUATOR approximators almost (full) moderator rather (tired)

diminisher slightly (tired)

Table 3-1 Totality modifiers and scalar modifiers combined with levels of degree

Paradis’ distinction between ‘‘scalar modifiers’’ and ‘‘totality modifiers’’

inevitably draws attention to certain semantic features of adjectives in

question. The most relevant semantic feature which seems to be involved

in this respect is gradablility. Completely dead but not *very dead is

perfectly explainable by stating that while certain adjectives can be

graded in terms of ‘‘either-or’’ others can not. Therefore, the next section

is a particular account of adjectives and gradability with the aim of

finding out to what extent semantic features of adjectives contribute to

the restrictions on adverb-adjective collocation.

3.3.Adjectives and Gradability

In discussing the question of gradability, it is desirable to incorporate

some descriptions of the class of adjectives in the literature. Quirk et al.

(1985, 403) describe the class of adjectives in terms of typicality. They

propose four main ‘‘criteria for adjectives’’:

(a) Occurrence in attributive function

(b) Occurrence in predicative function

(c) Premodification by the intensifier very

(d) Occurrence in comparative and superlative forms

(inflectional or periphrastic)

46

Most adjectives, the so-called ‘‘central’’ ones, will satisfy both criteria

(a) and (b). But there are, of course, ‘‘peripheral’’ adjectives that only

occur attributively; compare utter in utter fool or medical in medical

student. Others only occur in predicative position, such as afraid, or call

for complementation, e.g. glad(that) or subject (to) (Bolinger 1967a). For

the reasons that both types clearly convey adjectival qualities and behave

almost the same way with respect to degree modification, ‘‘central’’ and

‘‘peripheral’’ adjectives are of the same interest for this study. Criteria

(c) and (d) have to do with gradability. In this case, it is only gradable

adjectives which can be premodified by very, and can occur in

comparative and superlative form. These two characteristics are both

evidence of the fact that there is a scalar feature in the adjective.

As gradability is a constitutive principle of (c) and (d), one can argue that

the latter is a special case of the former, to put it in another way, they

represent two sides of the same coin. If an adjective can be modified by

very, it can also undergo comparison, and vice versa. Lorenz (1999)

states that comparatives and superlatives are grammatical ways of scaling

upwards or downwards from a given point of reference, namely, the basis

of comparison. To say that something is very important amounts to

saying that it is more important than just ‘important’. In Lorenz’s view,

criterion (d) is technically redundant.

According to Collins Cobuild English Grammar (CCEG) (2005, 65) the

most important things to notice about an English adjective are:

1. what structure it is in, that is, before a noun or after a linking verb

2. what type of adjective it is, that is, ‘‘qualitative’’ or ‘‘classifying’’

47

While the first point obviously corresponds to attributive and predicative

positions of adjectives discussed earlier by Quirk et al., the second point

merits attention. The division of adjectives into ‘‘qualitative’’ and

‘‘classifying’’ is closely related to the question of gradability. In their

function to identify qualities which someone or something has,

‘‘qualitative adjectives’’ are gradable, which means that the person or

thing referred to can have more or less of the quality mentioned. Such as

sad in a sad story, pretty in a pretty girl, small in a small child. Like

Quirk et al., (CCEG) identifies a gradable adjective by the possibility of

‘‘submodification’’ by very and rather, and by the possibility of these

adjectives to occur in the comparative and the superlative. ‘‘Classifying

adjectives’’, on the other hand, are said to identify the class that

something belongs to. Financial in the case of financial help is used as an

example of classifying adjective. Financial has the function of

classifying help, which is to say that, there are various kinds of help and

financial help is one of them. As they place something in a class,

classifying adjectives are not gradable in the way that qualitative

adjectives are. Things are either in a particular class or not. Therefore,

classifying adjectives do not have comparatives and superlatives and are

not normally used with degree modifiers such as very or rather.

It is also pointed out in (CCEG) that there are many adjectives which are

polysemous between being qualitative and classifying, and accordingly,

they vary with respect to gradability. For instance, in the phrase the

emotional needs of children, emotional is classifying and nongradable. It

can neither undergo comparison, nor be modified by a degree modifier.

However, in the phrase an emotional person, emotional is qualitative and

48

gradable. It has a comparative and superlative form, and it can be used

with very. A person can be very emotional or more emotional than

somebody else. This example suggests that what makes the reading of the

adjective gradable or nongradable depends on the noun it modifies.

At this point it has something of value to refer to a model which is

capable of explaining what constitutes ‘‘polysemy’’ of such adjectives. In

her study on adjectives, Warren (1984) presents a model of the

relationship between the adjective and the noun to which it applies. She

states that to uncover the nature of the adjective, one must be familiar

with both the denotation of the adjective and with its relation to the noun

it qualifies. Her semantic analysis involves two components, ‘‘referential

content’’ and ‘‘relator’’ (See Figure 3-2).

a sad girl

referential content relator

‘‘sadness’’ ‘‘experiencing’’

Figure 3-2 Warren’s semantic model of the meaning of an adjective

The meaning of sad in a sad girl is analyzed in two components and spelled

out as ‘‘X experiences sadness’’. In the following examples, it is the relator

which seems to be responsible for constituting the polysemy of the

adjectives: nervous breakdown versus nervous man, criminal court versus

criminal assault and musical instrument versus musical child. Consider the

elements of nervous in nervous breakdown and nervous man in Figure 3-3

49

a nervous breakdown a nervous man

‘‘ nerves/nervousness’’ ‘‘ caused by’’ ‘‘ nervousness’’ ‘‘ experiencing’’

Figure 3-3 The semantic elements of nervous

A nervous breakdown can be spelled out as ‘‘X is caused by nerve’’ and a

nervous man as ‘‘X experiences nervousness’’. Warren states that nervous in

nervous breakdown is ‘‘classifying’’ in that it restricts the application of

breakdown. A nervous breakdown is a breakdown among other types of

breakdown. While nervous in a nervous man is ‘‘qualitative’’ in that it

qualifies the person in question. She points out that when nervous combines

with man, it has a ‘‘relator’’ which allows grading, but when nervous

combines with breakdown, it has a ‘‘relator’’ which is not compatible with

gradability and so is resistant to modification of degree. Thus, polysemy in

an adjective can be said to be due to the differences in at least one of the two

main semantic components of adjectives, i.e. in the ‘‘referential content’’

and/or in the ‘‘relator’’.

According to Paradis, even in the case of ‘‘monosemy’’, some adjectives

which are typically classifying in their right contexts can acquire a gradable

reading. For instance, the adjective Russian in the man is Russian is

classifying and nongradable, in other words, it has a bias towards

nongradability. However, it can be coerced into a gradable reading, and the

presence of a degree modifier may serve to confirm this, e.g. the man is very

Russian, which is to be interpreted as ‘‘Russian style’’. The reason for

promoting such a reading is that Russian can take a relator involving

50

resemblance, which is compatible with grading (1997, 46). At this point it

has been shown that nervous is polysemous between a gradable/qualitative

and nongradable/classifying meaning. While Russian is monosemous and

basically nongradable but can undergo ‘‘contextual modulation’’. Problems

of this nature will be discussed later in this chapter.

Returning now to the question of establishing criteria for gradability in

adjectives. Admittedly, the traditional criteria for gradability, namely,

(comparability) and (possibility to be modified by very), are of a limited

value since there are many adjectives which do not occur in the comparative

or the superlative but nevertheless occur with degree modifiers, although not

with the degree modifiers of the type very. Paradis (1997, 47) gives the

example of identical to illustrate the case in point. Identical can be modified

with respect to ‘‘totality’’ by means of maximizing and approximating

modifiers such as absolutely and almost. Identical, is thus not gradable in the

sense that good is, since it can not be compared (*more identical, most

identical) and since it is restricted to certain degree modifiers. Writing along

the same line, Lorenz suggests a rephrasing to Quirk et al’s third criterion,

namely, premodification by very, and he reasonably recommends

‘‘premodification by very or absolutely’’ (1999, 40).

3.4. Classification of Gradable Adjectives

Since the present study is restricted to adjectives which possess a gradable

feature, a first division has to be made between gradable and nongradable

adjectives. Paradis (1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2008) is inclined to make

such a division on the basis of whether the adjective can combine with

degree modifiers or not. Gradable adjectives combine in a natural way with

51

degree modifiers, e.g. very good, completely dead, absolutely terrific,

whereas nongradable adjectives normally reject degree modifiers, e.g. ?very

classical, ?completely daily, ?quite symphonic. Therefore, only gradable

adjectives will be subjected to a thorough scrutiny.

Having considered adjectives such as identical, impossible, sufficient, etc.

which are only modifiable with respect to ‘‘totality’’, Allerton (1987)

presents a classification of gradable adjectives. First, he distinguishes three

basic types of gradable adjectives. These three basic adjective classes

correspond to his degree modifier classes presented in section 3.2.3. of this

chapter. They are:

a. Scalar, e.g. big, bright, pretty

b. Telic, e.g. sufficient, cooked, perceptible

c. Absolutive, e.g. huge, scorching, gorgeous

He proceeds to point out that this division is not sufficient. The relationship

between intensifier classes and adjective classes is not simply a one-to-one

relationship. Many adjectives can combine with more than one class of

degree modifier. Therefore, Allerton refines his model in the following way:

d. Scalar-Telic, e.g. warm, late, noticeable

e. Scalar-Absolutive, e.g. different, beautiful

f. Telic-Absolutive, e.g. boiling(hot), dead, possible

g. Scalar-Telic-Absolutive, e.g. dark, successful, acceptable

The latter four types of gradables thus co-occur with the two or three

correspondingly named degree modifier classes.

52

Following Allerton, Paradis assumes that there are three basic types of

adjectives. She keeps the term ‘‘scalar adjectives’’ for the subgroup that

corresponds to Allerton’s category with the same name. However, she

renames the other two groups. The group that corresponds to Allerton’s

‘‘absolutive adjectives’’ is named ‘‘extreme adjectives’’ instead, since she

believes that they are not absolute. Finally, ‘‘telic adjectives’’ are called

‘‘limit adjectives’’ as they are all associated with a limit.

Closely associated with gradability is the notion of ‘‘boundedness’’ which

appears to be useful in the conceptualization of the three types of gradable

adjectives (Paradis 2008). Accordingly, scalar adjectives are ‘‘unbounded’’

and conceptualized in terms of ‘‘scalarity’’, i.e. (more-or-less) conception,

e.g. good, long, fast, interesting, etc. Limit adjectives, on the other hand, are

associated with a definite boundary and conceptualized in terms of

‘‘totality’’, i.e. (either-or) conception, e.g. identical, true, dead, etc. Extreme

adjectives, in turn, belong to ‘‘totality’’ adjectives even though they are

conceptualized slightly differently, e.g. brilliant, magnificent, disastrous,

minute, etc. which are conceptualized according to a scale, but on that scale

they represent an extreme point. For this reason they are conflated with the

bounded limit adjectives. In order to reveal other semantic features which

characterize the three types of adjectives, Paradis, who seems to be inspired

by Cruse (1986), distinguishes four criteria relevant to gradability in

adjectives which are:

1. the possibility to occur in the comparative and the superlative

2. the possibility to fill the x slot in How x is it?

3. the possibility to fill the x slot in how x!

4. the type of oppositeness involve

53

In what follows, Paradis’ typology of gradable adjectives will be presented

with a particular reference to the aforementioned criteria.

3.4.1 Scalar Adjectives

Paradis applies the four criteria for gradability to six items selected as

examples of scalar adjectives, namely, good, fast, long, difficult, nasty, and

interesting (1997, 51). The first criterion concerns the comparability of

adjectives. Scalar adjectives are comparable, that is, they occur in the

comparative and the superlative, e.g. good, better, best; long, longer,

longest; etc. Two referents can thus be compared with one another by means

of a scalar adjective, e.g. ‘‘This car is faster than that car’’. Two referents

can also be compared for equality, e.g. ‘‘This car is as fast as that car’’.

Even when they are not explicitly comparative in form, scalar adjectives are

relative and interpreted comparatively. It is long is to be understood to mean

‘‘longer than X’’ or ‘‘longer than I like it to be’’, where X is some implicit

reference point on the scale of length.

There is no fixed value of scalar adjectives, rather they cover a range of the

quality involved. This range varies with the referent and/or the standard that

the speaker bases his judgment on. For example, fast in a fast aeroplane is

not likely to have the same range as fast in a fast car. The assumed level

occupied by fast on the abstract scale is different for an aeroplane and a car.

The ranges differ according to the properties of the referent. A fast car, for

example, may be understood as meaning something like ‘‘fast for a car’’ or

‘‘faster than an ordinary car’’. Such judgments are based on some generally

accepted norm. However, judgments of the range of scalar adjectives can

also be subjective and speaker-oriented. For instance, a car may be fast for

54

some people and in some situations, whereas it may be regarded as slow for

others and/or in other situations.

The second criterion concerns the possibility for an adjective to occur in the

question ‘‘How x is it?’’. This question applies in a natural way to inherently

scalar adjectives. It elicits a scalar answer, which indicates a certain range of

degree that is more specific than the adjective itself, e.g. ‘‘How good is the

book?’’ – ‘‘It is very good’’; ‘‘How long is your skirt?’’ – ‘‘It is rather

long’’. The ability to enter into the question ‘‘How x is it?’’ is another

indication that an adjective is inherently scalar. The third criterion concerns

the possibility of the adjective to occur in exclamatory expressions. All

scalar adjectives can be used in such frames, e.g. How good!; How fast!;

How interesting!

The fourth criterion concerns the type of relationship of oppositeness

involved. Scalar adjectives have antonyms, e.g. good-bad, fast-slow,

difficult-easy, etc. Cruse (1986, 204) defines antonyms in the following way:

i. Antonyms are fully gradable...

ii. The members of a pair denote degrees of some variable property such

as length, speed, weight, accuracy, etc.

iii. When more strongly intensified, the members of a pair move, as it

were, in opposite directions along the scale representing degrees of

the relevant variable property. Thus, very heavy and very light, for

instance, are more widely separated on the scale of weight than fairly

heavy and fairly light.

iv. The terms of a pair do not strictly bisect a domain : there is a range of

values of the variable property, lying between those covered by the

55

opposed terms, which cannot be properly referred to by either terms.

As a result, a statement containing one member of an antonym pair

stands in a relation of contrariety with the parallel statement

containing the other term. Thus, It’s long and It’s short are contrary,

not contradictory, statements. Furthermore, the statement It’s neither

long nor short is not paradoxical, since there is a region on the scale

of length which exactly fits this description.

Paradis points out that scalar adjectives are ‘‘implicit comparatives’’. If one

talks about a long way or a long pen, the opposite short is automatically

evoked. Long and short compare the length of some referent to an assumed

norm, which is not objectively measurable but is related to the referent as

judged by the speaker. It has been shown at this point that scalar adjectives

are conceptualized as occupying a range along a scale (See Figure 3-4)

short1 long1

(very short)2 short2 (fairly short)2 (fairly long)2 long2 (very long)2

Figure 3-4 The conceptualization of the scalar adjectives short and long

Short1 ranges over the part of the scale of length which represents

‘‘shortness’’, and long1 correspondingly ranges over ‘‘longness’’. The two

parts of the scale of length can be further specified and restricted by the use

degree modifiers. For instance, very long2 occupies only a part of the scale of

‘‘longness’’. When short and long are reinforced or attenuated by degree

modifiers, the unmodified short2 and long2 are conceived of as occupying a

range in the middle of the scale of ‘‘shortness’’ and ‘‘longness’’

56

respectively, while, for example very long2 occupies the upper part and fairly

long2 the lower part and vice versa on the scale of ‘‘shortness’’, where fairly

short2 occupies the upper part and very short2 the lower part. This

interpretation of short2 and long2 as occupying subranges is only possible in

contrast to other subranges, for example very long2 as in:

A: How long was your coffee break yesterday?

B: Well, it wasn’t very long, but I admit it was long.

The last point made by Paradis – a point which seems to be the most

important and of a particular interest of this study - is that ‘’scalar adjectives

combine with scalar degree modifiers’’.

3.4.2. Extreme Adjectives

Just as scalar adjectives can be said to be ‘‘implicit comparatives’’, extreme

adjectives are aptly described as ‘‘implicit superlatives’’ by Cruse (1986,

216), since they express a superlative degree of a certain feature. Paradis’

examples of extreme adjectives are: excellent, huge, minute, terrific,

disastrous, and brilliant (1997, 54). Extreme adjectives are conceptualized

as occupying the outer part of a scale. An obvious example of this is the

scale of merit, where the superlatives excellent and terrible can occupy the

positive and the negative extremes of the scale with the implicit

comparatives good and bad in between. Another example is the scale of size,

where small and big are nested within the pair minute and huge.

This inevitably raises an important question concerning the relation between

the ‘‘implicit superlatives’’ and the ‘‘implicit comparatives’’, that is,

between extreme adjectives and the items nested within on the scale.

57

According to Lehrer & Lehrer (1982, 488) there are two ways of interpreting

implicit superlatives in relation to implicit comparatives. On the one hand,

excellent can be considered a hyponym of good, and terrible a hyponym of

bad. Hyponymy is based on taxonomic relations, forming a hierarchy. For

instance, good is a superordinate of a number of adjectives denoting positive

evaluation, e.g. excellent, great, fine. Lehrer & Lehrer make use of one-way

entailment and the ‘‘not-only test’’ in diagnosing the relation of hyponymy.

The one-way entailment works as follows: ‘‘X is excellent’’ entails ‘‘X is

good’’, whereas the converse, i.e. ‘‘X is good’’ does not entail ‘’X is

excellent’’, hence excellent is a hyponym of good. The ‘‘not-only test’’

works in the following manner: ‘‘This wine is not only good, it’s excellent’’

and ‘‘that is not only a car, it’s a Cadillac’’, since a hyponym will mean

everything the superordinate means plus something else.

Lehrer & Lehrer also point out that on the other hand the relationship

between an ‘‘implicit superlative’’ and an ‘‘implicit comparative’’ can be

modelled on a scale, where the members are incompatible elements. The

‘‘incompatibility’’ interpretation is demonstrated by the following sentence:

‘‘This wine is not good, it’s excellent’’. Thus according to Lehrer & Lehrer,

both the hyponymy interpretation and the scale interpretation are possible.

However, the hyponymy interpretation is preferable, since, as they say, it

passes the ‘‘not-only test’’. The ‘‘not-only test’’ does not apply to true

incompatibles, i.e. to members of a scale. Paradis (1997) agrees with Lehrer

& Lehrer that there are two possible interpretations of the relation between

good and excellent. However, she does not agree that one of the

interpretations is invariably preferable. In her view there are two possible

58

interpretations of good. One good is the superordinate, the other good is one

of the members of the scale. Consider Figure 3-5.

[GOOD1]

excellent extremely good2

good2 good2

fairly good2

satisfactory

fairly bad2

bad2 bad2

terrible extremely bad2

[BAD1]

Figure 3-5 the combined scale-hyponymy relation of good and bad

Figure 3-5 illustrates the superordinate relation of GOOD1 and BAD1 in

relation to other adjectives. GOOD1 applies to the positive half of the

evaluative scale and BAD1 to the negative half. It also shows that the

adjectives, excellent, good2, satisfactory, bad2, terrible, apply to different,

much more restricted, ranges on the scale. It should also be noted that the

modified instances of good and bad cover different ranges on the scale

compared to the corresponding items on the left in the figure. This means

that in the case of judgements of merit, English speakers can choose their

expression from either of the two systems.

For the purpose of this study, it suffices to say that extreme adjectives are

conceptualized as occupying an extreme position on a scale. This way of

conceptualizing them has a certain implications for the type of gradability

59

involved. For the purpose of characterization, it is now necessary to test

extreme adjectives against the four criteria mentioned earlier. The first

criterion concerns the comparability of adjectives. Comparability of extreme

adjectives is a matter of debate. Some speakers reject comparative

constructions, such as ?A is more excellent than B, and ?A is as excellent as

B or superlatives such as ?A is the most excellent of them all, while others

find such constructions perfectly acceptable. According to Paradis, the

reason for the awkwardness of extreme adjectives in the comparative and the

superlative is that they already indicate a fixed degree. Bolinger (1967b, 4)

has been quoted by Paradis in support of the possibility of extreme

adjectives to be found in comparatives and superlatives, saying that ‘‘the

fondness of exaggeration pulls many of the adjectives representing these

extremes off their perches and comparing them then becomes possible : a

more perfect union’’ .

Secondly, the question How x is it? is awkward in the context of extreme

adjectives, e.g. ?How excellent is it?, ?How minute is it?. The reason is that

the ‘‘superlativeness’’ that is implicit in the adjectives already indicates a

more or less precise degree, i.e. the superlative degree. They do not refer to a

range in the same way as scalar adjectives do, but indicate the extreme point

on a scale. On the other hand, Paradis confirms the naturalness of extreme

adjectives in exclamatory expressions, e.g. How terrific!, How huge!. The

reason is that adjectives in exclamatory expressions indicate the degree

implied by such utterances, i.e. ‘‘a very high degree’’.

The fourth criterion concerns the kind of oppositeness involved. Paradis,

along the same line with Cruse (1986), points out that extreme adjectives

differ from typical scalar antonyms in that they do not represent a range on

60

the scale, and in that they are not fully comparable. However, like scalar

adjectives, extreme adjectives are contrary elements. There is a ‘‘pivotal

region’’ (Cruse 1986, 205) lying between the pair, which need not be

referred to by either of the members. ‘‘It is neither excellent, nor terrible’’ is

conceivable since there is a region on the scale that may correspond to this

description. The same is true of the scalar adjectives: ‘‘It is neither good nor

bad’’ . Logically, this is the most important trait with respect to the type of

oppositeness involved. For this reason, Paradis regards extreme adjectives as

antonymic, even though they do not comply with all the characteristics of

typical antonyms presented in section 3.4.1.

Cruse (1986, 216) states that one characteristic of extreme adjectives is that

they combine with absolutely, e.g. absolutely excellent, absolutely huge,

absolutely minute. However, Paradis realizes that they are not only

combinable with absolutely but also with other maximizing modifiers, e.g.

quite marvellous, utterly disastrous and totally brilliant. Also , she adds, it is

possible to combine some of them with almost, e.g. almost brilliant, almost

terrific, almost disastrous, but what happens then is rather a case of

‘‘contextual modulation’’ in which the extreme adjective is conceptualized

in terms of ‘‘either-or’’, i.e. as a limit adjective instead.

Both extreme adjectives and maximizers represent the ultimate position.

This ‘‘inherent superlativity’’ in both elements explains why they combine

in a harmonious way. The function of the maximizers is to reinforce the

extreme position of the adjectives. Furthermore, Paradis explains that the

superlativity of extreme adjectives and the consequent conceptualization of

them as occupying an extreme point may lead to their resistance to

combining with scalar modifiers, such as very, slightly, fairly. Scalar

61

modifiers indicate a range above or below an assumed mean value. Extreme

adjectives are already at the top or the bottom of that scale (see Figure 3-5).

The superlativity also explains the resistance to attenuation, since the

speaker has already committed himself/herself to using an adjective which

indicates an ultimate position.

3.4.3. Limit Adjectives

Paradis’ examples for limit adjectives are true, sober, sufficient, dead,

identical and possible (1997, 57). She points out that limit adjectives differ

from scalar adjectives and extreme adjectives in that they are associated with

a limit and conceptualized in terms of ‘‘either-or’’. Something is either true

or not true, and somebody is either dead or not dead, sober or not sober and

so on. Death, truth, and sobriety are perceived as having crossed a limit of

criterial nature (Warren 1984). In principle there is no arguing about what

these adjectives mean. Once speakers agree on their meaning, they also

agree on the application of the adjectives to a certain referent. For example,

a dead body is a dead body for all speakers, since there is not only

consensus as to the meaning of dead, but also to its application. Scalar

adjectives and extreme adjectives are predominantly ‘‘evaluative-

attributive’’ (Warren 1984). Even though speakers interpret ‘‘evaluative

adjectives’’ in the same way, they may not agree on their application. A fair

assessment for one person may be an unfair assessment for somebody else,

even though they agree on the meanings of fair and unfair.

Turning now to the characteristics of limit adjectives in terms of the four

criteria used for the categorization of adjectives with respect to gradability.

Firstly, Limit adjectives are not comparable. They do not occur in the

62

comparative or the superlative, e.g. ?truer, ?the truest, ?deader, ?the

deadest. This is an effect of their absolute meaning. Limit adjectives cannot

be compared to different standards, since they are not relative. Secondly,

limit adjectives are awkward in the question How x is it?, e.g. ?How

sufficient is that?, ?How identical are they? The reason is that they are not

normally viewed in terms of a range, i.e. in terms of ‘‘more-or-less’’, but in

terms of ‘‘either-or’’. The question therefore is irrelevant. Thirdly, limit

adjectives reject exclamatory expressions, e.g. ?How dead!, ?How

identical!, ?How sober!. The reason is that there is no high or extreme

degree of limit adjectives in terms of a scale.

Finally, there is a logical difference between scalar adjectives and extreme

adjectives on the one hand and limit adjectives on the other with respect to

their conceptualization in relation to their opposites. Scalar adjectives and

extreme adjectives have an antonymic relation to their opposites. Limit

adjectives, on the other hand, are absolute and divide some conceptual

domain in two distinct parts. A limit adjective stands in a relation of true

‘‘incompatibility’’ to its opposite element. For instance, something that is

true cannot be false, and vice versa. Cruse (1986) calls this type of lexical

opposition ‘‘complementary’’. He makes use of two diagnostic tests to

identify ‘‘complementary’’ adjective:

1. If we deny that one term applies to some situation, we effectively

commit ourselves to the applicability of the other term. For instance,

this is not true entails that this is false. A statement containing one

member of a complementary pair stands in a relation of contradiction

to a parallel statement containing the other term

63

2. Complementaries can also be diagnosed by the anomalous nature of a

sentence denying both terms: *this is neither true nor false (1986,

198).

Paradis points out that pairs of opposites are not always from the same group

of adjectives. For example, a limit adjective can also form a pair with a

scalar adjective, e.g. sober as opposed to drunk. Another point is that limit

adjectives do not select scalar degree modifiers because of their ‘‘either-or’’

conceptualization, e.g. ?fairly dead, ?extremely true. However, they can

combine with ‘‘totality modifiers’’, e.g. perfectly true, completely dead,

almost possible, quite sufficient, since these modifiers are associated with

completeness. This fact explains why they harmonize with maximizers.

Also, limit adjectives can be approximated by almost. The reason for this is

again the existence of a limit that has to be transgressed in order for the

adjective to apply.

Paradis concludes that limit adjectives appear to be the least typically

gradable type of adjectives. They are not comparable, they do not exhibit

different degrees, they cannot be used in exclamatory expressions, but they

can be reinforced and attenuated with respect to the limit they are associated

with. The last point is that a great many limit adjectives are susceptible to

being laid out on the scale as well, very true, very possible, pretty sober.

They are, however, biased towards being limit adjectives, since scalar

readings of these adjectives have to be explicitly indicated by means of, for

example, degree modifiers. The section next directs its attention to this

question. It is now highly desirable to recapitulate all the abovementioned

points concerning the three types of gradable adjectives in the table below:

64

CRITERIA DESIGNED FOR THE TYPOLOGY OF THE ADJECTIVES

CATEGORIZATION Scalar adjectives extreme adjectives limit adjectives

e.g. big, small.. e.g. huge, minute.. e.g. dead, alive..

1.COMPARABILITY fully comparable their comparability not comparable

is arguable

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

EVALUATIVE FEATURES 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

65

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

66

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’’

67

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

68

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

69

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

70

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

71

‘‘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.

72

‘‘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

Chapter Four 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

74

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-

75

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

76

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

77

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

1971).

Lorenz (1999) points out that intensification expresses an ‘‘interpersonal’’

message in what might otherwise be taken to be a purely ‘‘ideational’’

statement. He definitely makes use of Halliday’s (1985) distinction between

‘‘ideational’’ meaning and ‘‘interpersonal’’ meaning. According to Lorenz,

intensification is ‘‘interpersonal’’ in the sense that it can be used to establish

a link between speakers and listeners or writers and readers, and by which

the subjectivity and personal commitment can be detected. ‘‘Degree’’

adverbs are frequently used as vehicles for emotion, emotion which the

speaker or the writer feels at the moment and emotion which can be elicited

from the listener or reader. Under the influence of certain feelings and

emotions, one searches for suitable words to communicate his /her feelings

and often settles on words which may be more accurate than a simple

description of the situation would demand. Thus, in addition to adding

emphasis, ‘‘degree’’ adverbs can be used to bring about precision.

Besides, a sociolinguistic and stylistic dimension of degree modification has

been recognized by scholars like Benzinger (1971), Lorenz (1999), Ito &

Tagliamonte (2003), to mention just a few. Lorenz points out that ‘‘degree’’

adverbs can be used as ‘‘shibboleths’’, i.e. as linguistic clues to the identity

and group membership of the speaker. This is particularly apparent in the

language of ‘‘yoof’’: every generation of teenagers creates its own set of

expressions like ab fab (absolutely fabulous), bloody brill (brilliant), etc.

And just as these expressions are noted by outsiders and begin to be adopted

on a wider scale, they are ‘‘out’’ and obsolete in their in-group function.

78

Crudely speaking, such items either disappear or become mainstream usage

(1999, 25).

Closely relevant to this point, Benzinger (1971) recognizes the stylistic

nature of ‘‘degree’’ adverbs in their employment by writers as a stylistic

technique for achieving artistic effects in literature. For instance, they can be

used for:

1. delineating characters in the stories

2. achieving irony through their effective manipulation by writers

3. creating tone, e.g. being innovative, fresh, novel or conservative,

serious, etc.

4. signalling social status

5. indicating intelligence, education and sophistication of the speakers,

e.g. the more sophisticated a speaker, the greater the variety among

the degree modifiers which do appear, while the less sophisticated

speaker restricts himself/herself to a very limited range of degree

modifiers

In her attempt to examine the diachronical status of ‘‘degree’’ adverbs,

Benzinger realizes that a great number of traditional grammar books which

set themselves up as arbiters of style almost unanimously recommend

against the use of ‘‘degree’’ adverbs. What is worth noting, however, is the

great variety of reasons given for avoiding their use. The most common

among them is the assertion that ‘‘degree’’ adverbs have been so

overworked that they have become virtually colourless and meaningless.

The words that have been commonly employed as ‘‘degree’’ adverbs (or

degree modifiers) nowadays have long been lexical items and functioning

79

lexically for a long time. Due to their widespread popularity and excessive

use by the speakers of the language, they begin to lose their lexical meaning

and become functioning as grammatical items rather than lexical items. This

is said to be the result of the process of grammaticalization which will be the

topic of the Section next.

That there are so many variants of ‘‘degree’’ adverbs which indicate the

same degree and that the variants are not interchangeable in their application

are generally agreed upon and can not be gainsaid. This is actually in favour

of the fact that ‘‘degree’’ adverbs are not lexically empty. Even if they have

lost much of their original meaning and force, the choice of one over the

other, which is highly a matter of individual preference, makes a definite

deference in meaning.

To sum up, the very essence of what is being said so far concerning the

functions and characteristic features attributed to the adverbs under the

semantic category of ‘‘degree’’ can be encapsulated in the following points:

1. They are markers of subjectivity.

2. They are intrinsically associated with the semantic notion of

‘’ degree’’.

3. They are grammaticalized and being so, they are semantically weak,

consequently:

a. they can not contribute to the meaning of the adjective they

apply to;

b. they are narrowly restricted to the function of degree

modification and

80

c. they develop a grammatical meaning and they function

accordingly.

4. They pass in and out of fashion, i.e. they are short lived and quickly

grow stale.

5. They are not lexically empty.

6. They add emphasis.

7. They bring about precision.

8. They can be used as markers of group membership.

9. They can be used as stylistic devices to accomplish artistic purposes.

4.2. Grammaticalization of ‘‘Degree’’ Adverbs

The phenomenon of grammaticalization has recently been studied under two

headings, namely ‘‘grammaticalization’’ and ‘‘delexicalization’’. The two

terms signify one and the same concept as seen from two reciprocal angles -

one from the point of view of a functional gain, and one from that of a

conceptual loss (Lorenz 1999). According to Partington, delexicalization can

be defined as ‘‘the reduction of the independent lexical content of a word, or

a group of words, so that it comes to fulfil a practical function but has no

meaning apart from this to contribute to the phrase in which it occurs’’

(1993, 183).

If there is something that has come under attack in grammaticalization

studies, it is the existence of water-tight distinction between lexical and

grammatical words. ‘‘Degree’’ adverbs, with their intermediate position

between lexis and grammar, can be said to be a good illustration of the early

stages of grammaticalization process (Mendez-Naya 2003).

81

It has been pointed out by Benzinger that many degree modifiers begin as

lexical items, i.e. adjectives or adverbs referring to particular qualities. They

are first used in the full sense of their lexical meanings. For example, awful

was originally used in the sense of ‘‘awe inspiring’’, a terrible object was

one which evoked terror (1971, 53). However, frequent use of strong

adjectives makes them too familiar to be effective, so a pattern becomes

evident in their development, a pattern in which they progressively weaken

in meaning as they are reduced to ‘‘degree’’ adverbs. These adjectives come

to be used more and more frequently in combination with other powerful

adjectives in order to gain force.

Benzinger (1971) exemplify the situation hypothetically as she presumes

that a writer might describe his/her monster not merely as an awful monster,

but as an awful, grotesque monster (1971, 54). Then, it is reasonable to

conjecture that the next step in weakening of the adjective might be the

omission, in speech, of the intonation terminal and, in writing, of the comma

that represents it, so that awful seems to modify grotesque rather than

monster, and one writes about an awful grotesque monster. In the final step,

the adjective loses its adjectival force along with its original connotation and

picks up an –ly adverbial ending. It becomes a ‘‘degree’ adverb, that is, a

degree modifier whose primary function is simply to intensify the force of

the adjectival elements which follow it. it loses its unique lexical meaning

and takes on the function of modifying the degree of the quality expressed in

the word following. As ‘‘degree’’ adverbs weaken in force, they no longer

fulfil their original purpose, and speakers and writers turn to newer and

fresher ‘‘degree’’ adverbs, adverbs which are more effective because they

are less familiar. However, frequent use destroys the novelty of fresh

82

‘‘degree’’ adverbs, and as they eventually weaken, they need the support of

still other fresh ‘‘degree’’ adverbs which will themselves eventually weaken

and be replaced.

What Benzinger explains in her example can be understood as a shift from

fully lexical to fully grammatical. Accordingly, an item is said to be fully

grammaticalized if it passes all the stages of grammaticalization. This is

obviously evident in the case of very. Regrettably, the division of degree

modifiers into two groups: fully lexical and fully grammatical does not work

here. As has been admitted by Bolinger, there is a gradient from

grammaticalized to ungrammaticalized so that ‘‘the escape hatch of

relativity has to be left open because some of the relatively grammaticized

are more grammaticized than others, and the same is true of the relatively

ungrammaticized’’ (1972, 59). Thus, it is practically possible to assume that

there is a cline between fully lexical to fully grammatical and the degree

modifiers can be found at various points along the cline.

It should be noted that semantic change, but not necessarily semantic loss, is

the prerequisite to grammaticalization and the cause of other processes of

grammaticalization. That is, it triggers other changes to take place in

association with grammaticalization. For instance, Lehmann (1985, 309)

calls attention to the fact that during grammaticalization process the scope of

the grammaticalizing item is reduced, that is, the element undergoing the

change tends to combine with less and less complex constituents. This loss

in scope is what Lehmann terms ‘‘condensation’’. Growing condensation is

a characteristic of the development of ‘‘degree’’ adverbs; adverbs like

terribly or very were once ‘‘adjuncts’’ of manner, and had the whole

predication in their scope, when they are used as degree modifiers, they

83

merely modify adjectives or adverbs at a phrase level. Their scope thus

being greatly reduced.

Concomitant with this loss of scope, the grammaticalizing element loses

mobility, that is, it can no longer be shifted around freely, but occupies a

fixed slot. This has been named ‘‘fixation’’ in Lehmann’s terminology. The

close association between premodifier position and the function of degree

modification has been suggested by Bolinger in connection with the adverb

truly. Truly can occur in virtually any position in the sentence, as in (1) –

(5), but ‘‘the closer it comes to the normal position of a premodifier of the

adjective, the more readily it is taken to be an intensifier’’ (1972, 94).

Therefore, only (4) can it be said to qualify as such:

(1) Truly, he is a foolish person.

(2) He truly is a foolish person.

(3) He is truly a foolish person.

(4) He is a truly foolish person.

(5) He is a foolish person, truly.

While in some cases semantic weakening or semantic bleaching can have a

sufficient explanatory power to illustrate the grammaticalization of certain

‘‘degree’’ adverbs, in many cases a more precise and comprehensive model

of grammaticalization is required. In this regard it is note worthy that ‘‘loss-

and-gain’’ model introduced by Sweetser (1988) is of a great descriptive

value. It emphasizes the fact that grammaticalization involves not only

‘‘loss’’ but also ‘‘gain’’. It is assumed that this model is applicable at the

highest level to grammaticalization of degree modifiers in general.

84

Lorenz points out that degree modification rests on the speaker’s search for

‘‘novelty’’ and ‘‘expressivity’’. Besides, it is a matter of personal choice

‘‘how we evaluate the fact that a referent possesses a certain quality to a

certain degree’’ (2002, 150). Given that degree modifiers are chiefly linked

with novelty and expressivity, it comes as no surprise that adverbs that are

commonly recognized as qualitative adverbs like: enormously, deeply,

heartily, surprisingly, terribly, etc. have a great emotive force in their

realization of degree modification. These adverbs undergo a semantic

change which is of a metaphorical nature, from concrete to abstract

(Mendez-Naya 2003). Due to this semantic change, the items become

polysemous, that is, the original qualitative meaning coexists with the new

degree meaning (gain), which is at the beginning largely contextual. In the

course of time, however, the degree meaning may become independent of

the linguistic context and it is at this stage the original lexical meaning of the

item is said to be bleached out (loss).

The points made so far serve to bring to light the acquisition and

development of degree reading across all the semantic categories that can be

found in this study. The next section divides the adverbs under the category

of ‘‘degree’’ into two morphological classes, namely ‘‘closed-class’’ and

‘‘open-class’’.

4.3. A Morphological Classification of ‘‘Degree’’ Adverbs

Viewing adverbs from a morphological perspective, Quirk et al. (1985, 73)

point out that ‘‘the class of adverbs is notoriously heterogeneous, and may

be separated into an open class consisting of adverbs with an adjectival base

(especially those, like completely, which have an –ly suffix), and a closed

85

class including adverbs such as here, there, now, etc.’’. This distinction is

usually found in grammar books particularly when it comes to the discussion

of word classes (cf. Quirk et al. 1985; Akmajian et al. 1995; Biber, Conrad

and Leech 2002). It is usually discussed in association with similar

dichotomies like ‘‘lexical’’ vs. ‘‘grammatical’’ or ‘‘content’’ vs. ‘‘function’’

words. It has commonly been taken for granted that the membership of

open-class is indefinitely large, and can be readily extended by the user of

the language. In other words, open-class is a word class that accepts the

addition of new members through morphological processes such as

compounding, derivation, inflection, coinage, borrowing, etc. In addition,

words in open-class are said to be lexical or content words that carry

conceptual meaning. Closed-class words, on the other hand, are always

relatively few and resistant to change. They are unproductively and

generally invariable in form. Similarly, closed-class words are said to be

grammatical or function words which carry purely grammatical information.

Relying entirely on the productivity of the –ly morpheme, the present study

accepts the validity of ‘‘closed-class’’ vs. ‘‘open-class’’ dichotomy, and

aims to put it into practice with respect to the morphological consideration

of ‘‘degree’’ adverbs. What seems to be in a dubious state, as it has been

indicated earlier, is the existence of a clear-cut boundary between ‘‘lexical’’

and ‘‘grammatical’’ words. It makes more sense to talk about a cline

between the two extremes of the scale, i.e. ‘‘fully lexical’’ and ‘‘fully

grammatical’’.

In the light of what has been said so far, a moment’s reflection is enough to

recognize two groups among the members of the semantic category of

‘‘degree’’. On the one hand, there are a limited number of unsuffixed,

86

closed-class adverbs that are heavily restricted to the function of degree

modification in the context of adverb-adjective collocation, such as: very,

too, so, quite, rather, and the rest. On the other hand, there exists a

surprisingly unspecified number of –ly adverbs that are semantically

associated with the notion of degree and they function accordingly, such as:

absolutely, extremely, fairly, slightly, hardly, etc. They are open-class

adverbs in the sense that new elements can be added. Thus, a speaker of

English may well encounter dozens of new –ly amplifiers or downtoners

during the coming years; but it is extremely unlikely that the English

language will acquire a new closed-class item (or lose a current one) in the

coming years or even in the speaker’s lifetime.

4.4. Closed-class ‘Degree’ Adverbs: A Miscellaneous Collection

Closed-class ‘‘degree’’ adverbs are by definition a finite, non-productive set.

Their intensifying function has long been identified. They are the outcome

of the delexicalization process, therefore, they are semantically bleached. It

should be mentioned that the closed-class items included in this chapter do

not constitute an exhaustive list (see Figure 4-1). They include, however, all

those that are commonly used by language users. Attention is given to the

actual combination of the adjectives and closed-class ‘‘degree’’ adverbs in

the data under study. The combinations are investigated to further test the

predictability of the model of the relationship between the modifiers and

their heads.

87

Closed-class ‘‘degree’’ adverbs

Totality Scalarity

Amplifier Downtoner Amplifier Downtoner

Maximizer Approximator Booster Compromizer Diminisher

e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g.

Figure 4-1 The closed-class ‘‘degree’’ members

4.4.1. Very and Much

Very is a booster par excellence. It is highly versatile in its collocability and

combines almost freely with adjectives - to such an extent that Quirk et al.

(1985) exploit this combinability as a constitutive test for adjectives.

Furthermore, it is the most grammaticalized and the most lexically bleached

of all boosters. To use Granger’s terminology (1998), very is found as an

‘‘all-round’’ or ‘‘safe bet’’ amplifier. Therefore, it is not surprising that it

occurs with all kinds of scalar adjectives, e.g. rich, sad, good, short, hot,

sick, old, wide, etc. It also combines with limit adjectives which are

modulated to scalar ones by very, e.g. satisfactory, different, true, clear,

Indeed Most Much So Too Very well

Pretty Quite Rather

Somewhat Almost Quite

88

inadequate, etc. Consider the following citations drawn from the CCD’s

wordbank:

(6) They will find it a very different business.

(7) I think it is very clear of the purpose.

(8) ...I felt very inadequate academically.

Very can combine with extreme adjectives or strong scalar adjectives like:

vivid, frightening, frustrated, sophisticated, vigorous, etc. However, very is

most frequent with common scalar adjectives in the data under

consideration. It has been commonly utilized as a good example to illustrate

the case of complete grammaticalization. It has over time lost its original

semantic component of truth-affirmation and has become entirely reduced to

amplify the meaning of its focus (Stoffel 1901; Benzinger 1971; Paradis

1997; Lorenz 1999).

Much is another booster which is most noted for its combinability with

participial adjectives, e.g. impressed, amused, obliged, beloved, neglected,

indebted, aggrieved. It is also found with comparatives like: much better,

much worse. Furthermore, much can combine with other closed-class

‘‘degree’’ adverbs to form combinations like very much, so much, pretty

much, too much. Lorenz (1999) points out that in these cases, the

intensifying force lies mainly within the first element, and much is appended

for this association with –ed adjectives. To verify this point, Lorenz has

quoted Bolinger (1972, 44) stating that ‘‘The important frontier between

much and very occurs within past participles... Essentially very is not used

until the participle has attained lexical status as an adjective’’.

89

4.4.2. Quite between Maximizing and Compromising Function.

The situation is slightly different in the case of quite as compared to most

other ‘‘degree’’ adverbs, since quite is polysemous between two different

degree readings, i.e. maximizing and compromising reading. Like other

degree modifiers, quite has diachronically undergone the process of

grammaticalization from proper content word to lexically bleached word of

a more fundamental character (Benzinger 1971). The fact that it is lexically

bleached makes it vague, context dependant and semantically flexible. Its

semantic flexibility is revealed by its disposition to occur in more than one

paradigm. Its interpretation is highly sensitive to contextual factors.

As one examines the list of the adjectives collocating with quite in the OCD,

it becomes increasingly obvious that they are of different types of

gradability. Quite can combine with all kinds of scalar adjectives, e.g.

strong, large, rich, easy, boring, warm, etc. It also co-occurs with limit

adjectives, e.g. possible, full, safe, right, sufficient, dead, etc. However, there

are also extreme adjectives like: outstanding, horrific, splendid, spectacular,

astonished, fascinating, etc. Following Paradis (1994, 1997), the present

study assumes that if the adjective is an extreme adjective or a limit

adjective, the predication is that quite tends to be interpreted as a maximizer.

On the contrary, if the adjective is a scalar adjective then quite is to be

interpreted as a compromizer. Consider the following citations drawn from

the CCD’s wordbank:

(9) I think it will be quite nice.

(10) I am quite sure he will come.

90

In (9), quite selects a scalar feature in nice and it is this selection of a scalar

feature which yields the compromizer interpretation ‘‘to a moderate

degree’’. While in (10), quite selects a limit feature which yields a

maximizing interpretation ‘‘completely’’. However, there is always a

possibility of contextual modulation in favour of both interpretation. To put

it slightly differently, the maximizing quite sometimes restricts the

interpretation of a scalar adjective to a limit reading to create a successful

match, e.g. quite cool; or the compromising quite sometimes modulates the

interpretation of a limit adjective to a scalar reading, e.g. quite certain.

The cases which proved most difficult to determine are those concerning

basically limit adjectives without a strong bias, e.g. clear, different,

satisfying, sure, etc. and extreme adjectives, e.g. ludicrous, lovely, beautiful,

delicious, etc. which dwell in the borderland between scalarity and

absoluteness, i.e. they do not have a strong bias. To return to (10), it is

reasonably clear that sure is potentially ambiguous between limit

interpretation and a scalar interpretation, so is quite. Such constellation have

to be disambiguated by contextual clues. If quite is replaced by pretty in the

same expression (I am pretty sure), pretty, which is a clear-cut compromizer,

can only identify the scalar feature of sure; the opposite is true if quite is

replaced by absolutely (I am absolutely sure) which is a clear-cut

maximizing word allowing only the limit feature of sure to be activated.

Thus, contextual factors are crucial for the interpretation of quite as either a

maximizer or a compromizer.

4.4.3. Most, So and Indeed

Most has been described as a ‘‘superlative’’ booster by Paradis (1997,

2000a). This is revealed in the type of adjectives it combines with in the

91

OCD. Most indicates the highest degree of scalar adjectives, such as most

important, most interesting, most amazing, most intriguing, etc. It differs

from other boosters in that there are notably many extreme adjectives in

combination with it, e.g. wonderful, fascinating, excellent, amazing,

delightful, undignified, etc. In actual fact, most seems to prefer adjectives

characterized by strong evaluative features. It does not combine with typical

scalar adjectives such as good, long, slow, etc. In this respect there is a

marked difference between most and other boosters, which can be explained

by the superlativity of most itself. There is also an example of an adjective

for which a limit reading is possible but which in combination with most

gets a scalar reading and a high position on the scale. This adjective is

satisfactory.

So is apparently another booster which has long been classified as a closed-

class item. The fact that so is given no entry in the OCD reveals that there is

no strong collocational preference between so and any other adjective. This

gives a sufficient indication that language users use so as an all-pervasive

emphatic item. Like very, so can combine indiscriminately with all the three

types of gradable adjectives in the CCD’s wordbank. It is found with limit

adjectives, e.g. full, certain, true, impossible, right, inadequate, etc. extreme

adjectives, e.g. wonderful, fabulous, dismal, fascinating, frightening,

exciting, etc. and most frequently with common scalar adjectives, e.g. good,

big, long, simple, different, busy, etc.

The emphatic item indeed has a degree modification function in uses such

as:

92

(11) He was indeed fortunate in his friends. (OCD)

(12) Fish is indeed good for the brain. (CCD)

This is, however, merely a marginal function; indeed normally acts as a

clause-level emphasizer (Quirk et al 1985) and is only of interest here when

focusing on an adjective, i.e. where the adjective is the syntactic focus of the

proposition. The marginal character of degree modifying indeed is reflected

by the fact that it is only found in two instances in the CCD’s wordbank

(indeed good and indeed safe), one in the OCD (indeed fortunate) and one

more in the MED (indeed genuine). From this, it should be clear that indeed

as a degree modifier can combine both with scalar adjectives and limit

adjectives.

4.4.4. Too and Well

When modifying an adjective, too certainly does scale a quality upwards,

provided that it is not negated. English speakers would probably agree that

too good is ‘‘better’’ than unmarked good and too bad is ‘‘worse’’ than an

average bad. In this boosting function, and in its virtually unrestricted

collocability, it resembles very, the booster par excellence.

In the CCD’s wordbank too is found in combination with limit adjectives,

e.g. full, true, right, obvious, normal, etc. as well as extreme adjectives, e.g.

tender-hearted, terrified, attractive, scared, outspoken, numerous, etc.. But

most frequently too combine with scalar adjectives, e.g. old, hot, easy, bad,

clever, high, etc. Lorenz points out that too is different from any of the other

closed-class ‘‘degree’’ adverbs in that it adds the component of ‘‘excess’’,

which might be glossed as ‘‘more so than is acceptable’’ (1997, 71). In other

words, it introduces an element of judgement, the basis of which is not

93

inherent, or in any way fixed, but ultimately at the speaker’s discretion. Too

is of a particular interest in that apart from intensifying function, it serves to

make ‘‘speaker stance’’ especially explicit. However, from the point of view

of collocation, too offers little interest since, like other closed-class

‘‘degree’’ adverbs, it can be used as an ‘‘all-round’’ or ‘‘safe bet’’ item with

no particular collocational preference.

Turning now to the case of well. The fact that the CCD lists no less than 39

different senses (adverbial, nominal, verbal and adjectival) of the word form

well reveals its high versatility to occur independently. In addition, well also

acts as a productive bound morpheme in word-formation. In the following

contexts, it is clearly a ‘‘degree’’ adverb, not dissimilar in meaning to fully,

very or perfectly:

(13) Well able to stand the rough and tumble (CCD)

(14) Well aware of ... (CCD)

(15) Well worth looking for (CCD)

Obviously these are well-known collocations. However, well also tends to

combine with verb participles to form compound adjectives, e.g. well-

qualified, well-informed, well-motivated, etc. The OCD lists 31 separate

such compounds, which for the matter at hand must be ruled out from the

data. As it has been pointed out by Lorenz, it is regrettable that the presence

or absence of hyphenation cannot serve as a reliable criterion. Lorenz also

clarifies the semantic complexity of the word form well by quoting Bolinger

(1972, 29) saying that ‘‘well is semantically complex. It combines the

features of ‘approval’ and ‘fulfilment’ in ways that defy separation of the

two’’. Then following Lorenz and Bolinger, it may safely be stated that

94

‘‘ well + Ved’’ leans more towards ‘‘approval’’ and is not so much an

instance of degree modification, but more an assertion of ‘‘manner’’ : a well-

organized trip is the one that merits praise for the good way in which it was

organized, and a person who is well-educated or well-behaved is someone

who displays good education and behaviour. Therefore, ‘‘Well +

Ved(Ving)’’ pattern has been omitted from the data, as it is more plausibly

regarded as productive adjective composition than degree modification.

4.4.5. Rather and Pretty

Rather is a compromizer which obviously serves to moderate the quality

denoted by the adjective in question. It has the hedging function and reveals

a negotiable speaker-attitude towards the relevant degree (Paradis 1994,

1997, 2000a). Rather primarily combines with typical scalar adjectives in

the OCD, e.g. hot, sad, sick, short, bad, low, etc. It also combines with a

number of limit adjectives without a strong bias, e.g. obvious, different,

silent, uncertain, inadequate, and extreme adjectives as well, e.g. fantastic,

skinny, frightening, frustrating, sophisticated, gorgeous, etc. When rather

combines with limit adjectives, the contextual modulation becomes

particularly important for its interpretation. Consider the following example:

(16) We were rather uncertain of the direction it came from. (OCD)

This can be understood as a case of contextual modulation where uncertain

has taken on a scalar reading. If rather is replaced by quite in this utterance,

the reading will be that of maximization. In the context of extreme

adjectives, rather has the function of moderating the extreme degree of the

adjective:

95

(17) He found the responsibility rather frightening.(OCD)

Rather here is used to hedge the application of frightening, and to make it

sound less extreme. Again, if rather is replaced by quite, the maximizer

reading will be the more likely interpretation for quite.

Pretty is probably the most informal of the compromizers. Like rather, it has

the function of moderating the adjectival quality. In the OCD, most of its

collocants are typical scalar adjectives such as bad, sick, hot, strong, big,

good, etc. Like other scalar modifiers, it is also found with a number of limit

adjectives, e.g. true, sure, sober, obvious, incredible, unbelievable, etc. It

also combines with a number of extreme adjectives, e.g. splendid,

exorbitant, dreadful, marvellous, horrific, spectacular, etc. In the context of

limit adjectives, pretty restricts the interpretation of the adjective to a scalar

reading, i.e. contextually modulating its interpretation to form a good match.

While with extreme adjectives, pretty has the effect of moderating the

extreme degree denoted by the adjective in question.

4.4.6. Almost and Somewhat

Almost is a closed-class member of approximators which, strictly speaking,

does not scale the meaning of its focus. In fact it tends to collocate with limit

adjectives, e.g. complete, self-sufficient, unique, blind, sober, naked, etc.

Ziegeler (1999) describes almost as a ‘‘counterfactual marker’’. It contains a

negative entailment from a semantic point of view. If something is almost

unique or almost sufficient, it is not higher or lower on the scale of

uniqueness or sufficiency, and if someone is almost bald or almost blind,

96

they are likewise not more or less so. As it has already been pointed out that

in all these cases the adjectives are in effect negated, but with the added

information that what is being described is close to reaching the adjectival

quality. Therefore, someone who is referred to as almost blind is in fact not

blind. In addition to limit adjectives, almost is also found with quite a few

potential extreme adjectives in the OCD, e.g. luxurious, superfluous,

contemptuous, etc. and a few scalar adjectives as well, e.g. sorry, sick, dry,

afraid, etc. which are interpreted in terms of a limit, i.e. contextually

modulated.

Somewhat is a diminisher. It serves to attenuate the force of the adjectives it

applies to. In the OCD somewhat preferably collocates with negatively

loaded adjectives, e.g. aggressive, complicated, nervous, sad, hazardous,

ridiculous, etc. It is also found with some neutral adjectives: akin and

similar, and quite a limited number of positively loaded adjectives, e.g.

superior, optimistic, radical, relieved, delicate, academic. It should be noted

that the majority of the adjectives collocating with somewhat are typically

scalar adjectives. There are some limit adjectives too, e.g. static, ineffective,

irresponsible, etc. which can be perceived as contextually modulated to take

on scalar reading.

From what has been presented so far, it should be obvious that most of

closed-class members of ‘‘degree’’ category are highly delexicalized to the

extent that their collocational ranges are unrestricted. This goes side by side

with an observation already made by Partington (1993, 183) concerning the

delexicalization of intensifiers and their collocational behaviour. He argues

that ‘‘the more delexicalized an intensifier, the more widely it collocates; the

greater the range and number of modifiers it combines with’’, and this is

97

particularly evident in the collocational behaviour of the closed-class items

under study. They are used as building bricks rather than prefabricated units

in the construction of adverb-adjective collocation.

4.5. Open-class ‘‘Degree’’ Adverbs

These are -ly degree modifiers which are semantically similar to the closed-

class items. As adjective modifiers they have no function other than that of

selecting the degree to which the adjective is foregrounded. In other words,

they are lexically confined to scaling an adjectival quality, with no

additional propositional content. These are the ones, together with closed-

class items, which are aptly termed ‘‘adverbs of degree’’ in grammar books,

as they express nothing but the notion of degree. Lorenz (1999), although

uses a different terminology, divides them into three subsets that differ in the

way they have come to adopt their purely scaling function:

1. adverbs which actually depict a certain ‘‘degree’’ or ‘‘extent’’, or –in

iconic analogy – ‘‘size’’ or ‘‘spatial extension’’, such as completely,

enormously, entirely, extremely, fully, greatly, highly, immensely,

increasingly, largely, totally, wholly, widely, etc. They are derived

from adjectives which already have a scalar lexical meaning. The

members of this group can be identified in the following way: their

adjectival bases slot into the syntactic frame ‘‘to a/the -------

degree/extent’’, and the resulting phrase is near-synonymous with the

adverb itself. For example, to a large extent is functionally equivalent

to largely, to the full extent corresponds to fully, etc. in all these

instances it is their actual lexical meaning which qualifies them as

98

natural candidates for degree modification. They are by denotation

‘‘degree’’ adverbs.

2. adverbs which also stand up to the ‘‘to a/the --------degree/extent’’

paraphrase, but in contrast to (1) their degree meaning is only

acquired. Items such as absolutely, fairly, mildly, perfectly, poorly,

profoundly, slightly, thoroughly, etc. have all undergone

delexicalization. Conceptually speaking, there is nothing ‘‘fair’’ about

being fairly inactive, nothing ‘‘thorough’’ about being thoroughly

bored. Yet, the grading meaning has over time become firmly

established, and they do not express any meaning beyond that of their

respective degree.

3. adverbs which, viewed in isolation, denote ‘‘share’’ (partly, mainly,

etc.), ‘‘range’’ (generally) or ‘‘emphasis’’ (utterly). But such

conceptual labelling is found to be of no interest. In adjective

intensification function, only their ‘‘degree’’ meaning is

foregrounded; compare hardly surprising, purely personal, or mainly

commercial, where all the adverbs do not express anything but

intensification to the given extent.

It should be mentioned that the members of the three subsets by no means

represent the complete open-class ‘‘degree’’ inventory. Figure 4-2 serves to

illustrate the rearrangement of the items into the Quirkian categories, taking

the notion of ‘‘boundedness’’ into consideration.

99

amplifier maximizer: absolutely, entirely, full, perfectly

purely, thoroughly, totally utterly,

Totality(BOUNDED) wholly, completely

downtoner approximator: nearly, partly

Open-class ‘degree’ adverbs

amplifier booster: enormously, extremely, greatly, highly,

widely, increasingly, immensely,

Scalarity(UNBOUNDED) profoundly

downtoner compromizer: fairly, generally

diminisher: mildly, slightly

minimizer: barely, hardly poorly

Figure 4-2 The open-class ‘’degree’’ members

As has been stated above, this list is not exhaustive; many other ‘‘degree’’

items, boosters in particular can be added, e.g. hugely, colossally, massively,

etc. But the proportions of even this sample list allows us to conclude that

the other ‘‘degree’’ formations are more likely to be found among

amplifiers, i.e. maximizers and boosters, than among downtoners. Of the

amplifiers, in turn, the list of maximizers alone appear to be fairly

exhaustive. After all, there is only a limited number of adjectives that denote

‘‘full, complete, perfect, whole’’ (Altenberg 1991).

100

Beyond this step, it may be necessary to examine the collocating adjectives

of –ly ‘‘degree’’ adverbs found in the OCD by taking one functional

paradigm at a time in detail.

4.5.1. –Ly ‘‘Degree’ Maximizers

It has already been argued in chapter three that the members of the

maximizer paradigm, quite, absolutely, completely, wholly, utterly, etc,

combine with bounded limit adjectives, e.g. sure, normal, true, impossible,

and with extreme adjectives, e.g. magnificent, splendid, horrific. The

following list contains some examples of combination of adjectives and –ly

maximizers in the OCD. (The letters indicate the various types of adjectives:

LA= Limit adjectives and EA= Extreme adjectives)

Absolutely + LA: straight, full, impossible crucial, true, rigid....

Absolutely + EA: ludicrous, magnificent, marvellous, brilliant, fantastic....

Completely + LA lifeless, impassable, wrong, new, innocent, fair....

Completely + EA overwhelming, frustrated, outrageous, bewildering.

Entirely + LA satisfying, safe, sober, useless, unknown, implausible....

Entirely + EA delightful.

Fully + LA responsible, alive, awake, up-to-date, rational, justified....

Perfectly + LA adequate, agreeable, legitimate, consistent, clear, motionless....

Perfectly + EA charming, lovely, splendid, wonderful, horrible.

Purely + LA rational, factual, secular, accidental, coincidental....

Thoroughly + LA corrupt, convincing, soaked, engrossed, unscrupulous, satisfying....

Thoroughly + EA miserable, entertaining, enjoyable, frightened, distasteful....

Totally + LA insane, inedible, free, blind, illegal, interchangeable....

Totally + EA brilliant, outrageous, frustrated, amazed, shattered.

Utterly + LA empty, inaccessible, hopeless, mad, unavoidable....

101

Utterly + EA terrified, thrilled, brilliant, charming, disastrous, amazed....

Wholly + LA insufficient, intact, unaware, absent, irrelevant, immune....

Wholly + EA admirable, lovely, evil.

The reader is reminded that the classification of adjectives into limit

adjectives and extreme adjectives is not always clear. This has been honestly

admitted by Paradis as she pointes out that there are fuzzy readings because

a point/limit is crucial for both extreme adjectives and limit adjectives.

Besides, maximizers can both amplify the utmost point on a scale for

extreme adjectives and the complete transgression of a limit for limit

adjectives. For instance, an adjective such as crowded may be regarded as a

bounded and limit word meaning ‘‘full’’ or as an unbounded extreme

adjective referring to ‘‘filled to the extreme point of the scale’’. Likewise, it

is sometimes difficult to distinguish between extreme adjectives and scalar

adjectives, since both are conceptualized in terms of a scale(unbounded) and

both are generally evaluative. Confused is a good example of an ambiguous

case. In combination with maximizers, the extreme reading is clearly drawn

out, whereas in the context of scalar adverbs such as fairly or extremely,

confused has moved down on the scale against which it is interpreted.

As can be seen from the above list of collocating adjectives, maximizers

combine, as predicted, with both limit adjectives and extreme adjectives.

The only exception to this pattern is fully and purely, which are not found

with extreme adjectives in the data. Moreover, maximizers also combine

with adjectives which are scalar-biased, i.e. adjectives which in isolation

would be interpreted as scalar adjectives, but in combination with

maximizers they would be interpreted in terms of totality, e.g. absolutely

sick, completely happy, entirely comfortable, fully mobile, perfectly nice, etc.

102

When scalar adjectives combine with maximizers, the focus is not on the

typical scalarity of the adjective, but on the contextually modulated

interpretation in which completeness is in focus.

4.5.2. –Ly ‘‘Degree’’ Approximators

As one examines the collocating list of the two members of –ly

approximator paradigm nearly and partly in the OCD, it becomes easy to

understand the strong combinatorial relation between approximators and

bounded limit adjectives. Nearly is found with basically limit adjectives like

invisible, hysterical, incomprehensible, foolproof, lifeless, etc. However,

there are three scalar-biased adjectives in the list, namely, dry, clean and

dark. They are to be interpreted as the case of contextual modulation. Partly,

on the other hand, is only found with bounded limit adjectives such as false,

closed, responsible, domesticated, explicable, submerged, etc.

4.5.3. –Ly ‘‘Degree’’ Boosters

It is obvious that the 8 items selected here as the members of the –ly booster

paradigm enormously, extremely, greatly, highly, immensely, increasingly,

profoundly and widely come from different types of words which differ with

respect to their semantic loading. This inevitably has the effect of reducing

the possibility of the members being totally interchangeable with one

another. Some –ly boosters do not seem to fit comfortably with particular

adjectives and are not found in the data under study or they are not even

likely to be considered acceptable by most native speakers of English, e.g.

highly sensitive but not ?enormously sensitive. As predicted, the –ly boosters

mainly amplify unbounded scalar adjectives, e.g. interesting, nice,

103

expensive, difficult, etc. In addition, few bounded limit adjectives like sterile,

inadequate, meaningless, etc. and some extreme adjectives like fantastic,

traumatic, striking, etc. are found within the inventory of the collocating

adjectives of some of the –ly boosters in the OCD. The following list

contains examples of combinations of adjectives and –ly boosters in the

OCD (SA = Scalar adjective, EA = Extreme adjective and LA = Limit

adjective): Enormously + SA: wide, rich, helpful, proud, fat, important....

Extremely + SA: old, hard, clever, hot, low, sad....

Extremely + EA: frightened, striking, distasteful, traumatic, energetic, attractive....

Extremely + LA: confident, plausible, obvious, logical, transparent, satisfying....

Greatly + SA: interested, concerned, preferable, daring, relieved, indebted...

Greatly + EA: delighted, superior, amused.

Highly + SA: sensitive, skilful, likely, educated, prone, questionable...

Highly + EA: sophisticated, intelligent, venomous, ingenious, dramatic...

Highly +LA: dependent, plausible, rational, impractical, credible, confidential...

Immensely +SA: strong, fat, warm, rich, sad, popular....

Immensely + EA: enthusiastic, exciting.

Immensely + LA: satisfying.

Increasingly + SA: frequent, unhappy, uneasy, important, tight, eager....

Increasingly + EA: fantastic, critical, frantic, vicious, agitated, frustrating....

Increasingly + LA: sterile, meaningless, inadequate, irrelevant, irrational, confident....

Profoundly + SA: sad, moving, uneasy, grateful, relieved, indebted....

Profoundly + EA: humiliating, impressed, depressing.

Widely + SA: applicable, experienced, variable, accessible, popular, varied....

It is worth noting that the number of the collocating adjectives of extremely,

among other –ly boosters, is remarkably vast. It appears as one of the biggest

104

competitors of the closed-class boosters very, so and too. It shows a great

potential to amplify, in addition to scalar adjectives, limit adjectives and

extreme adjectives. A possible explanation for this may reside in the fact that

the more frequent an amplifier is, the more multifunctional it tends to be.

Needless to say, however, that having bounded limit adjectives in the

context of unbounded scalar adverbs is wholly explicable in terms of

contextual modulation. In such a case, the adjective is contextually

modulated to evoke an unbounded scalar interpretation to make a good

match with its premodifying scalar adverb.

4.5.4. –Ly ‘‘Degree’’ Compromizers

As it has already been stated, compromizers in general have the function of

moderating the adjectival qualities. They are basically attenuators which

serve to hedge the force of the adjectives they apply to. The two selected

members of –ly compromizer fairly and generally, as predicted, mainly

combine with unbounded scalar adjectives in the OCD. Like other scalar

degree modifiers, they show potential to modify the degree of some bounded

limit adjectives and unbounded extreme adjectives as well. The following

list contains examples of their combinations with adjectives in the OCD:

Fairly + SA hot, light, big, hard, deep, old......

Fairly + EA lucrative, disastrous, awesome, traumatic, distasteful, dismal...

Fairly + LA straight, safe, pointless, empty, sober, complete....

Generally + SA helpful, hazy, healthy, useful, unpopular...

Generally + EA excellent, hostile.

Generally + LA impossible, inadequate, satisfying, unaware, unable.

105

It is clear from their inventory of the collocating adjectives that fairly, as

compared to generally, has a wider collocational range. This indicates that

fairly is the more frequent and even more grammaticalized –ly compromizer

in English.

4.5.5. –Ly ‘‘Degree’’ Diminishers

The two selected members of the –ly diminisher paradigm mildly and

slightly mainly combine with unbounded scalar adjectives in the OCD.

However, there are some exceptions to this pattern. Having some modulated

limit adjectives and a few extreme adjectives in the inventory of their

collocating adjectives seems to support this.

Mildly + SA: annoying, interesting, pleased, spicy, depressed, encouraging....

Mildly + EA: amusing, critical, pleasurable.

Mildly + LA: hysterical, handicapped, autistic.

Slightly + SA: sick, hot, dirty, wet, odd, sharp....

Slightly + EA: disgusted, disconcerting, frustrating, eerie, creepy.

Slightly + LA: different, illogical, unreal, absurd, foreign, cross-eyed.

It seems that slightly is the more frequent –ly diminisher since it has a wider

collocational range than mildly. Another difference between the two is that

slightly preferably combines with negatively loaded adjectives in the data,

e.g. dirty, odd, shocking, embarrassing, misleading, etc. while mildly has

both positive and negative adjectives to collocate with.

4.5.6. –Ly ‘’Degree’’ Minimizers

In the present study –ly minimizer paradigm consists of barely, hardly and

poorly. They mainly combine with unbounded scalar adjectives in the OCD

106

and they indicate a limited part of the scale implied by the adjective. This

means that there has to be an inferable starting point for this scale. It is

important to note that no extreme adjectives are found in the inventory of

their collocating adjectives, but there are a number of modulated limit

adjectives for barely and hardly:

Barely + SA: visible, habitable, dry, recognizable, audible, decayed....

Barely + LA: alive, credible, plausible, sufficient, comprehensible, feasible...

Hardly + SA: likely, promising, cheap, dry, reassuring, comforting....

Hardly + LA: adequate, compatible, convincing, unique, true, fair...

Poorly, in turn, seems to have only participial adjectives like organized,

informed, developed, trained, etc. to collocate with. Its narrow collocational

range indicates that poorly is not very frequent in the context of adverb-

adjective collocation. The chapter next directs its attention to the other

semantic categories.

Chapter Five: Other Semantic Categories

of Adverbs

107

Chapter Five Other Semantic Categories of Adverbs

5.0. Introduction

It has already been pointed out that the constant need for new expressive

items is the driving force behind the continual process of linguistic

innovation in the functional category of degree modification. There is good

reason why we should be constantly creating new means of emphasis or a

particular adverb-adjective collocation. According to Grice’s maxims, our

utterances must be ‘‘relevant’’ (1975), which implies that they should

preferably be marked as such. In speech as well as in writing, one is

constantly having to justify that X actually needs to be said, that somebody

is boringly talkative or that something is notoriously difficult.

There have been several attempts to classify the semantic roles of adjective

modifiers. Johansson (1993), for example, proposes a semantic classification

of adverbs that co-occur with adjectives. His categories include degree

modifiers, but are not restricted to them. He complains that previous

discussions of the semantics of adverb-adjective combinations have focused

on the expression of degree, with only occasional references to other

‘‘semantic patterns’’. Johansson’s ‘‘semantic patterns’’ correspond to what

is usually referred to as the semantic roles of adverbials (Quirk et al 1985).

All in all, Johansson lists ten such adverbial roles:

1. Degree and extent e.g. completely oblivious

2. Emphasis e.g. definitely helpful

3. Manner e.g. arrogantly proud

108

4. Time e.g. newly independent

5. Space e.g. universally unpopular

6. Viewpoint and respect e.g. financially secure

7. Evaluation of truth e.g. plainly useless

8. Basic and typical qualities e.g. essentially creative

9. Value judgement e.g. admirably thorough

10. Quality and state e.g. calmly reasonable

Although this list appears to correspond to standard adverb categorizations,

some of Johansson’s attributions, as has also been assessed by Lorenz

(1999), cannot be called other than arbitrary. Why should truly disinterested,

for example, be a case of ‘‘emphasis’’ rather than ‘‘evaluation of truth’’ or

splendidly efficient one of ‘‘manner’’ and not ‘‘value judgement’’?

Johansson admits that his classification cannot be exhaustive and there is a

great deal of overlap and also there are examples which do not fit into any

one pattern. His work reflects a somewhat unspecific interest in describing

adverb-adjective combinations, rather than the communicative function of

degree modification. What still remains to be clarified is the precise

connection between semantic roles and a purely intensifying function.

This study lends support to Lorenz’s classification (1999, 2002) which not

so much focuses on the precise denotation of the individual items, but rather

on precisely what an adverb does to grade an adjectival quality. He identifies

five types of open-class adverbs which collocate with adjectives to achieve

an intensifying effect, namely, ‘‘scalar’’, ‘‘modal’’, ‘‘evaluative’’,

‘‘comparative’’, and ‘‘semantic feature copying’’. The semantic category

‘‘scalar’’ corresponds to what has been identified as open-class ‘‘degree’’

109

category in chapter four. It is worth mentioning that most of the discussions

in this chapter can be attributed to the influence of Lorenz (1999).

The organization of the present chapter will be to discuss each of the other

semantic categories in the order in which they are presented here. The

procedure established here for the consideration of the ‘‘modal’’,

‘‘evaluative’’, and ‘‘comparative’’ categories is to list their members with

the number of potential collocating adjectives found in the OCD and the

LTP. The present analysis is working on assumptions that the more

collocating adjectives an adverb has, the more frequent it tends to be in the

context of adverb-adjective collocation; consequently, the more frequent the

adverb is, the more willingly it converges towards the semantic category of

‘‘degree’’. As has been stated before, being frequent in such a context

indicates that the adverb is the most delexicalized among others within a

particular semantic field. These potential adverb-adjective collocations will

be used to test out the model of ‘‘semantic bidirectionality’’ mentioned in

chapter three. ‘‘semantic feature copying’’ items, on the other hand, are too

closely bound to their respective collocates to be explained in this way.

Their discussion takes up the final part of this chapter.

5.1. The Semantic Category ‘‘Modal’’

5.1.1. ‘‘Modal’’ OCD and LTP Data

Here is a list of 34 selected ‘‘modal’’ adverbs with the number of collocating

adjectives found in the OCD and the LTP. The adverbs are ordered

according to the wideness of their collocational range:

110

Really 265 Not necessarily 16

Apparently 107 Not exactly 15

Virtually 94 Intrinsically 12

Truly 83 Definitely 10

Clearly 66 Plainly 9

Seemingly 50 Undoubtedly 9

Obviously 47 Overtly 9

Essentially 44 Patently 8

Genuinely 43 Supposedly 7

Practically 35 Undeniably 7

Simply 29 Certainly 6

Decidedly 26 Evidently 4

Basically 25 Possibly 3

Inherently 24 Sincerely 2

Fundamentally 21 Probably 1

Positively 21 Unquestionably 1

Naturally 20 Objectively 1

Table 5-1 ‘‘Modal’’ adverbs and the Number of their Collocating Adjectives.

It is clear from the list that really has the widest collocational range. This

serves as a reliable indication that really is the most frequent and even the

most delexicalized amplifier as well as the main competitor of very. A

corpus investigation conducted by Ito & Tagliamonte (2003) reveals that the

use of really has dramatically increased among the youngest generation.

111

In Quirkian grammatical terms, most of these adverbs would be classed as

‘’emphasizers’’ - a modal, truth affirming set. These adverbs tend to

modulate the truth value of an adjectival quality, positively enhancing it in

most cases. Again, the list is not complete inventory, actually, doubtlessly,

indubitably, manifestly, for example can also be added.

In his treatment of the ‘‘modal’’ category, Lorenz makes clear his own doubt

about the membership of items like basically, essentially, fundamentally,

inherently, intrinsically, naturally, and objectively in ‘‘modal’’ category.

Their modal function is far less obvious. The reason for their inclusion in the

class is that in adverb-adjective collocation they express felicity conditions

under which the adjectival quality holds true and are therefore ‘‘modal’’ by

implication. If someone is fundamentally evil [LTP] or naturally shy [OCD],

their evilness and shyness cannot be doubted.

The criterion of ‘‘doubtfulness’’ or, conversely, ‘‘degree of certainty’’, of

course in association with the type of collocating adjectives, are found to be

highly significant in attaching scalar labels to the ‘‘modal’’ adjective

modifiers. In other words, they enable us to frame ‘‘modal’’ adverbs in

accordance with Quirkian scalar system and the notion of boundedness

introduced in chapter three (see Figure 5-1). It has been emphatically stated

earlier that the grading function of adverbs and the feature of gradability

present in adjectives are both conceptualized in terms of boundedness, i.e.

totality versus scalarity. Therefore, the various conceptualizations of

adjectives and adverbs must harmonize in order to make a perfect match.

Interestingly, ‘‘modal’’ adverb-adjective collocations examined in this study

well match this expectation. However, there are some exceptions to this

pattern. To take some examples:

112

Truly happy : bounded (total) maximizer + unbounded scalar adjective

Really adequate : unbounded (scalar) booster + bounded limit

adjective

Practically useful : bounded approximator + unbounded scalar

adjective

Apparently meaningless :unbounded compromizer+ bounded limit

adjective

Seemingly obvious : unbounded minimizer + bounded limit adjective

These are all to be interpreted as instances of contextual modulation in

which the mode of gradability present in the adjective is modulated to evoke

a particular type of reading that conceptually goes with that of its

premodifying item.

The Semantic Category ‘‘Modal’’

Totality(bounded) Scalarity (unbounded)

Amplifier Downtoner Amplifier Downtoner

Maximizer Approximator Booster Compromizer Diminisher Minimizer

e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g.

unquestionably virtually really probably possibly seemingly

Figure 5-1 The Arrangement of ‘‘modal’’ category in keeping with Quirkian scalar

system and ‘‘boundedness’’ notion.

113

Maximizers: unquestionably, undoubtedly, truly, undeniably,

genuinely, obviously, evidently, patently, simply,

fundamentally, essentially, naturally, basically,

clearly, objectively, plainly, inherently,

intrinsically

Boosters: definitely, decidedly, really, overtly, positively,

certainly, sincerely

Compromizers: probably, apparently

Approximators: virtually, practically

Diminishers: possibly

Minimizers: supposedly, seemingly, not necessarily,

not exactly

Starting from the bottom, it is clear that not exactly and not necessarily

restrict the adjectival quality to a minimum. Semantically, they are ‘‘hedged

negatives’’ (Lorenz 1999). By speaking of something as not exactly reliable

and not necessarily harmful [both OCD], the speakers are in effect calling it

‘‘rather unreliable’’ and ‘‘probably quite harmless’’. Seemingly and

supposedly, on the other hand, minimize by contextual implication: if

something is only seemingly endless [LTP], it is not really so, and a

supposedly objective judgement [OCD] usually turns out to be purely

subjective.

In contrast to minimizers, the other downtoners point ‘‘upwards’’, they

concede a partial validity of the adjective. If something is judged to be

possibly damaging [OCD], it will at least be slightly so, and practically and

virtually can confidently be paraphrased as ‘‘nearly’’ or ‘‘almost’’.

114

Apparently and probably have been classed as compromizers because they

resemble fairly or rather in marking a positive, if slightly hedged, statement.

The two ‘‘modal’’ amplifier categories, maximizers (X) and boosters (B),

superficially appear indistinguishable. As has been stated by Lorenz, both of

them comprise highly emphatic items, and the above distinction appears to

draw an arbitrary line, in some cases even cutting through pairs of quasi-

synonyms like truly (X) / really (B) and undoubtedly (X) / definitely (B).

And yet these near-synonyms are a convenient key to the X-B distinction;

the difference lies in the respective truth conditions. In contrast to really,

truly does not allow any doubt, it presupposes truth, whereas really asserts it.

This logically points to the conclusion that truly is conceptualized as a

bounded maximizer, while really as an unbounded booster. The same goes

for undoubtedly versus definitely: the latter implies that truth does have to be

stressed, whilst undoubtedly even literally expresses that there can be no

doubt. Therefore, the grading function of undoubtedly is conceptualized as

being equal to that of the bounded maximizers, whereas definitely has an

unbounded boosting force. The same pattern runs through other amplifier

subdivision, distinguishing patently (X) from positively (B), obviously and

objectively (X) from overtly (B), undeniably and unquestionably (X) from

decidedly (B), as well as genuinely and clearly (X) from sincerely (B).

This fundamental distinction is reflected in the restrictive collocating

adjectives. As predicted, the adverbs labelled ‘‘B’’ mainly collocate with

unbounded scalar adjectives like good, big, interesting, related, etc. The

items marked ‘‘X’’, in contrast, mainly have bounded limit adjectives like

innocent, possible, wrong, adequate, etc. and also some unbounded extreme

adjectives like horrified, ludicrous, ridiculous, excellent, etc.

115

5.1.2. Modality and Intensification: A Semantic Relation

Diachronic evidence suggests that there is a strong logical link between

epistemic modality and intensification (or degree modification). ‘‘Modal’’

adverbs express the extent to which the speaker is willing to attest to the

truth of a proposition. Lorenz describes a situation when a modal adverb

focuses on an adjectival quality. The communicative effect of ‘‘modal’’

adverbs, in such a situation, is very similar to stating that the extent or

degree to which an adjectival quality holds true. So, there is only a fine line

between stating that something is a definitely wonderful idea or a truly

wonderful idea and calling it an absolutely wonderful idea, or – even more

markedly with predicative adjectives – between saying that an idea is truly

wonderful or absolutely wonderful (1999, 98)

The case of very, as stated earlier, most evidently illustrates the innovative

potential of ‘‘modal’’ adverbs for adjective intensification. In present usage,

very is a prototype of a pure ‘‘degree’’ adverb, while diachronically being

the product of delexicalization from a modal meaning. Other examples of

delexicalized modality markers include entirely and utterly. Their function,

too, was originally truth-affirming. Their modal meanings have become lost

on the way to contemporary English usage.

The semantic link between the two categories, i.e. modality and

intensification, is evident in the words of other writers. Allerton, for

instance, states that ‘‘In all cases it is a relatively small step from saying that

the adjective is perhaps an appropriate word to saying that the adjectival is

present to a moderate degree (only)’’ (1987, 27). Partington, too, believes

that ‘‘It is not hard to understand the link between modality and

intensification : it is a short step from averring the truth to being emphatic

116

about it, and in this case this step seems to be mirrored in the historical

process. These items, which were once used by speakers to vouch for the

truth of what they were saying, are today used to convey emphasis’’ (1993,

181). Quirk et al. (1985) do make a synchronic distinction between adverbs

that add to the force of an adjective and those that select it degree. This

general distinction is not disputed here, but it is not a diachronically stable

one.

Of the authors quoted here, however, only Partington seems to look upon

modal adverbs as a productive source of innovation within the class of

degree modifiers. This may be due to the fact that linguists generally regard

it as a counter-intuitive to analyse certainly, probably or definitely as

modifiers of adjectives. These adverbs undoubtedly operate mainly on the

clause level, but so did very, entirely or utterly just a few centuries ago.

Naturally there is a fundamental functional difference between adjective

modifiers and clause-level adverbial. But the boundary is a fuzzy one. The

difference can be shown in the following examples:

(1) She was certainly guilty, but the police couldn’t prove it. [OCD]

(2) She was not exactly good-looking, but definitely attractive. [OCD]

(3) He is obviously wrong there. [CCD]

(4) There would certainly be watchers there. [CCD]

(5) He will definitely be back on the next time though. [CCD]

(6) Obviously, the time that a child can be still and pay attention will

depend on many different factors, such as: Gender . [CCD]

In examples (1) – (3) the adverb arguably emphasizes the adjacent adjective.

It is placed in a markedly premodifying position. In (4) – (6), on the other

117

hand, the adverb acts more globally. Therefore, it is only when a ‘‘modal’’

adverb immediately comes to focus on an adjective, as in (1) – (3), its

clause-level modal function converges with one of adjective intensification.

5.2. The Semantic Category ‘‘Evaluative’’

Speaker-stance evaluation is potentially the most productive category among

others since it comprises all adverbs which in adverb-adjective collocation

can be paraphrased as ‘‘to a degree that I find ADJ’’ (Lorenz 1999, 110). In

this context ADJ stands for the adjectival base of the adverb. Hence, the

phrase ludicrously expensive [OCD] semantically corresponds to ‘‘expensive

to a degree that I find ludicrous’’, and someone who is reported to be

fabulously rich [LTP] is rich to a degree that the speaker finds fabulous. This

kind of ‘‘evaluative’’ pattern is almost infinitely open-ended – and therefore

virtually begs the creation of expressive degree modifiers. ‘‘Evaluative’’

adjective modifiers are possibly the most powerful resource of innovation in

the functional category of degree modification. Besides scaling their focus,

the ‘‘evaluative’’ adverbs tend to express a judgemental notion on the part of

the speaker. The 40 items selected to be on the list for membership of the

‘‘evaluative’’ category are ordered below according to the wideness of their

collocational range. The OCD and the LTP provide a number of collocating

adjectives for each of the ‘‘evaluative’’ items:

Terribly 103 Overly 8

Reasonably 93 Exquisitely 7

Incredibly 79 Delicately 7

Seriously 48 Understandably 7

118

Sufficiently 46 Violently 7

Severely 40 Brutally 7

Notoriously 40 Ludicrously 5

Wonderfully 35 Elegantly 4

Beautifully 33 Comfortably 3

Hopelessly 27 Justifiably 3

Amazingly 25 Insufficiently 3

Suitably 20 Fabulously 2

Properly 19 Sweetly 2

Painfully 17 Prettily 2

Horribly 16 Breathtakingly 2

unbelievably 16 Disgustingly 1

Ridiculously 13 Terrifically 1

Awfully 12 Extortionately 1

Adequately 10 Spectacularly 1

Brilliantly 9 Fantastically 1

Table 5-2 ‘‘Evaluative’’ adverbs and the Number of their Collocating Adjectives

It is plainly evident from the list that terribly has the widest collocational

range. This emphasizes the fact that it is by far the most frequent and

therefore the most delexicalized ‘‘evaluative’’ item among others. Before

elaborating on this point, an essential distinction needs to be discussed. As

has been stated by Lorenz (2002), the members of ‘‘evaluative’’ list can be

divided neatly into two groups (see Figure 5-2):

119

a Those that express a ‘‘telic’’ evaluation, i.e. that presuppose a norm,

standard, or some sort of criterion: adequately, properly, suitably, and

sufficiently indicate that a certain standard has been met, and that the

referent is endowed with ‘‘enough’’ or ‘‘just the right degree’’ of a

quality, whereas extortionately, overly and insufficiently signify

judgements of ‘‘excess’’ or ‘‘shortage’’ in various strengths. The

‘‘excess-suitability’’ subset corresponds closely to the closed-class

items such as too and enough. It should be mentioned that telic

evaluators are ultimately a restricted set, as there is only a limited

number of adverbs denoting ‘‘enough to reach, exceed or fall short of

a given norm’’

b Those that express an ‘‘open’’, non-telic evaluation, such as

wonderfully, seriously and ridiculously. This is an almost boundless

resource, comprising potentially all adverbs derived from an

evaluative adjective. It is entirely up to the speaker to draw a

connection between a personal evaluation and an adjectival quality:

one may find something amazingly cheap, unbelievably exciting [both

OCD], ridiculously small, or reasonably efficient [both LTP], calling

someone painfully shy, or speaking of a breathtakingly beautiful girl

[both OCD]. It is a matter of idiosyncratically personal choice how we

evaluate the fact that a referent possesses a certain quality to a certain

degree. Someone who looks painfully thin to one person may look

incredibly thin [both OCD] to another. Viewing the non-telic

evaluators from the perspective of emotional load, they can be further

subdivided into three subsets:

b (i) Non-Telic Positive Evaluators: terrifically, fantastically,

fabulously, spectacularly, brilliantly, beautifully, elegantly,

120

exquisitely, delicately, wonderfully, sweetly, comfortably, prettily,

incredibly, amazingly, unbelievably, breathtakingly

b (ii) Non-Telic Neutral Evaluators: reasonably, seriously,

understandably, justifiably

b (iii) Non-Telic Negative Evaluators: terribly, awfully, disgustingly,

ludicrously, ridiculously, horribly, severely, violently, notoriously,

brutally, hopelessly, painfully

Semantic Category ‘Evaluative’

Telic evaluators Non-telic evaluators

Suitability Shortage Excess Positive Neutral Negative

e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g.

properly insufficiently overly terrifically reasonably awfully

Figure 5-2 Essential classification of ‘’evaluative’’ category

To return to an earlier point concerning the case of terribly. For such

adverbs which have a strongly negative charge, such as awfully, horribly, or

terribly, one will naturally expect negative collocates, too – if they still

express a negative evaluation. Combinations like awfully nice [OCD] or

terribly young [LTP], for example, will no more fit the evaluative pattern as

postulated above: awfully nice does not mean ‘‘nice to a degree that I find

awful’’ and terribly young can likewise not be glossed as ‘‘young to a

degree that I find terrible’’. But it will be wrong to conclude that the ‘‘to a

121

degree’’ pattern is an inadequate paraphrase for the ‘‘evaluative’’ logic;

much more likely, awfully and terribly have already started to become

delexicalized and their emotional force has been blunted through frequent

use.

Horribly, on the other hand, still seems to have preserved its emotional

impact; to describe someone as being horribly drunk [OCD] strikes the

listener as a tough over-zealous, and the assertion that someone looks

horribly confused [LTP] conjures up very strong associations indeed. The

two examples show the effect of delexicalization: in contrast to its former

near-synonyms terribly and awfully (now delexicalized), horribly cannot

(yet?) be combined with a positive term. Out of context, adjectives like

aware, familiar and self-conscious [all OCD] seem to be positively loaded or

neutral adjectives. However, in their combination with horribly they produce

a phrase which evokes a negative connotation. Consider the following

citations taken from the OCD:

(7) Moran was horribly aware of Luke’s absence.

(8) A situation which has become horribly familiar to most teachers.

(9) He started to get horribly self-conscious about his weight.

In these examples horribly exerts a negative pressure on the adjective and

can safely be replaced by ‘‘painfully’’ or ‘‘uncomfortably’’. For strong

emotive adverbs, the starting point of the delexicalization process probably

lies where the ‘‘evaluative’’ pattern begins to be corrupted. Bäcklund states

that ‘‘It is also striking that most adverbs expressing a high degree (awfully,

bloody and extremely) have connotations of nonchalance or insincerity

122

which blunt their intensifying force’’ (1973, 288). The data under study

contains some cases of such ‘‘insincerity’’, for instance :

(10) You look disgustingly healthy! How do you manage it? [OCD]

(11) She was brutally frank in her assessments of our chances. [OCD]

(12) She found the whole concept wonderfully absurd. [OCD]

The adverb-adjective collocations in these instances ironically play on the

common-sense assumption that nobody in their right minds would normally

call health ‘‘disgusting’’, or associate frank and absurd with brutal and

wonderful respectively. The motivation for producing this kind of

‘‘insincere’’ adverb-adjective collocation obviously lies in its saliency; in

the words of Partington: ‘‘Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this

phenomenon is that the sheer novelty of a collocation is likely to make it

more intensifying than a predictable one’’ (1993, 180). Therefore, it is easily

conceivable that ‘‘blunting’’ of awfully and terribly also had its origin in

such forms of irony.

From what has been said one can reasonably infer that positively loaded

adverbs are strongly biased towards collocating with positive adjectives,

while non-delexicalized negative adverbs naturally collocate with negative

adjectives. Neutral adverbs, on the other hand, show potential to have

positive, negative and neutral adjectives to collocate with.

Turning now to the second parameter of ‘‘evaluative’’ adverb-adjective

collocation, i.e. examining the intensifying force of the ‘‘evaluative’’

adverbs. Bearing in mind the previous points concerning the Quirkian scalar

system and the notion of ‘‘boundedness’’, the ‘‘evaluative’’ set contains

boosters, compromizers and minimizer (see Figure 5-3)

123

The Semantic Category ‘’Evaluative’’

Scalarity (Unbounded)

Amplifier Downtoner

Booster Compromizer Minimizer

e.g. e.g. e.g.

terribly adequately insufficiently

Figure 5-3 ‘‘Evaluative’’ category in relation with degree modification.

Boosters : terrifically, sweetly, breathtakingly, seriously,

overly, terribly, severely, delicately, violently

disgustingly, brutally, prettily, notoriously,

comfortably, awfully, extortionately, incredibly,

exquisitely, hopelessly, fabulously, amazingly,

horribly, painfully, spectacularly, beautifully,

ludicrously, brilliantly, ridiculously, elegantly,

wonderfully, unbelievably, fantastically

Compromizers: sufficiently, adequately, suitably, properly,

reasonably, understandably, justifiably

Minimizer: insufficiently

As regards the combinatorial aspects of the ‘‘evaluative’’ adverbs and the

collocating adjectives, it is found that their mode of conceptualizations are in

reasonable harmony. Indeed, with few exceptions, the gradable feature in the

adjectives and the grading function of the ‘‘evaluative’’ adverbs go together

124

in terms of boundedness. In addition to evaluation which is characteristically

their major function, ‘‘Evaluative’’ adverbs can function as unbounded

degree modifiers. Their grading function can not to be conceptualized in

absolute (either-or) terms but rather in terms of scalarity (more-or-less).

It is striking – if unsurprising, perhaps – that all of the emotionally charged

‘‘evaluative’’ adverbs in this study are boosters. They mainly collocate with

unbounded scalar adjectives like glad, nice, cold, some unbounded extreme

adjectives like fascinating, frustrating, enthusiastic, and very few bounded

limit adjectives such as different, wrong, innocent.

It is interesting to note that the ‘‘evaluative’’ compromizer paradigm

consists of telic evaluators which presuppose a norm that has to be fulfilled,

i.e. they imply ‘‘suitability’’ judgement on the part of the speaker. The list of

their collocating adjectives mainly consists of unbounded scalar adjectives

mostly those ending in –ed such as experienced, educated, skilled. However,

some bounded limit adjectives are also evident particularly in the collocating

list of reasonably, e.g. reasonably (sober, satisfied, harmless) [OCD]. This

might be explained by the fact that its adjectival base ‘‘reasonable’’ is biased

towards a limit reading. There is also an instance of a non-gradable adjective

in combination with an ‘‘evaluative’’ compromizer properly married

[OCD]. Finally, insufficiently which is a telic evaluator denoting ‘‘shortage’’

minimizes the adjectival qualities. Its grading function is similar to that of

minimizers like hardly, scarcely, poorly, etc. something that is insufficiently

precise [OCD] does not meet the speaker’s standards of precision.

125

5.3. The Semantic Category ‘‘Comparative’’

In relation to the ‘‘modal’’ category, which lists 34 different items, and the

‘‘evaluative’’ set with its 40 items and an almost unlimited potential for

enlargement, the category of ‘‘comparative’’ adjective modifiers in this

study is small and relatively unspectacular. The reason for taking it into

consideration lies in its relation with the functional category of degree

modification. The ‘‘comparative’’ category incorporates adverbs which

realize intensification by drawing a kind of ‘‘peer-comparison’’ (Lorenz

1999). In other words, ‘‘comparative’’ items achieve intensification by

comparing the referent with its rivals or equals. The 8 selected

‘‘comparative’’ items in the present study are not to be taken as constituting

a complete inventory of the class. They are no more than just exemplary.

One may add other members to the list.

Table 5-3 ‘‘Comparative’’ adverbs and the Number of their Collocating Adjectives.

Relatively: 175

Particularly: 112

Comparatively: 65

Especially: 44

Extraordinarily: 36

Unusually: 30

Eminently: 19

Not particularly: 16

126

As far as the Quirkian scalar system and the notion of ‘‘boundedness’’ are

concerned, the ‘‘comparative’’ items can be rearranged as follows:

The Semantic Category ‘‘Comparative’’ Scalarity (Unbounded)

Amplifier Downtoner

Boosters Compromizers Minimizer

eminently comparatively not particularly

especially relatively

unusually

particularly

extraordinarily

Figure 5-4 The Rearrangement of ‘‘comparative’’ items in accordance with Quirkian

scalar system and ‘‘boundedness’’ notion.

The grading function of ‘‘comparative’’ adjective modifiers is to be

conceptualized in terms of scalarity, i.e. more-or-less conception. They are

unbounded degree modifiers. They mainly collocate with unbounded scalar

adjectives such as short, narrow, rich. However, they show potential to

modify some bounded limit adjectives, e.g. (relatively) sober, empty,

autonomous; (particularly) true; or (comparatively) unknown, unaware,

painless [all OCD]. In these instances, the interpretation of the adjectives are

restricted to an unbounded scalar reading, i.e. they are contextually

modulated to evoke a scalar interpretation through the existence of

unbounded ‘‘comparative’’ degree modifiers. There are also some examples

127

of unbounded extreme adjectives such as (particularly) frustrating,

traumatic; or (relatively) sophisticated [all OCD].

The distinction of the ‘‘comparative’’ adverbs into boosters, compromizers

and minimizer is based on the force of their intensification. If we call

someone particularly sensitive [OCD], we find them very sensitive, and

more so than other people; someone who is eminently qualified [OCD] for a

particular task is highly qualified, and more than others or more than one

might expect. By contrast, someone who is comparatively wealthy [OCD] is

wealthy by comparison, but not necessarily wealthy in absolute terms. The

meaning of comparison is literally expressed in comparatively and

relatively. In terms of intensifying force, both are markedly weaker than

eminently, especially, extraordinarily, unusually, and particularly. Lastly,

there is ambiguity in the case of minimizing ‘‘comparative’’ item not

particularly. As has been pointed out by Lorenz (2002), at first sight not

particularly seem to be a mere negation of boosters, and hence as much

concerned with comparison as they are. This meaning is present in

occurrences such as:

(13) It is possible that there’s something about genre movies, anyway,

which is not particularly congenial to women filmmakers. [CCD]

In this context, the reading intended by the writer is probably ‘‘not much

more congenial than male filmmakers’’ – clearly a comparative meaning.

Yet there are counter-examples like:

(14) Tar balls are not particularly toxic and will soon be covered by sand.

[CCD]

128

(15) She was informed that this was not particularly unusual but was

advised to come back after the weekend for a scan. [CCD]

In these two usages, not particularly is not used to mean ‘‘no more than

other’’, but rather as a hedged way of negating. Its meaning is here confined

to that of ‘‘degree’’ items such as not very or hardly. It is not difficult to see

why ‘‘comparative’’ adjective modifiers can be reduced to a purely scalar

function; most human judgement is made on a comparative basis: calling

someone ‘‘big’’ or ‘‘small’’ amounts to saying they are bigger or smaller

than other people, and to find something ‘‘easy’’ or ‘‘difficult’’ implies it is

more so than other things or than could be expected. But since the meaning

of comparison can still be foregrounded, we seem to have a patent need for

this conceptual resource.

It is unfortunate for the analyst that all degree modifiers carry a note of

‘‘comparison’’. Closed-class rather, for example, intensifies ‘‘to a medium

degree’’; rather good means ‘‘better than some, but can still be bettered’’. In

a similar way, ‘‘degree’’ item extremely also conveys a hint of

‘‘especially’’; if we refer to someone as extremely stupid, we naturally imply

‘‘more so than most’’. The boundary between ‘‘comparative’’ and ‘‘degree’’

must consequently be flexible enough to allow for delexicalized usage.

At first glance it is difficult to see the ‘‘comparative’’ category as a potential

source for delexicalization. but compare the above items with the ‘‘degree’’

maximizer absolutely, which has over time become delexicalized from

denoting ‘‘in absolute terms; without comparison’’ (Lorenz 1999). By

expressly denying comparison, the original lexical meaning of course also

signals ‘‘comparative’’ membership for lexical absolutely. Yet adjective

129

modifier absolutely has lost its comparative meaning. Having the widest

collocational range among other ‘‘comparative’’ items reflects the fact that

relatively is by far the most frequent and hence the most delexicalized

adjective modifier. This statement should not be taken to imply the case of

full delexicalization. It is true that the comparative meaning of relatively has

been weakened but has not (yet?) been lost. Evidence for its delexicalization

comes from the fact that in some of its contexts the meaning of comparison

is not so strong. While it is still present in collocation with positively

connoted adjectives, as in relatively easy/successful/comfortable [all OCD],

it seems to have become somewhat delexicalized towards a merely scalar

downtoning function in conjunction with negative adjectives, such as short,

neglect, or costly [OCD].

A point that can be made from all these discussions is that ‘‘degree’’

category discussed in chapter four can be seen as a diachronic drain of

delexicalization. the more delexicalized an adverb, the more likely it

converges towards the semantic category ‘‘degree’’. Thus, really, terribly

and relatively put themselves forward as successful candidates which are

ready to resign their original conceptual membership and apply for

‘’degree’’ membership. (See Figure 5-5)

130

Figure 5-5 ‘‘Degree’’ category in relation with other semantic categories

5.4. The Semantic Category ‘‘Semantic Feature Copying’’

The stance that has been adopted so far was that collocation is a matter of a

relationship of mutual expectancy between lexical items; and that mutual

expectancy simply rests on habitual co-occurrence. The collocational

relation does not require a semantic relation between its parts but is based on

frequency of use only. However, some kinds of adverb-adjective

collocations do depend on semantic relations. Examples which will be

discussed in this section include spotlessly clean, easily accessible, closely

integrated, readily available, vitally important [all OCD], whose co-

selection constraints (to borrow Sinclair’s terminology) are based on sharing

semantic features.

In this vein, the dictionary searches have identified one set that cannot be

subsumed under any of the preceding four semantic categories. This set has

been labelled ‘‘semantic feature copying’’. The term ‘‘semantic feature

copying’’ has been borrowed from Bublitz (1998), who uses it to describe

Modality truly undeniably evidently clearly ..........

Evaluative awfully delicately violently disgustingly ...............

Comparative comparatively unusually especially particularly .................

really terribly relatively

DEGREE very, rather, almost, ......... slightly, greatly, fully,.......

131

Sinclair’s examples of lexical co-selection, e.g. physical body and scientific

experiment. In these co-occurrences the modifying adjective does not add

much new information: the nouns body and experiment already contain the

features of ‘‘physical’’ and ‘‘scientific’’ respectively. The adjectives have

purely focusing function, which they achieve by duplicating one of the

noun’s semantic component.

The same mechanism is prevalent in adjective intensification by ‘‘semantic

feature copying’’ items. It concerns adverb-adjective collocations where the

adverb shares or copies a substantial part of the adjective’s meaning to

achieve intensification. Such shared meaning often entails co-selection of

both lexical items. Partington states that ‘’shared meaning is clearly at the

heart of the principle of collocation. Very often, in the course of the on-line

production of language, one word or group of words almost automatically

‘calls up’ another specific word or phrase, or at least, constrains the speaker

to the choice of one of a limited set of possibilities’’ (1993, 186). It is a well-

established collocational pattern for a modifier to echo the meaning of its

head.

As has been stated above, the ‘‘semantic feature copying’’ items fit into non

of the preceding semantic categories: they are too narrow in collocation and

too lexical in meaning to be ‘‘degree’’, they do not allow the ‘‘evaluative’’

paraphrase (‘‘to an extent that I find ------’’), and they are certainly not

‘‘modal’’ or ‘‘comparative’’ in meaning. Instead, ‘‘semantic feature

copying’’ accounts for the formation of two types of adverb-adjective

collocation, namely, ‘‘stereotyped’’ and ‘‘creative’’ one (Granger 1998).

The ‘‘stereotyped’’ ones have a high mutual expectancy and are therefore

likely to share some meaning such as vitally important; the creative ones, in

132

turn, are only seemingly creative in the sense of ‘‘freely innovative’’, but

rather obey stringent – if mostly covert – semantic restrictions. ‘‘Creative’’

adverb-adjective collocations are acceptable ad hoc formations such as

ludicrously ineffective (to borrow Lorenz’s example). Two questions now

inevitably arise:

What kind of adverb-adjective collocations are likely to be

‘‘stereotyped’’?

Are there any rules for the formation of ‘‘creative’’ adverb-adjective

collocation?

The criterion to be employed here is the collocability of adverb and

adjective, i.e. the wideness of their collocational range. An adverb, for

instance, which has only one or two adjectives to collocate with is more

likely to form a ‘‘stereotyped’’ collocation than the one which has a wide

collocational range. Consequently, delexicalized adverbs can not form

‘‘stereotyped’’ collocations since they can be safely used in a wide variety

of contexts. Compare spotlessly clean with very deep. Granger uses the term

‘‘creative combinations’’ as a label for ‘‘novel’’ or ‘‘unusual’’ co-

occurrences such as fabulously successful [CCD]. As far as the preceding

semantic categories are concerned, the ‘‘evaluative’’ category offers

limitless potential for creative adverb-adjective collocation.

5.4.1. Copying Conceptual Meaning: Enhancing and Reducing

Force

In his discussion of adjective intensification, Lorenz (1999) points out that

‘‘semantic feature copying’’ is a powerful intensifying mechanism. In order

133

to fully appreciate its workings, both elements of the adverb-adjective

collocation have to be examined. Consider the following collocations:

blindingly obvious [LTP] instantly recognizable [OCD]

clearly defined [LTP] intensely frustrating [OCD]

clearly visible [LTP] intimately acquainted [OCD]

closely related [LTP] irrevocably committed [OCD]

dangerously misleading [OCD] loosely structured [OCD]

directly involved [LTP] peacefully asleep [OCD]

easily accessible [OCD] permanently handicapped [OCD]

easily comprehensible [OCD] ruthlessly exploited [OCD]

easily readable [OCD] savagely contemptuous [OCD]

firmly attached [LTP] shockingly disfigured [LTP]

firmly embedded [OCD] strictly limited [OCD]

heavily loaded [OCD] strongly nationalistic [OCD]

heavily overweight [OCD] tightly constrained [OCD]

immediately noticeable [OCD] vaguely aware [OCD]

Semantically, these ‘‘feature copying’’ collocations are mutually associated

by shared components of meaning and semantic implication. To understand

these associations it is important to realise that the combinations can still be

lexically motivated, even if some of them are co-selected in collocation. This

does not contradict the frequent assertion that habitual co-occurrences and

shared meaning may eventually lead to delexicalization. The present

analysis merely traces back the original lexical link.

Lorenz states that the minimum semantic connection is that of a shared

conceptual feature: easily, for example, contains the feature of

134

[FEASIBILITY], the notion that something ‘‘can be done’’ – one that is also

inherent in its collocates comprehensible, accessible, and readable. But

easily does not only copy ‘‘feasibility’’, it also reinforces it: easily

comprehensible is more ‘‘comprehensible’’ than unmarked comprehensible;

in analogy, easily accessible is more ‘‘accessible’’ than accessible, and

easily readable is more ‘‘readable’’ than readable. In directly involved both

constituents imply [IMMEDIACY] or [CONTACT], and by augmenting this

one feature – compare the frequent collocation direct contact [OCD] –

directly can be read as amplifying involved. For further illustration, in all of

the following collocations the adverb operates as a degree modifier by

copying an important component of the adjective’s meaning: clearly define,

clearly visible, permanently handicapped, firmly embedded, heavily loaded,

heavily overweight, immediately noticeable, ruthlessly exploited, intensely

frustrating, strictly limited, instantly recognizable – in short, most

combination from the columns above.

It should be added that in some cases the ‘‘partial enhancement’’ is taken to

a hyperbolic extreme, e.g. blindingly obvious. Nevertheless, it follows the

same ‘‘feature copying’’ principle. Almost all ‘‘feature copying’’ degree

modifiers are amplifiers; as has been stated, it is part of the copying

mechanism to enhance the meaning of the adjective. From the dictionary

searches two instances emerged in which ‘‘feature copying’’ degree

modifiers act as diminishers, namely, loosely structured and vaguely aware.

These are cases of ‘‘feature contradiction’’ – a kind of ‘‘negative feature

copying’’ (Bublitz 1998). ‘‘Feature copying’’ and ‘‘feature contradiction’’

are part of the same phenomenon, only with converse effects. In the current

135

examples, the reductive effect is achieved by reversing rather than echoing

conceptual features of the adjective:

Structured implies ‘’fixed’’ or ‘‘rigid’’ rather than ‘‘loose’’, and

loosely structured hence means ‘‘little structured’’ more than

‘‘structured in a loose manner’’, as it would ordinarily be paraphrased.

Aware suggests ‘‘conscious’’, ‘‘if you are aware of something, you

know about it’’ [CCD] and it is clear to you. This makes vaguely

aware near-synonymous with hardly aware.

These two occurrences resemble Allerton’s oxymoronic example of

cautiously optimistic mentioned in chapter three, here, too, the modifier

‘‘tones down’’ the adjective by semantically contradicting the adjective. The

logic also explains the reductive effect of technically (possible) and

theoretically (possible), which Quirk et al. (1985) and Johansson (1993)

classify as ‘‘viewpoint’’ adverbials without considering their restrictive

functions. in both cases the modifier has the opposite effect of easily

(possible). In this way, both enhancing and reducing force can be explained

far more plausibly than by simply assigning clause-level roles to phrase-

level adverbials. In most existing descriptions, the ‘‘semantic feature

copying’’ degree modifiers have been analysed as ‘‘manner’’ or

‘‘viewpoint’’ adverbials, and their intensifying force has therefore either

remained unclarified or been completely overlooked.

5.4.2. Copying (almost) all Features: Intensifying Hendiadys

Sometimes the whole lexical meaning of the modifier is encapsulated in that

of the adjective, although this is less frequent than merely copying and

enhancing one feature. The collocate of serenely, i.e. peaceful, subsumes and

136

implies serene, much in the same way as honest implies scrupulous in

scrupulously honest. Yet the mere seemingly tautological, repetition of a less

specific meaning component can have an amplifying effect. Genuine forms

of repetitive intensification can take the form of almost complete

duplication. Consider the following examples drawn from the OCD:

Bitterly cold Readily available

Blatantly clear Scrupulously honest

Clearly evident Serenely peaceful

Crucially important Spotlessly clean

Plainly evident Vitally important

This list comprises combinations of near-synonyms. The participating items

in this type of adverb-adjective collocation are contextually equivalent or

almost identical in denotation, but differ in frequency and range. In all these

instances, however, intensification is achieved by tautologically copying the

best part of the adjective’s meaning. As tautological implies replication in

the sense of ‘‘redundant’’, however, this special case of ‘‘semantic feature

copying’’ has been labelled ‘‘hendiadys’’ by Lorenz (1999). Hendiadys

intensification is a common, if rather special occurrence. It may well have

been the mechanism which originally triggered off the adjective

intensification function for very, which is now the most frequent off all

degree modifiers.

5.4.3. Copying Collocative Meaning : Emotive Boosters

In the least significant ‘‘semantic feature copying’’ sub-group, there are a

number of idiosyncratic boosters which tend to collocate with states of mind,

emotion or health. The OCD provides the following examples:

137

badly needed, injured

deeply insulting, disappointed, interested, rooted, impressed

involved

fiercely opposed

warmly welcome

In these 10 adverb-adjective collocations, the ‘‘feature copying’’ mechanism

is not as conspicuous as in the previous two groups. The feature that is

duplicated in co-selection is merely one of collocative meaning (Leech

1974). It is part of the meaning of deeply and warmly that they modify

emotive adjectives. As has been pointed out by Lorenz (1999), such

collocational ‘‘colouring’’ of meaning is generally recognised as the result

of habitual co-occurrence.

In terms of linguistic description, the rationale of ‘‘copying collocative

meaning’’ is a little more than merely tautological. Superficially speaking,

stating that warmly in warmly welcome copies a collocative feature is

tantamount to saying that warmly frequently collocates with adjectives that

are marked for [POSITIVE EMOTION]. Lorenz makes this link explicit in

order to explain Bolinger’s example ‘’one who is coldly polite is less than

ordinarily polite’’. Standard descriptions so far have simply not spelled out

that the reducing effect in Bolinger’s coldly polite, for example, is

accomplished by substituting the habitual amplifier warmly with its lexical

antonym coldly. In analogy to loosely structured and vaguely aware above,

coldly polite also operates in terms of ‘‘feature contradiction’’. And as it has

been posited that ‘‘feature copying’’ and ‘‘feature contradiction’’ are

congruent mechanisms, the ‘‘semantic feature copying’’ label also applies to

unmarked collocations such as warmly welcome.

138

All in all, this study has identified five functional-semantic resources from

which adjective modifiers can be taken. Although the five semantic

categories have proved to be of a high conceptual value, the fact remains

that in their combination with adjectives, adverbs convey a type of meaning

which is grammatical in nature. This may be due to this syntactic slot

preceding the adjective (Adverb – Adjective) that weakens adverbs’

semantic content and attaches a grammatical function of degree

modification. Therefore, from a semantic perspective, it is the adjective that

is more important than the adverb in adverb-adjective collocation not just

because it is the head of the resulting phrase (AP), but because it carries a

semantic meaning.

Chapter Six:

Summary Conclusions and

Suggestions for Further

Study

139

Chapter Six Summary Conclusions and Suggestions for

Further Study

6.0. Introduction

This chapter is intended to present a number of conclusions or recapitulate

the outstanding points regarding adverb-adjective collocation that have

emerged from the material examined in this study. Furthermore, It is hoped

that the study will serve as the basis for further studies in this area of

language. Therefore, suggestions for further studies is the second part of the

chapter.

6.1. Summary Conclusions

In the light of the aforementioned facts, a number of outstanding conclusions

can be drawn in what follows:

� The meaning conveyed by the first participating element in adverb-

adjective collocation, i.e. the adverb, is grammatical in nature.

Besides, it has a communicative value which lies in the fact that it

establishes a link between speakers and listeners or writers and

readers, and by which subjectivity and personal involvement can be

detected. Whereas, the meaning expressed by the second participating

element, i.e. the adjective, is semantic in nature. Therefore, it is the

adjective that is more important than the adverb from a semantic point

of view not just because it is the head of the resulting phrase but

because it carries the semantic meaning.

140

� The syntactic slot preceding the adjective in the construction of

adverb-adjective collocation, given that it is not filled by ‘‘viewpoint’’

adverbs, is uniquely characterized by attaching the grammatical

meaning of intensification to the adverb and weakening its semantic

content.

• Virtually any adverb, even if it happens to be accidentally

found in this syntactic slot, tends to have or to develop an

intensifying meaning. To put it another way, an adverb

modifying an adjective tends to dilute its literal meaning in

favour of a nearly straightforward intensification.

• Intensification (or degree modification) can be conceived as the

anticipated outcome of most adverb-adjective collocation in

English language.

• Semantic weakening is conditioned by the increasing rate of

occurrence, that is, this syntactic slot can only affect those

adverbs that are very frequent in this context. Thus, the more

frequent an adverb in adverb-adjective collocation, the more

likely it runs the risk of delexicalization process accelerated by

this syntactic slot.

� The richness of the conceptual meaning and the semantic character of

the adverbs determine their function in their combination with

adjectives.

• Adverbs that are semantically weak can not contribute to the

meaning of the adjective they apply to. They do no more than

simply modifying the degree or extent of a certain gradable

feature present in the adjective.

141

• Semantically rich adverbs can, in addition to degree

modification, fulfil other functions.

� Delexicalized adverbs are building bricks rather than prefabricated

units in the construction of adverb-adjective collocation. Such adverbs

are used as ‘‘all-round’’, ‘‘safe bet’’ or ‘‘general purpose’’ items with

no or very little collocational restrictions.

� The gradable feature in the adjective must harmonize with the grading

function of the adverb in terms of totality and scalarity to make a

successful match.

• Based on the present results, the validity of a ‘‘bidirectional’’

semantic model of relationship between the two elements has

been confirmed.

• Regardless of the semantic fields they may belong to, all the

adverbs labeled ‘‘maximizers’’ and ‘‘approximators’’ in the

present study mainly collocate with bounded limit adjectives,

‘‘boosters’’, ‘‘compromizers’’, ‘‘diminishers’’ and

‘‘minimizers’’ mainly collocate with unbounded scalar

adjectives. Extreme adjectives, on the other hand, are

compatible with ‘‘maximizers’’ and ‘‘boosters’’. This indicates

that unbounded adjectives select those adverbs that have an

unbounded grading function, i.e. grading in terms of ‘‘more-or-

less’’; whereas bounded adjectives select those adverbs that

have bounded mode of conceptualization, i.e. grading in terms

of ‘‘either-or’’. Any combination which is in breach of this

pattern have found to accept the explanation of ‘’contextual

modulation’’.

142

� The adverbs under study are found to operate along five different

semantic dimensions: ‘‘degree’’, ‘‘modal’’, ‘‘evaluative’’,

‘‘comparative’’ and ‘‘semantic feature copying’’. These are

conceptual domains of degree modification, i.e. the sources from

which new items are taken.

• The ‘’degree’’ category comprises those adverbs which have no

semantic extension beyond that of grading the adjacent

adjective. Morphologically, they can be classified into closed-

class and open-class ‘‘degree’’ adverbs. The two subsets are

widely combinable and are not subject to strict collocational

restrictions.

• The ‘‘modal’’ adverbs are truth modulators; they do not grade

the meaning of the adjective, but rather grade its applicability,

i.e. the degree to which it hold true.

• The ‘‘evaluative’’ adverbs combine grading function with

speaker evaluation. They are possibly the most powerful

resource of innovation in the functional category of degree

modification.

• The ‘‘comparative’’ category is smaller than others, it is not

nearly as open-ended, as there is only a limited set of adverbs

that contain the notion of comparison.

• ‘‘Semantic feature copying’’ category consists of adverbs that

can achieve intensification by duplicating a part of the

adjective’s meaning. It has turned out to be an astonishingly

powerful resource for adjective intensification. ‘‘Feature

copying’’ adverbs are co-selected with the adjectives they

143

modify. Unlike the other categories, their co-selection

constraints are based on sharing semantic features. They have a

very restricted range of collocation.

• The ‘’degree’’ category can be seen as a diachronic drain of

delexicalization. The more delexicalized an adverb, the more

likely it converges towards the semantic category of ‘‘degree’’.

The results have shown that really, terribly and relatively put

themselves forward as successful candidates which are ready to

resign their original conceptual membership and apply for

‘‘degree’’ membership.

6.2. Suggestions for Further Studies

This study could only touch upon some general aspects of the topic.

However, there might be other things that still remain unknown and need

further investigation. Those listed below are recommendations for further

commentaries and explorations:

� Investigating and contrasting recurrent adverb-adjective collocations

across a number of different corpora; for example, native versus non-

native or written versus spoken corpora, and taking sociolinguistic

factors into consideration such as age, sex, education, region, style,

specialism, etc. In this way language and sociocultural variables will

be correlated.

� Expanding the semantic classification of adverbs by recognizing

other semantic fields, or adding new potential members to those

discussed in this study.

144

� Carrying out contrastive studies between English and other languages

to find out about the similarities and/or differences and also to realize

translation difficulties.

145

References

Akmajian, Adrian, Richard A. Demers, Ann K. Farmer, and Robert M.

Harnish. 1995. Linguistics: an Introduction to Language and

Communication. 4th ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Allerton, D. J. 1984. Three (or four) levels of word cooccurrence restriction.

Lingua 63:17-40.

---. 1987. English intensifiers and their idiosyncrasies. In Language

topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday, ed. R. Steele and T.

Threadgold, 15-31. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Altenberg, Bengt. 1991. Amplifier collocations in spoken English. In

English computer corpora: Selected papers and research guide, ed.

Stig Johansson and Anna-Brita Stenström, 127-47. Berlin: Mouton de

Gruyter.

Athanasiadou, Angeliki. 2007. On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language

Sciences. 29, no. 4: 554-565.

Bäcklund, Ulf. 1973. The collocation of adverbs of degree in English.

Uppsala: Acta Universitatis. Quoted in G. Lorenz, Adjective

Intensification-Learners versus native speakers: a corpus study of

argumentative writings (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999), 113.

Bartsch, Sabine. 2004. Structural and functional properties of collocations

in English: A corpus study of lexical and pragmatic constraints on

lexical co-occurrence. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

146

Benson, Morton. 1985. Lexical combinability. In Papers in linguistics, ed.

R. A. Miller, 18: 3-15. Cited in P. Maurer-Stroh, Towards a bilingual

adjective-noun collocation dictionary of English and German.

Unpublished PhD Dissertation. 2004.

Benson, Morton, Evelyn Benson, and Robert IIson. 1986. Lexicographic

description of English. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

---. 1990. The BBI combinatory dictionary of English. Amsterdam: J.

Benjamins.

Benzinger, Edith Moore. 1971. Intensifiers in current English. Unpublished

PhD Dissertation. University of Florida.

Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, and Geoffry Leech. 2002. Longman student

grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.

Bolinger, Dwight. 1967a. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication.

Lingua 18: 1-34.

---. 1967b. Adjective comparison: A semantic scale. Journal of English

Linguistics 1: 2-10.

---. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. Quoted in G. Lorenz,

Adjective Intensification – Learners versus native speakers: a corpus

study of argumentative writing (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999).

---. 1979. Meaning and memory. In Experience Forms: Their cultural and

individual place and function, ed. George G. Haydu. The Hague:

Mouton. Quoted in N. Nesselhauf, Collocations in a learner corpus

(Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 2005), 1.

147

Bublitz, Wolfram. 1998. ‘’I entirely dot dot dot’’ copying semantic features

in collocations with up-scaling intensifiers. In Making meaningful

choices in English: On dimensions, perspectives, methodology and

evidence, ed. R. Schulze, 11-32. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT

Press.

Collins COBUILD English Grammar(CCEG). 2005. Ed. By J. Sinclair.

Glasgow: HarperCollins.

Cowie, A. P. 1978. The place of illustrative material and collocations in the

design of a learner’s dictionary. In In honour of A. S. Hornby, ed. A.

S. Hornby and P. Strevens, 127-139. Oxford: OUP.

---. 1994. Phraseology. In The encyclopedia of language and linguistics,

ed. Keith Brown, 6927-6933. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

---, ed. 1998. Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

---. 2000. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and

pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crystal, David. 2003. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 5th ed.

Malden, MA: Blackwell pub.

Evert, Stefan. 2005. The statistics of word cooccurrences, word pairs and

collocations. Dissertation, Stuttgart University.

148

Firth, J. R. 1957a. A synopsis of linguistic theory. In Studies in linguistic

analysis, ed. The philological Society, 1-32. Oxford. Cited in N. K.

Anagnostou and G. R. S. Weir, Average collocation frequency as an

indicator of semantic complexity, ICTATLL Workshop.

---, 1957b. Modes of meaning. In Papers in linguistics 1934-51. London:

OUP. Quoted in A. Partington, Patterns and meanings: Using corpora

for English research and teaching. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins pub. Co.

Granger, Sylviane. 1998. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing:

Collocations and formulae. In Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and

applications, ed. A. P. Cowie, 145-60. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. Coral Gables:

University of Miami Press.

Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J.

L. Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London:

Edward Arnold.

---. 2004. Lexicology. In Lexicology and corpus linguistics, M. A. K.

Halliday, W. Teubert, C. Yallop, and A. Čermáková, 1-22. London:

Continuum.

Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruqaiya Hassan. 1976. Cohesion in English.

London: Longman.

149

Hausmann, F. J. 1984. Wortschatzlernen ist kollokationslernen zum Lehren

und Lehren französischer wortverbindungen. Praxis des

neusprachilchen unterrichts 31: 395-406. Cited in N. Nesselhauf,

Collocations in a learner corpus (Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.,

2005).

Heid, Ulrich. 1994. On ways words work together – Topics in lexical

combinatorics. In EURALEX’ 94: Proceedings, ed. W. Martin, 226-

157. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Hoey, Michael. 1991. Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University

Pre.

---. 2005. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London:

Routledge.

Hori, Masahiro. 2004. Investigating Dickens’ style: A collocational analysis.

New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ito, Rika, Sali Tagliamonte. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange,

really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language

in Society 32: 257-279.

Jackendoff, R. 1977. X-syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge: MIT

Press. Quoted in C. Paradis, Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken

British English (Lund: Lund University Press, 1997), 12.

Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages. In Selected

writings of Otto Jespersen, 2-80. USA: Routledge.

150

Johansson, Stig. 1993. ‘’Sweetly oblivious’’ : Some aspects of adverb-

adjective combinations in present day English. In Data, description,

discourse: Papers on the English language in honour of John McH

Sinclair, ed. M. Hoey, 39-40. London: HarperCollins Publisher. Cited

in G. Lorenz, Adjective Intensification (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999).

Kamoen, N., B. Holleman, R. Nouwen, T. Sanders, and H. Van den Bergh.

2011. Absolutely relative or relatively absolute? The linguistic

behavior of gradable adjectives and degree modifiers. Journal of

Pragmatics, in press, available online 12 July 2011.

Kastovsky, Dieter. 1976. Intensification and semantic analysis. Foundations

of Language 14, no. 3: 377-398.

Kelly, E. F., and P. J. Stone. 1975. Computer recognition of English words

senses. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Kjellmer, Göran. 1990. Patterns of collocability. In Theory and practice in

corpus linguistics, ed. J. Aarts and W. Meijs, 163-178. Amsterdam:

Rodopi.

Lakoff, G., and M. Johanson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press. Cited in T. Wouden, Negative contexts:

Collocation, polarity and multiple negation (London: Routledge,

1997).

Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics. 2nd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Lehman, Christian. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and

diachronic change. Lingüa e Stile 20, no. 3: 303-318.

151

Lehrer, Adrienne, and Keith Lehrer. 1982. Antonymy. Linguistics and

Philosophy 5, no. 4: 483-501.

Lewis, Michael, ed. 2000. Teaching collocation: Further developments in

the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publication.

Lorenz, Gunter R. 1999. Adjective intensification - Learners versus native

speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam:

Rodopi.

---. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based

approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers

in modern English. In New reflections on grammaticalization, ed. I.

Wischer and G. Diewald, 143-161. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub.

Co.

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Manning, Christopher D., and Hinrich Schütze. 1999. Foundations of

statistical natural language processing. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Maurer-Stroh, Philippa. 2004. Towards a bilingual adjective-noun

collocation dictionary of English and German. Dissertation,

University of Klagenfurt.

http://ubdocs.uni.klu.ac.at/open/hssvol/AC04445625.pdf

Mel'čuk, Igor. 1998. Collocations and lexical functions. In Phraseology:

Theory, analysis, and applications, ed. A. P. Cowie, 23-53. Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

152

Mendez-Naya, Belen. 2003. On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The

case of SWĪPE. English Studies 84, no. 4: 372-391.

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2003. The use of collocations by advanced learners of

English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics 24,

no. 2: 223-42.

---, 2004. What are collocations?. In Phraseological units: Basic concepts

and their application, ed. D. J. Allerton, N. Nesselhauf and P.

Skandera, 1-21. Basel: Schwabe.

---. 2005. Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub.

Co.

Osgood, Charles Egerton, George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum. 1957.

The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of lllinois Press.

Paradis, Carita. 1994. Compromiser – a notational paradigm. Herms 13:

157-67.

---. 1997. Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund:

Lund University Press.

---. 2000a. It’s well weird: Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The

nineties. In Corpora galore: Analysis and techniques in describing

English, ed. J. M. Kirk, 147-60. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

---. 2000b. Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic perspective on

grammaticalization. In Generative Theory and corpus studies: A

dialogue from 10 ICEHL, ed. R. Bermúdez-Otero, D. Denison, R. M.

Hogg and C. B. McCully, 233-258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

153

Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 12,

no. 1: 47-65.

---. 2003. Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really. In

Modality in contemporary English, ed. R. Facchinetti, M. Krug and F.

Palmer, 191-220. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

---. 2008. Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree.

English Language and Linguistics 12, no. 2: 317-343.

Partington, Alan. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change: The case of

the intensifier. In Text and technology, ed. M. Baker, G. Francis and

E. Tognini-Boneli, 177-192. Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

---. 1998. Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language

research and teaching. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Quigley, Katherine. 2005. Keeping company in the city: Compounds in the

lexicon of the New Zealand treasury. New Zealand English Journal

19: 26-35.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffry Leech, and Jan Svartvik.

1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London:

Longman.

Saeed, John I. 2003. Semantics. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Sinclair, John McHardy. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

---. 2000. Lexical grammar. Darbai ir Dienos 24: 191-203.

154

Stoffel, Cornelis. 1901. Intensives and down-toners: A study in English

adverbs. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.

Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical

semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Sweester, E. 1988. Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. In Berkeley

Linguistics Society, ed. S. Axmaker and A. Jaisser, 14: 389-405. Cited

in L. Campbell, What’s wrong with grammaticalization, language

sciences, 2001, 23: 113-161.

Sweet, Henry. 1900. The practical study of languages: A guide for teachers

and learners. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Van der Linden, Erik-Jan. 1993. A categorical, computation theory of

idioms. ITL. Tilburg dissertation. Cited in T. Wouden, Negative

contexts: Collocation, polarity multiple negation (London: Routledge,

1997).

Warren, B. 1984. Classifying adjectives. Göteborg: Acta Universitas

Gothenburgensis. Cited in C. Paradis, Degree modifiers of adjectives

in spoken British English (Lund: Lund University Press, 1997).

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1982. Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have

an eat?. Language 58, no. 4: 753-799.

Wouden, Ton van der. 1997. Negative contexts: Collocation, polarity and

multiple negation. London: Routledge.

Ziegeler, Debra. 2000. What almost can reveal about counterfactual

inferences. Journal of Pragmatics 32, no. 12: 1743-1776.

155

Dictionaries:

---------. 2002. Oxford collocation dictionary for students of English.

Oxford: OUP.

----------. 2006. The LTP dictionary of selected collocations. Language

teaching publication.

----------. 2006. Collins Cobuild dictionary on CD-Rom. Collins Cobuild.

-----------. 2007. Macmillan English dictionary for advanced learners.

Macmillan Publishers.

156

Appendix Ia: Closed-class ‘‘Degree’’ Category

Appendix Ia lists all adjectives found to be intensified by the selected members of closed-class ‘‘degree’’ category in the OCD. The CCD and MED are also consulted for some adverbs in this category. Both the adverbs and their collocating adjectives are listed in alphabetical order.

Almost is used with these adjectives: accidental, afraid, apologetic, asleep, audible, automatic, bald, bankrupt, bare, barren, bearable, beautiful, blasphemous, blind, bound, casual, certain, cheerful, circular, clean, clinical, closed, comic, comical, commonplace, comparable, complete, constant, contemporary, contemptuous, convinced, dark, dazed, defenceless, defunct, derelict, deserted, desperate, devoid, disappointed, drunk, dry, eerie, embarrassed, embarrassing, empty, endless, envious, equal, equivalent, essential, exclusive, extinct, faint, fearful, feminine, flat, forlorn, formal, frantic, friendly, frightened, frightening, full, funny, furtive, gentle, glad, grateful, guilty, handsome, harmless, hopeful, hostile, hysterical, ideal, identical, ill, illiterate, immaterial, immediate, immobile, immortal, immune, impassable, impassive, impatient, impenetrable, imperceptible, impervious, impossible, inaccessible, inaudible, incapable, incidental, incomprehensible, inconceivable, incredible, indecent, independent, indestructible, indifferent, indignant, indispensible, inedible, inevitable, infinite, inhuman, insane, insensitive, inseparable, insignificant, insoluble, instant, instantaneous, instinctive, insulting, intact, interchangeable, intolerable, intuitive, invincible, invisible, irrelevant, irresistible, isolated, lazy, level, lifeless, light, ludicrous, luminous, luxurious, lyrical, mad, magical, meaningless, menacing, miraculous, motionless, naked, negligible, nervous, non-existent, numb, obligatory, oblivious, obscene, obsolete, opaque, oval, overwhelming, painful, painless, patronizing, penniless, perfect, permanent, perpendicular, perverse, physical, pleasant, poetic, predictable, pretty, professional, prophetic, proud, purple, random, ready, relieved, resentful, respectable, responsible, ridiculous, right, rigid, ripe, sacred, sad, secretive, seductive, self-evident, self-sufficient, serene, shocked, shy, sick, silent, sinister, smooth, smug, sober, solid, sorry, speechless, spiritual, standard, static, steady, straight, stunned, subdued, submerged, sufficient, suicidal, superfluous, surprised, symmetrical, synonymous, tame, tearful, tedious, tender, threatening, traditional, tragic, transparent, triumphant, trivial, true, ugly, unable, unaffected, unanimous, unavoidable, unaware, unbearable, unbeatable, unbelievable, unbroken, unchanged, unconscious, uncontrollable, unheard-of, uninhabitable, unintelligible, unique, universal, unknown, unlimited, unnatural, unnoticed, unprecedented, unreal, unscathed, unthinkable, upright, useless, violent, visible, warm, weary, worse, worth, worthless. *************************************************** *********************

Indeed is use with these adjective: fortunate, genuine, good, safe. *************************************************** *********************

157

Most is uses with these adjectives: agreeable, amazing, amenable, amusing, appealing, bizarre, comforting, delicious, delightful, emphatic, encouraging, enjoyable, excellent, extraordinary, fascinating, generous, grateful, gratifying, helpful, illuminating, imaginative, important, impressive, improper, inconvenient, informative, ingenious, insistent, instructive, intelligent, interested, interesting, intriguing, irregular, kind, likeable, memorable, peculiar, remarkable, satisfactory, surprised, uncomfortable, undignified, unexpected, unfortunate, unhappy, unlikely, unpleasant, unsuitable, valuable, welcome, wonderful, worthy. *************************************************** *********************

Much is used with these adjectives: aggrieved, alive, alone, amused, beloved, better, impressed, indebted, intact, interested, neglected, obliged, worse. *************************************************** *********************

Pretty is used with these adjectives: accurate, amazing, angry, awesome, awful, bad, beautiful, big, bizarre, bored, boring, bright, broad, busy, calm, certain, chaotic, cheap, cheap, chilly, clean, clear, clever, comprehensive, conclusive, confident, confusing, conventional, convincing, cool, costly, crazy, creepy, crowded, daft, decent, deep, demanding, depressing, desperate, despicable, despondent, disappointed, disastrous, disgusting, dismal, dreadful, drunk, dull, dumb, effective, efficient, embarrassing, excited, exciting, exhausted, exhausting, exorbitant, expensive, fair, familiar, far-fetched, fast, filthy, fit, flexible, foolproof, formidable, forthright, free, friendly, frightened, frightening, frosty, full, funny, generous, gloomy, good, gruesome, handy, happy, hard, harmless, heavy, helpful, hopeless, horrible, horrific, hot, ill, implausible, impossible, impressive, incomprehensible, incredible, independent, ineffective, innocuous, interesting, keen, lazy, lethal, lonely, loud, lucky, mad, marvellous, mean, meaningless, mild, miserable, modest, mundane, nasty, nervous, nice, noisy, normal, obvious, odd, ordinary, overwhelming, painful, perceptive, plain, pleased, popular, potent, powerful, predictable, quick, quiet, rare, reliable, remote, resilient, ridiculous, rude, safe, scarce, scared, secluded, secure, self-sufficient, selfish, sensible, sensitive, sexy, shaky, sharp, shattered, sick, silly, simple, slack, slender, slow, small, sober, solid, sophisticated, sound, spectacular, splendid, spooky, stable, staggering, standard, steep, straight, straightforward, strange, strong, stupid, sure, surprised, sympathetic, tame, tedious, terrible, terrified, tight, tired, tolerant, tough, traditional, trivial, true, typical, ugly, unbelievable, uncomfortable, unfair, unforgettable, uninhibited, universal, unlikely, unpleasant, unscrupulous, unusual, upset, useful, useless, vague, violent, warm, weak, weird, widespread, wild, wonderful. *************************************************** *********************

Quite is used with these adjectives: OK, accurate, accustomed, adaptable, advanced, agreeable, alarming, alien, alike, alone, annoyed, apparent, apprehensive, astonished, attached, bad, bald, bare, beautiful, bewildered, bewildering, bitter, blameless, brave, breathless, bright, brown, calm, candid, capable, careful, casual, cautious, certain, civil, clean, clear, clever, close, comfortable, comical, common, competent, conceivable, concerned, consistent, content, convenient, convincing, cordial, cross, crucial, current, dangerous, dead, decent,

158

decorative, deep, delicious, delightful, democratic, desolate, determined, disgusted, disproportionate, distinct, distinctive, distraught, distressing, diverse, dreadful, early, easy, economical, eloquent, embarrassed, embarrassing, emotional, encouraging, energetic, entertaining, enthusiastic, evident, excited, exciting, exclusive, exorbitant, expensive, explicit, extraordinary, extreme, fair, faithful, familiar, fascinating, fashionable, fast, favourable, fearless, firm, flat, flattering, flexible, fortunate, frank, frantic, fresh, friendly, frightened, frightening, fruitless, full, fundamental ,generous, gentle, genuine, glad, good, good-looking, handsome, handy, happy, hard, harmful, healthy, heavy, helpful, honest, hopeful, horrific, hot, illegitimate, imaginative, immaterial, immune, important, impossible, improper, inadequate, inappropriate, inconceivable, incredible, independent, indignant, inefficient, inevitable, inexpensive, informative, ingenious, insane, insecure, insignificant, insistent, insufficient, insulting, interesting, intolerable, inventive, inviting, ironic, irrational, irrelevant, irresistible, isolated, junior, keen, kind, knowledgeable, lacking, large, late, legitimate, liberal, light, likeable, likely, limited, literate, logical, long, lovely, low, low-key, lucky, lucrative, ludicrous, luxurious, lyrical, mad, magical, magnificent, manageable, marked, marvellous, meaningless, mild, minor, miraculous, miserable, misguided, misleading, misplaced, missing, mistaken, mobile, moderate, modest, motionless, moving, naked, narrow, nasty, natural, neat, nervous, neutral, new, nice, noisy, normal, noticeable, novel, objective, oblivious, observant, obstructive, obvious, odd, offensive, old, open, optimistic, ordinary, ornate, outrageous, outstanding, overwhelming, painful, patriotic, peaceful, peculiar, perceptive, perfect, persistent, persuasive, perverse, pessimistic, phenomenal, philosophical, pink, plain, plausible, pleasant, pleased, pleasing, pleasurable, poetic, poignant, pointless, polite, popular, positive, possible, potent, powerful, powerless, practical, pragmatic, precise, predictable, presentable, pretty, privileged, probable, productive, professional, profitable, prolific, prolonged, prominent, promising, pronounced, proper, prosperous, proud, quick, quiet, radical, random, rapid, rare, rational, readable, realistic, reasonable, reassuring, recent, recognizable, red, refreshing, regular, relaxed, reliable, reliant, relieved, religious, remarkable, remote, reserved, resistant, responsible, responsive, restrained, revealing, rich, ridiculous, right, rigid, ripe, risky, romantic, rude, rural, sad, safe, sane, satisfactory, satisfied, satisfying, scared, secure, selective, self-conscious, self-contained, selfish, senior, sensible, senseless, sensitive, separate, serene, serious, settled, severe, sexy, shaken, shallow, sharp, sheltered, shocked, shocking, short, shy, sick, significant, silent, simple, small, smooth, sophisticated, specialized, specific, spectacular, splendid, square, stable, staggered, steady, steep, stiff, straightforward, strange, striking, strong, suitable, superfluous, sure, sweet, swollen, sympathetic, tall, tasteful, tender, thick, thin, tight, tight, tired, tough, transparent, trivial, true, ugly, unacceptable, unbelievable, unconscious, unfamiliar, unfit, unique, unknown, unmistakable, unmoved, unnecessary, usual, valuable, vigorous, violent, visible, vivid, warm, weird, wet, willing, worthless, young. *************************************************** *********************

Rather is used with these adjectives: academic, aggressive, aggrieved, ambiguous, ambitious, ambivalent, amusing, annoyed, annoying, anxious, appealing, apprehensive, artificial, authoritarian, awful, awkward, backward, bad, bad-tempered, baffled, bare, battered, beautiful, bemused, benign,

159

bewildered, big, bitter, bizarre, bleak, bored, brown, bureaucratic, busy, careless, casual, charming, chilly, claustrophobic, clever, cloudy, cold, comical, common, commonplace, competitive, complacent, complex, complicated, confused, confusing, conspicuous, contentious, contradictory, contrived, controversial, conventional, cool, costly, courageous, coy, crowded, curious, damaging, damp, dangerous, dated, deaf, defensive, degrading, dejected, delicate, delicious, depressed, depressing, desolate, desperate, despondent, detached, detrimental, different, difficult, direct, dirty, disappointing, disapproving, disconcerting, disgusted, disgusting, dishonest, disillusioned, disreputable, distant, distasteful, distressing, disturbing, doubtful, dramatic, dreadful, drunk, dry, dubious, dull, dumb, early, easy, eccentric, eerie, effective, elaborate, elegant, elusive, embarrassed, embarrassing, emotional, emotive, envious, erratic, excellent, excessive, excitable, excited, exciting, exclusive, exhausted, expensive, exposed, extraordinary, extravagant, extreme, faint, familiar, fantastic, far-fetched, fashionable, fat, fearful, fickle, flat, flattered, flattering, fluid, fond, foolish, forlorn, formal, formidable, fortunate, fragile, frail, frightened, frightening, frustrated, frustrating, full, fundamental, funny, futile, fuzzy, generous, giddy, glad, glamorous, gloomy, good-looking, gorgeous, grateful, grey, gruesome, guilty, haphazard, hard, harsh, hazardous, hazy, heavy, hoarse, hopeless, horrible, hot, hungry, hurtful, idle, ignorant, ill, illogical, immature, immoral, impersonal, implausible, impractical, imprecise, impressive, improbable, inaccessible, inaccurate, inadequate, inclined, incongruous, inconsistent, inconvenient, indifferent, indignant, ineffective, inefficient, inept, inflexible, informal, infrequent, inhibited, insecure, insensitive, insignificant, insulting, interesting, intriguing, intrusive, involved, ironic, irregular, irrelevant, irresponsible, irritated, isolated, jealous, keen, lacking, large, late, lazy, lengthy, lifeless, limited, limp, loaded, lonely, long, loose, lost, loud, lovely, low, low-key, lucrative, ludicrous, magnificent, malicious, mean, menacing, miserable, misguided, misleading, misplaced, mixed, modest, mudded, muddy, mundane, mystified, naive, narrow, nasty, neat, negative, neglected, nervous, nice, noisy, novel, obscure, obvious, odd, off-putting, offensive, oily, old-fashioned, one-sided, optimistic, ordinary, ornate, overdrawn, overweight, painful, pale, passive, patchy, patronizing, peculiar, perplex, persistent, personal, perverse, pessimistic, philosophical, plain, pleasant, pleased, pleasing, poetic, pointless, popular, possessive, pragmatic, preoccupied, pretty, professional, prone, proud, provocative, puzzled, questionable, quiet, rare, red, regrettable, relieved, reluctant, remarkable, remote, repetitive, repressed, reserved, restricted, restrictive, revealing, ridiculous, rigid, risky, romantic, rude, sad, savage, scarce, scared, sceptical, secretive, selective, self-conscious, selfish, sensitive, separate, sexy, shaken, shaky, shallow, sharp, shocked, shocking, short, shy, sick, silent, silly, similar, simple, simplistic, sinister, skinny, slack, sleepy, slender, slight, slow, small, smug, soft, solemn, sombre, sophisticated, sour, staid, stale, sterile, stiff, strained, stressful, susceptible, suspicious, sweet, tame, thick, thin, threadbare, tight, tired, tragic, tranquil, traumatic, treacherous, ugly, unbalanced, uncertain, uncomfortable, unexpected, unfashionable, unfortunate, unhappy, unlikely, unreal, unstable, unsure, upset, urgent, vague, vulnerable, wary, weak, weary, wet, white, wild, wobbly, worried, yellow. *************************************************** *********************

So: no collocational information is given for ‘‘so’’ in the OCD. The search for its instances in the CCD’s wordbank and MED shows that ‘‘so’’ can be

160

used with all types of adjectives but most frequently with scalar adjectives. To economise on space, however, its instances in the CCD and MED are not included here. *************************************************** *********************

Somewhat is used with these adjectives: abstract, absurd, academic, aggressive, aggrieved, akin, alien, aloof, ambiguous, ambivalent, annoyed, anxious, arbitrary, artificial, ashamed, awesome, awkward, backward, bemused, bewildered, bitter, bizarre, breathless, bureaucratic, certain, chaotic, chilly, claustrophobic, comical, complacent, complex, complicated, concerned, confused, confusing, conspicuous, contentious, contradictory, contrived, controversial, conventional, cool, curious, cynical, dated, debatable, defensive, delicate, depressing, despondent, disappointed, disappointing, disconcerting, dismissive, disorganised, distracted, disturbing, doubtful, dubious, dull, eccentric, elusive, embarrassed, embarrassing, enigmatic, envious, erratic, excessive, excitable, exclusive, extravagant, extreme, flawed, forlorn, formidable, guilty, haphazard, harsh, hazardous, hazy, humiliating, impatient, impenetrable, impertinent, implausible, impractical, imprecise, inaccurate, inadequate, inappropriate, incompatible, incomplete, inconclusive, incongruous, inconsistent, inconvenient, ineffective, inefficient, inferior, inflexible, insecure, insensitive, intrusive, ironic, irrational, irregular, irrelevant, irresponsible, isolated, lacking, lengthy, limited, misguided, misleading, mixed, muddled, mundane, muted, mystified, naive, narrow, negative, neglected, nervous, obscure, odd, old-fashioned, one-sided, opaque, optimistic, overdrawn, painful, paradoxical, passive, patronizing, perplex, perverse, pessimistic, pointless, prolonged, puzzled, questionable, radial, rare, relieved, reluctant, reminiscent, remote, restricted, restrictive, ridiculous, risky, sad, sarcastic, scarce, sceptical, secretive, self-conscious, sensitive, separate, shaken, shaky, shy, similar, simplistic, sinister, sombre, sour, startled, static, sterile, stiff, strained, strange, stunned, subdued, subjective, superficial, superior, surprised, surprising, suspect, suspicious, tame, technical, tedious, threatening, unbalanced, undignified, uneasy, unexpected, unlikely, unnecessary, unorthodox, unpleasant, unpopular, unstable, unusual, vague, variable, volatile. *************************************************** *********************

Too: no collocational information is given for ‘‘too’’ in the OCD. Its instances in CCD’s wordbank and MED shows that ‘‘too’’ ca be used as an ‘‘all-round’’ booster with all types of adjectives but most particularly with scalar adjectives. To economise on space, however, its instances are not included here. *************************************************** *********************

Very is used with these adjectives: able, absorbed, abstract, abusive, acceptable, accessible, accomplished, accurate, active, adaptable, addictive, adept, adequate, admirable, advanced, advantageous, afraid, aggressive, aggrieved, agitated, agreeable, alarmed, alarming, alert, alien, alike, alive, ambiguous, ambitious, ambivalent, amiable, amused, amusing, ancient, angry, annoyed, annoying, anxious, apologetic, apparent, appealing, applicable, apprehensive,

161

appropriate, articulate, artificial, ashamed, assured, astute, attached, attractive, authoritarian, aware, awkward, backward, bad, bad-tempered, bare, barren, battered, beautiful, believable, beneficial, best, bewildered, bewildering, biased, big, bitter, bizarre, black, bleak, blonde, bold, bored, boring, brave, breathless, breezy, brief, bright, broad, brown, bureaucratic, businesslike, busy, calm, candid, capable, careful, careless, casual, cautious, central, certain, challenging, chaotic, characteristic, charming, cheap, cheerful, chilly, civil, claustrophobic, clean, clear, clever, close, cloudy, coherent, cold, comfortable, comforting, comical, commendable, committed, common, commonplace, comparable, compassionate, compatible, compelling, competent, competitive, complacent, complete, complex, complicated, complimentary, composed, comprehensive, concentrated, concerned, confident, confused, confusing, congested, conscious, conservative, consistent, conspicuous, constipated, contagious, contemporary, content, contented, contentious, contrived, controversial, convenient, conventional, convincing, cool, cordial, corrosive, corrupt, cosmopolitan, costly, courageous, courteous, coy, creamy, creative, credible, creditable, creepy, critical, cross, crowded, crucial, cruel, curious, curly, cynical, damaging, damp, dangerous, daring, dark, dated, debatable, decent, deceptive, decorative, dedicated, deep, defensive, degrading, delicate, demanding, dependable, dependent, depressed, depressing, deprived, descriptive, deserving, desirable, desperate, despondent, destructive, detached, detailed, determined, detrimental, developed, devoted, different, difficult, dignified, direct, dirty, disabled, disadvantaged, disappointed, disappointing, disapproving, disconcerting, dishonest, disillusioned, dismal, dismissive, disorganized, disreputable, disruptive, dissatisfied, dissimilar, distant, distasteful, distinct, distinctive, distracted, distraught, distressing, disturbed, disturbing, diverse, divisive, domesticated, dominant, doubtful, dramatic, drunk, dry, dubious, dull, dumb, dynamic, eager, early, easy, eccentric, economical, edgy, educated, eerie, effective, efficient, elaborate, elated, elegant, eloquent, elusive, embarrassed, embarrassing, emotional, emotive, emphatic, empty, encouraging, energetic, engrossed, enigmatic, enjoyable, entertaining, enthusiastic, envious, erect, erotic, erratic, essential, even, evident, evil, exceptional, excitable, excited, exciting, exclusive, exhausting, expensive, experienced, explicit, explosive, exposed, expressive, extravagant, extreme, faint, fair, faithful, false, familiar, famous, far-fetched, fascinating, fashionable, fast, fat, favourable, fearful, fed up, feminine, fertile, fickle, fine, firm, fishy, fit, fitting, fixed, flammable, flat, flattered, flattering, flexible, fluid, flushed, fond, foolish, foreign, forlorn, formal, formidable, forthright, fortunate, fragile, fragrant, frail, frank, frequent, fresh, friendly, frightened, frightening, frosty, fruitful, frustrated, frustrating, full, fundamental, funny, fuzzy, generous, gentle, genuine, gifted, glad, glamorous, gloomy, good, good-looking, grateful, gratifying, great, gregarious, grey, gruesome, guilty, handsome, handy, haphazard, happy, hard, harmful, harsh, hazardous, hazy, healthy, heavy, helpful, heroic, hierarchical, hoarse, homesick, homogeneous, honest, honourable, honoured, hopeful, hostile, hot, humiliating, humorous, hungry, hurt, hurtful, ignorant, ill, illuminating, imaginative, immature, immoral, impatient, imperfect, impersonal, impertinent, implausible, important, impractical, imprecise, impressed, impressionable, impressive, improbable, inaccurate, inadequate, inappropriate, inclined, incomplete, inconsistent, inconvenient, independent, indifferent, indignant, ineffective, inefficient, inexpensive, inexperienced, infectious, inferior, inflexible, influential, informal, informative, infrequent, ingenious, inhibited, innocent, inquisitive, insecure,

162

insensitive, insignificant, insistent, inspiring, instructive, instrumental, insulting, intelligent, intense, intensive, interactive, interested, interesting, intolerant, intricate, intriguing, intrusive, intuitive, inventive, inviting, involved, ironic, irregular, irresponsible, irritated, irritating, isolated, jealous, junior, keen, kind, knowledgeable, lame, large, late, lazy, legitimate, lengthy, lenient, liberal, light, light-headed, likeable, likely, limited, limp, literate, loaded, logical, lonely, long, long-lived, lost, loud, lovely, low, low-key, loyal, lucky, lucrative, luxurious, lyrical, mad, magical, male, manageable, marked, marketable, masculine, mature, mean, mellow, memorable, menacing, mild, militant, minor, miserable, misleading, mixed, mobile, moderate, modest, moist, motivated, moving, muddled, muddy, mundane, muted, naive, narrow, nasty, natural, neat, needy, negative, nervous, new, nice, noisy, normal, noticeable, novel, numerous, nutritious, objective, obscure, observant, obvious, odd, off-putting, offensive, oily, old, old-fashioned, one-sided, opaque, open, opposed, optimistic, orderly, ordinary, organized, oriented, original, ornate, orthodox, overcast, overcrowded, overgrown, overweight, painful, pale, partial, passive, patchy, patient, patriotic, patronizing, peaceful, peculiar, peeved, perceptive, permissive, perplexed, persistent, personal, persuasive, pertinent, pervasive, perverse, pessimistic, philosophical, plain, plausible, pleasant, pleased, pleasing, pleasurable, poetic, poignant, poisonous, polite, political, popular, portable, positive, possessive, possible, potent, powerful, practical, pragmatic, precious, precise, predictable, pregnant, prejudiced, preoccupied, presentable, prestigious, pretty, privileged, probable, productive, professional, proficient, profitable, progressive, prolific, prolonged, prominent, promising, prone, pronounced, proper, prosperous, protective, proud, provocative, prudent, puzzled, questionable, quick, quiet, radical, rapid, rare, rational, reactionary, readable, ready, real, realistic, reasonable, reassuring, recent, red, reflective, refreshing, regrettable, regular, relaxed, relevant, reliable, relieved, religious, reluctant, remarkable, reminiscent, remote, repellent, repetitive, representative, repressed, repulsive, reputable, resentful, reserved, resilient, resistant, resourceful, respectable, responsible, responsive, restrained, restricted, restrictive, revealing, rewarding, rich, rigid, ripe, risky, romantic, rude, rural, sad, safe, sarcastic, satisfactory, satisfied, satisfying, savage, scarce, scared, sceptical, secluded, secret, secretive, secure, seductive, selective, self-conscious, self-contained, selfish, senior, sensible, sensitive, separate, serene, serious, settled, severe, sexy, shaken, shaky, shallow, sharp, shocked, shocking, short, shy, sick, significant, silly, similar, simple, simplistic, sincere, sinister, skilful, skilled, skinny, slack, sleepy, slender, slight, slim, slimy, slippery, slow, small, smart, smooth, smug, soft, solemn, solid, soluble, sombre, soothing, sophisticated, sorry, sound, sour, spacious, specialized, specific, spectacular, spicy, spiritual, spooky, square, stable, staid, stale, startled, static, steady, steep, sterile, sticky, stiff, still, stimulating, straightforward, strained, strange, stressed, stressful, striking, strong, stupid, subdued, subjective, subtle, subversive, successful, suggestive, suitable, suited, sunny, superficial, supple, supportive, sure, surprised, surprising, susceptible, suspect, suspicious, sweaty, sweet, swift, swollen, symbolic, sympathetic, talented, tall, tame, tanned, tasteful, taxing, tearful, technical, tedious, temperamental, temporary, tender, tense, terrible, thankful, thick, thin, threadbare, threatening, tidy, tight, tiny, tired, tolerant, touched, tough, toxic, traditional, tragic, tranquil, transparent, traumatic, treacherous, trivial, troubled, true, truthful, typical, ugly, unbalanced, uncertain, uncharacteristic, uncomfortable, uncommon, understandable, undesirable,

163

undignified, uneasy, unexpected, unfair, unfamiliar, unfashionable, unfit, unfortunate, unfriendly, unhappy, uninhibited, unlikely, unlucky, unnatural, unorthodox, unpleasant, unpopular, unreal, unreasonable, unstable, unsuitable, unsure, untidy, unusual, unwell, up to date, uplifting, upset, uptight, urgent, used to, useful, usual, vague, valid, valuable, variable, varied, versatile, vicious, vigilant, vigorous, violent, visible, vital, vivid, vocal, volatile, vulnerable, warm, wary, weak, wealthy, weary, weird, welcome, wet, white, wide, widespread, wild, willing, wise, wobbly, worried, worrying, worthwhile, worthy, wrinkled, wrong, young. *************************************************** *********************

Well is used with these adjectives: ablaze, able, alight, aware, capable, foolproof, worth, worthwhile, worthy. *************************************************** *********************

164

Appendix Ib: Open-class ‘’Degree’’ Category

Appendix Ib lists all adjectives found to be intensified by the selected members of open-class ‘‘degree’’ category in the OCD. Both the adverbs and their collocating adjectives are listed in alphabetical order.

Absolutely is used with these adjectives: absurd, amazed, amazing, appalling, assured, astonished, astonishing, awful, beautiful, binding, bonkers, bound, breathtaking, brilliant, calm, catastrophic, central, certain, chaotic, charming, clear, committed, conclusive, confident, confidential, consistent, constant, convinced, correct, covered, crazy, critical, crucial, decisive, dedicated, delicious, delighted, delightful, dependant, dependant, desperate, despicable, determined, devoted, disastrous, disgraceful, disgusted, disgusting, distraught, dreadful, ecstatic, equal, essential, even, excellent, exhausted, explicit, extraordinary, fair, faithful, false, fantastic, fascinating, fatal, fearless, filthy, fine, flat, foolproof, frank, frantic, free, freezing, full, fundamental, furious, futile, genuine, gorgeous, great, harmless, helpless, honest, hopeless, horrible, horrific, huge, hysterical, ideal, identical, illegitimate, illogical, immaculate, imperative, impersonal, impossible, incapable, incredible, indispensible, inevitable, inseparable, insoluble, intolerable, invaluable, irreconcilable, laden, lethal, level, logical, lovely, loyal, ludicrous, mad, magnificent, marvellous, meaningless, motionless, necessary, negligible, open, opposed, outrageous, outstanding, perfect, phenomenal, plain, pointless, positive, precise, privileged, quiet, reliable, ridiculous, right, rigid, safe, satisfied, scared, scarlet, secret, secure, senseless, separate, shattered, sick, silent, soaked, solid, sound, spectacular, splendid, square, staggered, staggering, steady, still, straight, straightforward, stunned, stunning, stupid, superb, sure, terrible, terrified, thrilled, trivial, true, truthful, typical, unavoidable, unbearable, unheard-of, united, unknown, unthinkable, useless, valid, vital, wild, wonderful, worthless, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Barely is used with these adjectives: able, adequate, alive, audible, capable, comprehensible, conceivable, conscious, credible, decayed, discernible, distinguishable, dry, feasible, furnished, habitable, imaginable, intelligible, legible, literate, noticeable, perceptible, plausible, profitable, recognizable, relevant, submerged, sufficient, tolerable, visible, worth. *************************************************** *********************

Completely is used with these adjectives: absent, absorbed, absurd, acceptable, accidental, accurate, alien, alone, anonymous, arbitrary, artificial, automatic, autonomous, baffled, balanced, bald, bare, barren, bewildered, bewildering, blank, blind, bogus, bonkers, boring, broke, calm, clear, closed, comfortable, committed, confident, confidential, confused, consistent, contradictory, contrary, convinced, convincing, cool, correct, covered, crazy, credible, cynical, daft, dark, decay, defenceless, dejected, dependent, deserted, desolate, detached, devoid,

165

devoted, different, disillusioned, dismissive, disorganised, distinct, distraught, drunk, dry, effective, empty, engrossed, erect, erotic, estranged, even, exempt, exhausted, exposed, extinct, fair, false, familiar, fearless, filthy, flat, flexible, foreign, free, frustrated, full, futile, genuine, grey, groundless, happy, harmless, helpless, honest, honourable, hooked, hopeless, hysterical, identical, ignorant, illegitimate, illiterate, illogical, imaginary, immaterial, immobile, immune, impartial, impassable, impassive, impersonal, impervious, impossible, impotent, impractical, impractical, improbable, inaccessible, inadequate, inappropriate, incapable, incidental, incompatible, incompetent, incomprehensible, independent, indestructible, indifferent, ineffective, inert, inexplicable, inflexible, innocent, insane, insensitive, insignificant, insulted, intact, invisible, irrelevant, irresponsible, isolated, justified, lacking, lame, legal, level, lifeless, light, limp, logical, lost, loyal, mad, misleading, missing, mistaken, mystified, naked, natural, natural, negative, new, non-existent, normal, novel, nude, numb, objective, oblivious, obscure, obvious, opaque, open, opposed, original, outrageous, dominant, overgrown, overwhelming, painless, plain, portable, powerless, predictable, preoccupied, proven, quiet, random, recyclable, redundant, relaxed, reliable, reliant, reversible, ridiculous, rigid, rural, safe, same, satisfactory, satisfied, satisfying, secular, secure, self-contained, self-sufficient, separable, separate, shattered, silent, sincere, slack, smooth, soaked, sober, solid, soluble, speechless, stable, static, sterile, still, straight, stuck, stunned, stupid, submerged, subordinate, sure, synonymous, terrified, transparent, trivial, true, truthful, unable, unacceptable, unaffected, unaware, unbalanced, unbelievable, unchanged, unconcerned, unconscious, uncontrollable, understandable, unexpected, unfamiliar, unfashionable, unfit, unfounded, unheard-of, uninhibited, uninterested, unknown, unmoved, unnecessary, unnoticed, unproved, unreasonable, unscathed, unscrupulous, unsuitable, unsure, unthinkable, up-to-date, useless, valid, valueless, voluntary, vulnerable, worthless, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Enormously is used with these adjectives: appealing, complex, costly, diverse, enjoyable, exciting, expensive, fat, flattering, fruitful, grateful, helpful, important, impressed, impressive, influential, popular, powerful, productive, proud, rich, successful ,useful, valuable, varied, wealthy, wide. *************************************************** *********************

Entirely is used with these adjectives: absent, abstract, acceptable, accurate, adequate, alien, alone, anonymous, appropriate, arbitrary, artificial, avoidable, barren, beneficial, blank, bogus, characteristic, clear, coincidental, comfortable, commendable, compatible, comprehensible, conceivable, concerned, confident, consistent, contrary, conventional, convinced, convincing, cordial, correct, courteous, covered, defenceless, delightful, dependant, descriptive, devoid, different, dismissive, distinct, engrossed, exempt, explicable, fair, faithful, false, familiar, feasible, fictional, fictitious, flattering, foreign, free, groundless, haphazard, happy, honest, honourable, hostile, hypothetical, ignorant, illegitimate, illogical, immaterial, immune, impersonal, implausible, impractical, improper, inaccessible, inadequate, inappropriate, incidental, incompatible, incongruous, independent, ineffective, innocent, intact, irrelevant, isolated, justifiable, justified, lacking, legitimate, logical, loyal, male, misguided, misleading, misplaced, missing, naked, negative, new, novel, obvious,

166

occupied, opposed, optional, painless, plausible, pleasant, positive, practical, pragmatic, predictable, preoccupied, preventable, proper, random, rational, reasonable, reliable, reliant, respectable, responsible, rigid, safe, sane, satisfactory, satisfied, secrete, secure, self-contained, selfish, separate, sincere, smooth, sober, straightforward, stupid, subject, subjective, suitable, superficial, supportive, sure, sympathetic, thick, transparent, true, typical, unaffected, unaware, understandable, unfounded, unhappy, united, unknown, unmoved, unnecessary, unnoticed, unpleasant, unprecedented, unscathed, unsuitable, useless, voluntary, worthy, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Extremely is used with these adjectives: able, accomplished, accurate, active, addictive, adept, advanced, advantageous, afraid, aggressive, agitated, alarmed, alarming, ambitious, amusing, ancient, angry, annoyed, annoying, anxious, apprehensive, attractive, awkward, bad, bad-tempered, beautiful, beneficial, biased, big, bitter, bleak, bold, boring, brave, bright, broad, bureaucratic, busy, capable, careful, careless, casual, cautious, challenging, characteristic, charming, cheap, cheap, cheerful, civil, clean, clear, clever, close, cold, comfortable, comforting, comical, common, compelling, competent, competitive, complacent, complementary, complex, complicated, composed, comprehensive, concerned, confident, confidential, confused, confusing, conscious, conservative, contented, controversial, convenient, convincing, cordial, costly, courageous, courteous, coy, critical, cross, crowded, cruel, curious, cynical, damaging, dangerous, decorative, defensive, degrading, delicate, demanding, democratic, dependable, depressed, depressing, deprived, desirable, destructive, detailed, detrimental, devoted, difficult, direct, dirty, disadvantaged, disappointed, disappointing, disillusioned, disruptive, distasteful, distinctive, distraught, distressing, disturbing, diverse, dominant, doubtful, dramatic, drunk, dry, dull, early, easy, eccentric, economical, effective, efficient, elaborate, elegant, eloquent, elusive, embarrassed, embarrassing, emotional, encouraging, energetic, enjoyable, entertaining, enthusiastic, envious, erratic, excited, exciting, expensive, experienced, exposed, faint, faithful, familiar, far-fetched, fashionable, fast, favourable, fearful, fertile, fine, fit, flattering, flexible, fluid, flushed, fond, foolish, formal, fortunate, fragile, fragrant, frail, frank, frequent, friendly, frightened, frightening, fruitful, frustrated, frustrating, full, funny, fuzzy, generous, gentle, gifted, glad, good, good-looking, grateful, gratifying, guilty, handsome, happy, hard, harmful, harsh, hazardous, hazy, healthy, heavy, helpful, hierarchical, hoarse, honest, hopeful, hostile, hot, humorous, hungry, hurt, ill, illuminating, imaginative, impatient, important, imprecise, impressed, impressive, improbable, inaccurate, inconvenient, incredible, indignant, influential, informative, ingenious, insecure, insistent, instructive, interested, interesting, intolerant, intricate, intrusive, intuitive, involved, ironic, irresponsible, isolated, kind, knowledgeable, large, lazy, lenient, light, likable, likely, limited, logical, lonely, long-lived, loud, low, low-key, loyal, lucky, lucrative, luxurious, marked, masculine, mellow, memorable, militant, minor, misleading, mixed, modest, motivated, muddled, muddy, muted, naive, narrow, nasty, neat, negative, neglected, negligent, nervous, nice, noisy, noticeable, novel, nutritious, obscure, obvious, odd, offensive, old, opaque, open, optimistic, organized, original, overcrowded, overgrown, overweight, painful, pale, passive, patchy, patient, patronizing, peaceful, perceptive, permissive, persistent, personal, persuasive, pertinent, pessimistic, plain, plausible, pleasant, pleased, pleasing, poignant, poisonous, polite,

167

popular, positive, possessive, potent, powerful, practical, precious, precise, predictable, prejudiced, prestigious, pretty, probable, productive, professional, profitable, prolific, prominent, promising, prosperous, proud, provocative, prudent, puzzled, quick, quiet, rapid, rare, reactionary, readable, realistic, reasonable, reassuring, refreshing, regrettable, relaxed, relevant, reliable, relieved, reluctant, remote, repetitive, repressed, repulsive, resentful, reserved, resilient, resistant, respectable, responsible, responsive, restrictive, rewarding, rich, rigid, risky, romantic, rude, rural, sad, safe, sarcastic, satisfied, satisfying, scarce, scared, sceptical, secretive, secure, seductive, selective, self-contained, selfish, sensible, sensitive, serious, severe, sexy, shaky, shallow, sharp, shocking, short, shy, sick, significant, silly, similar, simple, simplistic, sinister, skilful, skilled, slack, sleepy, slight, slippery, slow, small, smooth, soft, solid, sophisticated, sorry, sound, sour, spacious, stable, stale, steady, steep, stimulating, straightforward, strained, strange, stressful, striking, strong, stupid, supportive, surprising, susceptible, suspicious, sweet, sympathetic, tame, tedious, thick, thin, tight, tiny, tired, tough, tranquil, transparent, traumatic, treacherous, uncomfortable, unfortunate, unlucky, unpleasant, unstable, unwell, valid, valuable, varied, versatile, violent, vivid, vulnerable, warm, wary, welcome, wet, white, wide, widespread, worried, worrying, worthwhile, wrinkled, young. *************************************************** *********************

Fairly is used with these adjectives: able, abstract, acceptable, accurate, active, adaptable, advanced, advantageous, aggressive, ambivalent, arbitrary, average, awesome, bad, balanced, benign, big, boring, brief, bright, broad, busy, calm, careful, causal, cautious, certain, chaotic, characteristic, cheap, cheerful, clean, clear, close, cold, comfortable, common, commonplace, competent, competitive, complete, complex, complicated, composed, comprehensive, conclusive, confident, conservative, consistent, constant, content, conventional, convinced, convincing, cool, costly, crowded, crucial, cynical, deep, demanding, democratic, depressing, deserving, detailed, determined, direct, disastrous, dismal, distant, distasteful, distinct, distinctive, dominant, dramatic, drunk, dull, early, easy, eccentric, economical, effective, efficient, elaborate, empty, entertaining, enthusiastic, erratic, essential, even, evident, exhausting, exhaustive, expensive, explicit, exposed, extreme, faithful, familiar, fast, favourable, firm, fit, flat, flexible, fluid, formal, frank, free, frequent, frightening, full, fundamental, generous, gentle, good, handy, haphazard, happy, hard, harmless, hazy, healthy, heavy, helpful, hierarchical, homogeneous, hopeful, horrific, hot, impartial, important, imprecise, impressed, impressive, improbable, inactive, inconclusive, independent, inexpensive, influential, informal, infrequent, innocuous, insensitive, insignificant, insistent, intact, intelligent, interested, interesting, intuitive, junior, keen, large, late, lengthy, liberal, light, limited, literate, long, low, low-key, lucky, lucrative, meaningless, mild, minor, mixed, mobile, moderate, modest, mundane, naive, narrow, natural, neat, negative, neutral, new, noisy, normal, nutritious, objective, obscure, observant, obvious, old, optimistic, orderly, ordinary, organized, orthodox, passive, peaceful, persuasive, plain, pleasant, pleased, pointless, polite, popular, positive, powerful, precise, predictable, productive, proficient, prolific, prolonged, prominent, pronounced, prosperous, quick, quiet, radical, random, rapid, rare, realistic, reasonable, recent, regular, relaxed, reliable, remote, representative, respectable, responsible, responsive, restrained, restricted, restrictive, rich, rigid, safe, satisfactory, satisfied, sceptical, secluded, secure, selective, self-contained, self-evident,

168

self-sufficient, senior, sensible, sensitive, serious, settled, severe, shallow, sharp, sheltered, short, shy, significant, silent, simple, simplistic, skilful, skinny, slack, slender, slight, slow, small, smooth, sober, soft, solid, sombre, sophisticated, sound, spacious, specialized, specific, stable, staggering, standard, static, steady, steep, stiff, straight, straightforward, strange, stressful, strong, subdued, subtle, successful, superficial, sure, swift, symmetrical, sympathetic, tall, taxing, thick, thin, tidy, tight, tolerable, tough, traditional, tranquil, transparent, traumatic, trivial, typical, uncommon, understandable, unpleasant, unusual, useful, useless, usual, vague, versatile, violent, volatile, warm, weak, wealthy, wide, widespread, young. *************************************************** *********************

Fully is used with these adjectives: absorbed, acceptable, accessible, accountable, acquainted, adjustable, alert, alive, apparent, armed, armoured, attainable, automatic, autonomous, awake, aware, bilingual, capable, carpeted, centralized, charged, clad, closed, clothed, committed, compatible, competent, comprehensible, comprehensive, confident, conscious, consistent, convinced, credible, democratic, detachable, detailed, developed, domesticated, dynamic, educated, effective, efficient, engaged, erect, experienced, explicit, exposed, familiar, fit, flexible, furnished, inclusive, independent, informal, insured, interactive, interchangeable, justified, laden, liable, lined, literal, loaded, mature, mobile, occupied, open, operational, operative, organic, portable, professional, proficient, proven, qualified, rational, representative, responsible, responsive, ripe, rounded, satisfactory, satisfied, skilled, submerged, supportive, symmetrical, taxable, trained, transferable, transparent, united, up-to-date, upright, visible. *************************************************** *********************

Generally is used with these adjectives: acceptable, accurate, applicable, conservative, excellent, expensive, favourable, hazy, healthy, helpful, hostile, impossible, inadequate, inefficient, negative, optimistic, pessimistic, positive, satisfactory, satisfied, supportive, sympathetic, unable, unaware, unpopular, useful. *************************************************** *********************

Greatly is used with these adjectives: advanced, alarmed, amused, concerned, daring, delighted, dependent, disadvantaged, disappointed, disturbed, honoured, impressed, indebted, inferior, inflated, interested, preferable, relieved, shocked, superior, surprised, touched, troubled, upset. *************************************************** *********************

Hardly is used with these adjectives: able, adequate, audible, awake, aware, bearable, believable, capable, cheap, cheap, comforting, compatible, conclusive, conductive, conscious, convincing, credible, crucial, distinguishable, dry, encouraging, fair, feasible, flattering, imaginable, impressive, inspiring, inviting, justified, likely, literate, logical, noticeable, perceptible, plausible, practical, promising, reassuring, recognizable, relevant, sensible, still, straightforward, sufficient, suitable, suited, surprised, surprising, true, unique, unusual, visible, worth, worthwhile, worthy. *************************************************** *********************

169

Highly is used with these adjectives: abstract, acceptable, accessible, accomplished, accurate, active, adaptable, addictive, adept, advanced, advantageous, aggressive, agitated, agreeable, ambiguous, ambitious, ambivalent, amenable, amused, amusing, articulate, artificial, authoritarian, beneficial, bureaucratic, capable, cautious, centralized, characteristic, charged, coloured, commendable, committed, compatible, competent, competitive, complementary, complex, complicated, concentrated, conductive, confidential, confused, confusing, congested, conscious, conservative, consistent, conspicuous, contagious, contaminated, contentious, contrived, controversial, convenient, conventional, corrosive, courageous, creative, credible, creditable, critical, culpable, cultured, damaging, dangerous, debatable, deceptive, decorative, dedicated, defective, delighted, demanding, dependant, descriptive, desirable, destructive, detailed, detrimental, developed, disconcerting, disorganized, disreputable, disruptive, distasteful, distinctive, distressing, disturbed, disturbing, diverse, doubtful, dramatic, dubious, dynamic, eccentric, economical, educated, effective, efficient, elaborate, embarrassed, embarrassing, emotional, emotive, encouraging, energetic, enigmatic, enjoyable, entertaining, enthusiastic, erotic, exceptional, excitable, excited, expensive, expensive, experienced, explicit, explosive, exposed, fashionable, favourable, fertile, flammable, flavoured, flexible, fluid, gifted, gregarious, hazardous, honoured, illegal, illuminating, imaginative, imperfect, impersonal, impertinent, implausible, impracticable, impractical, impressive, improbable, improper, inadvisable, inappropriate, inconsistent, inconvenient, indebted, indignant, ineffective, inefficient, infectious, inflamed, inflammable, inflexible, influential, informal, informative, ingenious, inquisitive, insensitive, insoluble, instructive, instrumental, insulting, intelligent, intensive, interactive, interesting, intolerant, intricate, intriguing, intuitive, inventive, irregular, irresponsible, knowledgeable, likely, limited, literate, logical, lucrative, luminous, marketable, militant, misleading, mobile, motivated, nervous, nutritious, observant, offensive, optimistic, organized, original, ornamental, ornate, orthodox, paid, patterned, perceptive, perishable, permissive, personal, persuasive, pertinent, plausible, pleasurable, poisonous, polarized, polished, political, polluted, popular, populated, portable, positive, possible, potent, practical, pragmatic, predictable, prestigious, privileged, probable, productive, professional, profitable, progressive, prolific, promising, prone, prophetic, protective, provocative, qualified, questionable, radioactive, rational, reactionary, readable, reflective, refreshing, regrettable, regular, relevant, reliable, reliant, religious, reminiscent, repetitive, reputable, resilient, resistant, resourceful, respectable, responsible, responsive, restricted, restrictive, revealing, rewarding, risky, romantic, satisfactory, satisfying, scented, sceptical, scientific, secretive, selective, self-conscious, sensitive, separate, significant, simplistic, skilful, skilled, soluble, sophisticated, specialized, specific, stable, stressful, subjective, successful, suggestive, suitable, supportive, susceptible, suspect, suspicious, symbolic, symmetrical, sympathetic, talented, technical, temperamental, theoretical, toxic, trained, transferable, typical, uncertain, understandable, unlikely, unnatural, unorthodox, unpleasant, unpopular, unstable, unsuitable, unusual, useful, valuable, variable, varied, venomous, versatile, visible, vocal, volatile, vulnerable, welcome. *************************************************** *********************

170

Immensely is used with these adjectives: complex, complicated, damaging, detailed, encouraging, enjoyable, enthusiastic, exciting, expensive, experienced, fat, flattered, fond, gifted, grateful, helpful, impressed, impressive, influential, interesting, likeable, pleased, popular, powerful, profitable, prolific, proud, readable, reassuring, relieved, rewarding, rich, sad, satisfying, strong, sympathetic, talented, valuable, varied, warm, wealthy. *************************************************** *********************

Increasingly is used with these adjectives: abstract, active, aggressive, agitated, alarmed, angry, annoyed, anxious, apparent, artificial, attached, authoritarian, bad-tempered, bizarre, bleak, centralized, chaotic, close, common, complex, complicated, comprehensive, concentrated, concerned, confident, confused, conscious, conservative, convinced, costly, critical, crowded, dangerous, dependent, depressed, desperate, detailed, difficult, disillusioned, dissatisfied, distant, diverse, dominant, doubtful, dynamic, eager, effective, efficient, elaborate, embarrassing, erratic, estranged, evident, excited, expensive, explicit, exposed, familiar, fantastic, fashionable, frail, frantic, frequent, frustrated, frustrating, harsh, homogeneous, hostile, impatient, implausible, important, inadequate, inappropriate, inclined, incompatible, independent, influential, insecure, intensive, interested, intolerable, intrusive, irrational, irrelevant, irritated, isolated, limited, marked, meaningless, militant, mobile, narrow, nationalistic, nervous, numerous, obsolete, obvious, painful, pessimistic, plain, polarized, popular, powerful, precise, preoccupied, professional, prominent, prone, radical, rare, reliant, reluctant, remote, resentful, restricted, restrictive, risky, savage, scarce, sceptical, selective, sensitive, severe, skilled, sophisticated, specialized, steep, sterile, strained, subject, superficial, suspect, suspicious, tense, threatening, tight, unable, uncertain, uncomfortable, uneasy, unhappy, unlikely, unpopular, unstable, urgent, valuable, variable, varied, vicious, violent, vocal, volatile, vulnerable, wary, wide, widespread, willing, worried. *************************************************** *********************

Mildly is used with these adjectives: amazed, amused, amusing, annoying, autistic, comic, critical, curious, depressed, disappointed, disapproving, dismissive, encouraging, erotic, fragrant, handicapped, humorous, hysterical, impressed, indignant, interested, interesting, irritated, patronizing, pleased, pleasurable, positive, ridiculous, sarcastic, sceptical, shocked, spicy, surprised. *************************************************** *********************

Nearly is used with these adjectives: adrift, asleep, bald, bankrupt, bonkers, broke, circular, clean, closed, complete, constant, contemporary, dark, dry, empty, equal, extinct, foolproof, full, hysterical, identical, impenetrable, impossible, incomprehensible, insane, insurmountable, intact, intolerable, invisible, lifeless, naked, opaque, overhead, parallel, perpendicular, ready, right, ripe, square, straight, unable, unanimous, universal. *************************************************** *********************

171

Partly is used with these adjective: closed, derelict, domesticated, explicable, false, furnished, instrumental, justified, related, responsible, soluble, submerged. *************************************************** *********************

Perfectly is used with these adjectives: OK, able, acceptable, accurate, adequate, agreeable, amiable, attainable, audible, aware, balanced, beautiful, calm, candid, capable, charming, circular, civil, clear, comfortable, compatible, competent, comprehensible, conceivable, confident, conscious, consistent, contended, content, correct, courteous, decent, dry, effective, efficient, evident, explicable, fair, familiar, feasible, flexible, frank, friendly, genuine, grammatical, groomed, happy, harmless, healthy, honest, honourable, horrible, immobile, innocent, innocuous, intact, intelligent, justified, lawful, legal, legible, legitimate, logical, lovely, ludicrous, motionless, natural, neutral, nice, normal, obvious, ordinary, oval, permissible, plain, plausible, pleasant, poised, polite, possible, practicable, presentable, proper, quiet, rationale, reasonable, regular, relaxed, reliable, respectable, ripe, safe, sane, satisfactory, satisfied, secure, sensible, serene, shaped, silent, sincere, smooth, sober, sound, splendid, stable, steady, straight, straightforward, suitable, suited, symmetrical, tailored, tolerable, tranquil, transparent, true, understandable, valid, viable, welcome, willing, wonderful. *************************************************** *********************

Poorly is used with these adjective: developed, educated, informed, insulted, motivated, organized, paid, trained. *************************************************** *********************

Profoundly is used with these adjectives: conservative, damaging, deaf, depressing, disabled, disturbed, disturbing, grateful, handicapped, humiliating, impressed, indebted, insecure, irritated, misleading, mistaken, moving, opposed, relieved, sad, shaken, shocked, suspicious, uneasy, upset. *************************************************** *********************

Purely is used with these adjectives: abstract, academic, accidental, arbitrary, ceremonial, clinical, coincidental, cosmetic, decorative, defensive, descriptive, factual, fictional, fictitious, formal, humanitarian, hypothetical, identical, imaginary, informal, instinctive, instrumental, intuitive, logical, negative, objective, optional, ornamental, passive, philosophical, physical, platonic, practical, pragmatic, professional, psychological, random, rational, scientific, secular, selfish, spiritual, subjective, superficial, symbolic, technical, theoretical, voluntary. *************************************************** *********************

Slightly is used with these adjective: abashed, absurd, afraid, aggrieved, agitated, ajar, alarmed, alarming, ambiguous, amused, annoyed, anxious, apologetic, apprehensive, artificial, ashamed, awkward, battered, bemused, bent, bewildered, biased, bitter, bizarre, blue, bored, boring, breathless, breezy, brown, charred, cloudy, comic, comical, common, concerned, confused, confusing, constipated, crazy, creepy, cross, cross-eyed, curious, cynical,

172

damp, dangerous, dated, dazed, deaf, defensive, defiant, deficient, deformed, degrading, depressed, depressing, deranged, detached, different, dirty, disabled, disadvantaged, disappointed, disappointing, disapproving, disconcerting, disgusted, dishonest, dismissive, disreputable, disruptive, distant, distracted, disturbed, disturbing, drunk, eccentric, eerie, embarrassed, embarrassing, enigmatic, envious, erratic, false, familiar, fearful, flawed, flushed, foolish, foreign, fragrant, frustrated, frustrating, furtive, fuzzy, giddy, grey, guilty, handicapped, hazy, heated, hoarse, hot, humorous, hurt, hysterical, ill, illogical, immoral, impatient, imperfect, impertinent, improbable, inaccurate, inclined, inferior, inhibited, injured, ironic, irregular, irresponsible, irritated, lame, light-headed, loaded, loose, luminous, mad, mean, menacing, misleading, moist, muddled, muted, naive, negative, nervous, numb, odd, off-putting, oily, old-fashion, opaque, open, overdrawn, overweight, pained, painful, pale, paradoxical, patronizing, perplex, pervasive, pink, prone, purple, puzzled, radioactive, red, reflective, relieved, reminiscent, repellent, repulsive, resentful, retarded, ridiculous, rounded, sad, sarcastic, sceptical, secretive, self-conscious, shaky, sharp, shocked, shocking, shy, sick, sinister, slack, smug, soft, soluble, sour, spicy, spooky, stale, startled, sticky, stiff, strained, stunned, superior, surprised, surprising, suspect, suspicious, sweet, swollen, tender, threatening, transparent, unbalanced, uncertain, uncomfortable, uneasy, unfair, unfamiliar, unfit, unfortunate, unorthodox, unpleasant, unreal, unstable, unusual, variable, warm, wary, wet, wobbly, worried, worrying, worse, yellow. *************************************************** *********************

Thoroughly is used with these adjectives: alarmed, annoyed, ashamed, bewildered, bored, charming, confused, convincing, corrupt, decent, dejected, democratic, depressed, disgusted, disillusioned, distasteful, domesticated, dry, engrossed, enjoyable, entertaining, exhausted, familiar, frightened, irritated, miserable, mundane, nasty, nice, professional, satisfying, sick, soaked, trained, undignified, unpleasant, unscrupulous, upset. *************************************************** *********************

Totally is used with these adjectives: abhorrent, absent, absorbed, acceptable, accurate, addicted, adequate, alien, amazed, artificial, assured, automatic, autonomous, baffled, bald, bemused, bewildered, bewildering, bizarre, blind, bonkers, brilliant, comfortable, committed, compatible, comprehensive, concentrated, confident, confidential, confused, contradictory, contrary, convinced, convincing, corrupt, covered, crazy, cynical, deaf, dedicated, defenceless, deficient, dejected, dependable, dependent, deprived, derelict, deserted, detached, devoid, devoted, different, disgusted, disillusioned, disorganized, disproportionate, dissimilar, distinct, dominant, dry, empty, engaged, engrossed, exempt, exhausted, exposed, extinct, fair, false, fearless, fictitious, flexible, foreign, free, frustrated, futile, groundless, haphazard, happy, harmless, helpless, hocked, homogenous, honest, hostile, hypothetical, hysterical, idle, ignorant, illegal, illiterate, illogical, immaculate, immobile, immoral, immune, impartial, impassable, impassive, impersonal, impervious, implausible, impossible, impotent, impracticable, impractical, inaccessible, inaccurate, inactive, inadequate, inappropriate, inaudible, incapable, incompatible, incompetent, incomprehensible, inconceivable, inconsistent, incorrect, indefensible, independent, indifferent, inedible, ineffective, inexperienced, inexplicable, inflexible, inhuman,

173

innocent, innocuous, insane, insensitive, instinctive, insulted, interchangeable, invisible, irrational, irreconcilable, irrelevant, irresistible, irresponsible, isolated, justified, lacking, lost, loyal, magical, meaningless, misguided, misleading, misplaced, missing, naked, negative, non-existent, novel, numb, objective, oblivious, obscure, obsolete, one-sided, opposed, organic, oriented, outrageous, painless, penniless, pointless, powerless, predictable, preoccupied, random, relaxed, reliable, reliant, responsible, reversible, ridiculous, safe, satisfactory, satisfied, secure, self-contained, selfish, separate, shattered, silent, soluble, speechless, spontaneous, static, straight, submerged, superfluous, supportive, transparent, unable, unacceptable, unaffected, unavoidable, unaware, unbelievable, unchanged, uncharacteristic, unconcerned, unconscious, uncontrollable, undesirable, unexpected, unfair, unfamiliar, unfit, unforgettable, unfounded, unheard-of, uninhabitable, uninhibited, unintelligible, uninterested, unique, united, unknown, unmoved, unnecessary, unprecedented, unproved, unqualified, unreal, unreasonable, unscathed, unsuitable, unwarranted, useless, vulnerable, worthless, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Utterly is used with these adjectives: abhorrent, absorbed, absurd, alien, amazed, appalling, baffled, barren, beautiful, bewildered, boring, brilliant, calm, characteristic, charming, compelling, confused, contemptuous, content, convinced, convincing, cynical, dedicated, defenceless, dejected, dependable, dependent, deserted, desolate, desperate, despondent, determined, devoid, devoted, disastrous, disgraceful, disillusioned, distraught, empty, exhausted, faithful, false, fearless, foolish, foreign, forlorn, friendless, fruitless, futile, groundless, helpless, hopeless, humiliating, ignorant, immobile, immoral, impossible, impracticable, inaccessible, inadequate, inappropriate, incapable, incompetent, incomprehensible, inconceivable, incongruous, inhuman, intolerant, irreconcilable, irrelevant, irresponsible, isolated, lovely, loyal, ludicrous, mad, miserable, mistaken, mundane, obscene, opposed, peaceful, pointless, powerless, pragmatic, reasonable, remote, repellent, repulsive, ridiculous, sane, secure, selfish, serene, silent, sincere, stupid, terrified, thrilled, unable, unacceptable, unavoidable, unaware, unfair, uninhibited, unknown, unreasonable, useless, vulnerable, worthless. *************************************************** *********************

Wholly is used with these adjectives: absent, acceptable, adequate, admirable, arbitrary, available, beneficial, commendable, committed, compatible, consistent, convinced, convincing, dependent, desirable, destructive, detached, disproportionate, distinct, evil, exceptional, exempt, explicable, fictional, fictitious, ignorant, illegitimate, imaginary, immaterial, immune, impervious, implausible, impractical, inaccurate, inadequate, inappropriate, incapable, incompatible, inconceivable, inconsistent, independent, ineffective, innocent, innocuous, insufficient, intact, irrational, irrelevant, irresponsible, lacking, lovely, misleading, misplaced, mistaken, negative, negligent, novel, objective, one-sided, opposed, peaceful, positive, predictable, reliant, respectable, responsible, satisfactory, satisfied, satisfying, self-contained, self-sufficient, separate, sincere, subjective, subordinate, superfluous, superior, supportive, symmetrical, transferable, unable, unaffected, unaware, unbalanced, unconscious, understandable, unexpected, unfair, unfit, unfounded, unnecessary, unreal, unreasonable, unsuitable, unwarranted, useless, worthy, wrong.

174

Widely is used with these adjectives: acceptable, accessible, applicable, available, diverse, experienced, influential, popular, representative, scattered, separate, unpopular, used, variable, varied. *************************************************** *********************

175

Appendix II: ‘’Modal’’ Category

Appendix II lists all adjectives found to be modified by the selected members of ‘‘modal’’ category in the OCD and LTP. The adverbs are ordered according to the wideness of their collocational range. Their collocating adjectives are listed in alphabetical order.

Really is used with these adjectives: adequate, afraid, aggressive, alive, amazing, amusing, angry, annoyed, annoying, appalling, ashamed, astonishing, awake, awesome, awful, bad, beautiful, big, bitter, bold, bored, boring, bothered, brave, bright, brilliant, busy, careful, chaotic, charming, clever, concerned, confident, crazy, creative, critical, cross, crucial, daft, dangerous, decent, dedicated, deep, degrading, delicious, delighted, delightful, depressed, depressing, desperate, determined, difficult, dirty, disappointed, disappointing, disgusted, disgusting, dismal, distraught, dreadful, drunk, dumb, eager, early, easy, effective, efficient, embarrassed, embarrassing, encouraging, energetic, enjoyable, enthusiastic, essential, evil, excellent, exceptional, excited, exciting, exhausted, exhausting, experienced, extraordinary, famous, fantastic, fascinating, fast, fat, feasible, feminine, filthy, fit, fond, foolish, formidable, fortunate, frank, frantic, fresh, friendly, frightened, frightening, frustrated, frustrating, funny, genuine, glad, glamorous, good, good-looking, gorgeous, grateful, great, guilty, happy, hard, healthy, heavy, helpful, honest, horrible, horrific, hot, huge, hungry, hurt, ill, impatient, important, impossible, impressed, impressive, incredible, influential, insecure, inspiring, interested, interesting, jealous, keen, kind, late, lazy, limited, long, loud, lovely, lucky, mad, magnificent, marvellous, mean, miserable, nasty, necessary, needy, nervous, nice, noisy, obscene, odd, old, outstanding, persistent, pleased, popular, positive, powerful, pretty, professional, profitable, proud, quick, quiet, radical, realistic, refreshing, relevant, remarkable, ridiculous, ripe, rude, sad, safe, satisfying, savage, scared, sensible, serious, severe, sexy, sharp, shocked, short, sick, silly, sincere, sinister, skinny, sleepy, small, smooth, soft, solid, sorry, sour, spectacular, spicy, splendid, spooky, steep, sticky, stiff, stimulating, strange, strong, stunning, stupid, sufficient, suitable, superb, sure, surprised, surprising, sweaty, sweet, talented, terrible, terrified, thick, thrilled, tight, tiny, tired, touched, tough, tragic, traumatic, ugly, unbelievable, uncomfortable, unfriendly, unhappy, unusual, unwell ,up-to-date, uplifting, upset, uptight, urgent, useful, valuable, violent, vital, vivid, warm, weird, wet, wild, wild, willing, wonderful, worried, worth, worthwhile. *************************************************** *********************

Apparently is used with these adjectives: arbitrary, calm, casual, content, contradictory, convinced, deserted, diverse, effortless, empty, endless, engrossed, excellent, fruitless, futile, genuine, haphazard, harmless, healthy, helpless, homogeneous, hopeless, hostile, identical, illogical, impervious, impossible, incapable, incompatible, inconclusive, inconsistent, indifferent, ineffective, inevitable, inexhaustible, inexplicable, infinite, innocent, innocuous, insignificant, insoluble, insurmountable, intact, intent, interested, invincible, irrational, irreconcilable,

176

irrelevant, irresistible, isolated, lacking, legitimate, lifeless, limited, loyal, meaningless, minor, miraculous, modest, motionless, mundane, negative, neutral, objective, oblivious, obvious, overwhelming, permanent, pleased, pointless, positive, radical, random, rationale, ready, reasonable, related, relaxed, relevant, reluctant, respectable, restricted, satisfactory, satisfied, secure, sensible, separate, solid, spontaneous, stable, straightforward, trivial, unable, unaffected, unconcerned, uncontrollable, uninterested, unique, universal, unknown, unlikely, unlimited, unmoved, unreasonable, unscathed, willing. *************************************************** *********************

Virtually is used with these adjectives: absent, assured, automatic, bankrupt, bilingual, blind, circular, complete, constant, defenceless, defunct, derelict, deserted, devoid, empty, endless, equal, essential, extinct, foolproof, friendless, full, harmless, identical, illiterate, immaterial, immobile, immortal, immune, impassable, impenetrable, imperceptible, impervious, impossible, impotent, inaccessible, inaudible, incomprehensible, inconceivable, independent, indestructible, indispensible, inevitable, inexhaustible, infinite, inseparable, insoluble, instantaneous, insurmountable, intact, interchangeable, invincible, invisible, irrelevant, meaningless, motionless, naked, non-existent, obliged, obsolete, painless, penniless, perfect, permanent, powerless, redundant, self-sufficient, silent, static, sterile, synonymous, unable, unaffected, unanimous, unaware, unbeatable, unbroken, unchanged, uncontrollable, unheard-of, uninhabited, unintelligible, unique, universal, unknown, unlimited, unnoticed, unpaid, unprecedented, unscathed, unthinkable, unused, useless, worthless. *************************************************** *********************

Truly is used with these adjectives: admirable, alive, amazing, appalling, astonishing, awesome, awful, beautiful, bizarre, breathtaking, comic, comprehensive, cosmopolitan, creative, dedicated, delicious, delightful, democratic, deserved, dreadful, dynamic, equal, evil, excellent, extraordinary, fantastic, fascinating, formidable, frightening, fundamental, grateful, gratifying, great, gruesome, happy, heroic, honest, honoured, hooked, horrible, horrific, impressive, inadequate, incredible, indigenous, interested, magical, magnificent, married, memorable, mystified, needy, objective, outstanding, perverse, phenomenal, poetic, professional, radical, random, realistic, remarkable, representative, rural, scientific, shocked, sorry, spectacular, spiritual, splendid, sympathetic, talented, terrible, terrified, thankful, unforgettable, unique, universal, valuable, viable, vicious, wild, wonderful. *************************************************** *********************

Clearly is used with these adjectives: absurd, amused, annoyed, apparent, audible, baffled, beneficial, capable, conscious, contrary, convinced, correct, crucial, deliberate, delighted, designated, desirable, determined, disappointed, discernible, distinct, distinguishable, embarrassed, false, guilty, happy, illustrated, impossible, impressed, inadequate, inappropriate, incapable, incompatible, inconsistent, incorrect, indicative, insufficient, intent, interested, justified, lacking, legible, nervous, oblivious, perceptible, pleased, puzzled, readable, ready, recognisable, related, relevant, relieved, reluctant, sensible, shaken, silhouetted,

177

superior, surprised, terrified, uncomfortable, undesirable, unhappy, upset, worded, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Seemingly is used with these adjectives: casual, contradictory, endless, errorless, futile, haphazard, harmless, helpless, hopeless, impenetrable, impossible, impractical, incidental, incompatible, indestructible, inevitable, inexhaustible, innocent, innocuous, insignificant, insoluble, insurmountable, intelligent, intent, interminable, invincible, irrational, irreconcilable, irrelevant, irresistible, lifeless, meaningless, mild, minor, oblivious, obvious, overwhelming, paradoxical, perfect, positive, random, relaxed, solid, spontaneous, trivial, unable, unaffected, unaware, unconcerned, unscathed. *************************************************** *********************

Obviously is used with these adjectives: annoyed, attached, capable, crucial, deliberate, delighted, desirable, determined, disappointed, embarrassed, expensive, false, genuine, happy, impossible, impractical, impressed, inaccurate, inadequate, incorrect, intelligent, intent, interested, keen, lacking, nervous, pleased, puzzled, related, relevant, relieved, sensible, shaken, sorry, startled, suitable, surprised, terrified, unaware, uncomfortable, undesirable, unhappy, unsure, untrue, upset, visible, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Essentially is used with these adjectives: alien, arbitrary, ceremonial, complementary, concerned, conservative, correct, defensive, dependent, descriptive, distinct, dynamic, equivalent, hierarchical, humanitarian, identical, independent, instrumental, intact, isolated, liberal, male, masculine, meaningless, negative, novel, optimistic, ordinary, passive, positive, practical, pragmatic, rational, religious, rural, secular, self-sufficient, separate, static, subjective, subordinate, traditional, trivial, unchanged. *************************************************** *********************

Genuinely is used with these adjectives: afraid, amazed, amused, anxious, committed, concerned, creative, curious, delighted, democratic, enthusiastic, equal, fond, friendly, frightened, frightening, funny, grateful, happy, ill, impressed, independent, interested, modest, mystified, needy, perplexed, pleased, popular, puzzled, radical, shocked, sorry, spontaneous, suited, surprised, sympathetic, tragic, unable, upset, useful, warm, worried. *************************************************** *********************

Practically is used with these adjectives: convinced, devoid, empty, equivalent, exhausted, extinct, identical, impossible, impossible, inaccessible, inaudible, inconceivable, infinite, inseparable, insoluble, invisible, meaningless, non-existent, obligatory, obsolete, penniless, perfect, ready, solid, speechless, straight, unchanged, unheard-of, unintelligible, unknown, unnoticed, unthinkable, useful, useless, worthless. *************************************************** *********************

178

Simply is used with these adjectives: afraid, awesome, awful, beautiful, concerned, descriptive, explained, furious, furnished, gorgeous, grateful, huge, impossible, incompatible, incorrect, incredible, insufficient, irrelevant, irresistible, ludicrous, marvellous, phenomenal, splendid, stunning, superb, terrible, unacceptable, unbelievable, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Decidedly is used with these adjectives: chilly, confused, frosty, gloomy, hostile, hostile, impressive, inferior, limited, lukewarm, mixed, odd, ordinary, patchy, rare, reluctant, risky, shaky, slender, spooky, uncomfortable, uneasy, unpleasant, unusual, wary, weak. *************************************************** *********************

Basically is used with these adjectives: conservative, correct, dishonest, evil, factual, furnished, healthy, honest, hostile, identical, incompatible, insecure, insoluble, intact, neutral, opposed, optimistic, possible, selfish, similar, sound, true, unchanged, unstable, untrue. *************************************************** *********************

Inherently is used with these adjectives: biased, dangerous, desirable, evil, implausible, improbable, incapable, inefficient, insoluble, interesting, masculine, paradoxical, risky, subversive, superior, unacceptable, uncertain, unlikely, unstable, unstable, vague, valuable, weak, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Fundamentally is used with these adjectives: correct, dishonest, distinct, dynamic, evil, flawed, good, healthy, impossible, impractical, incompatible, misguided, opposed, related, religious, sound, true, unchanged, untrue, weak, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Positively is used with these adjectives: ancient, charged, damaging, dangerous, detrimental, encouraging, frightening, frosty, harmful, hateful, hostile, indecent, inhumane, luxurious, misleading, obstructive, pained, related, staid, tame, triumphant. *************************************************** *********************

Naturally is used with these adjectives: anxious, biased, concerned, conservative, courteous, curious, curly, disappointed, disposed, friendly, gifted, inclined, inquisitive, keen, oily, reserved, shy, suited, superior, suspicious. *************************************************** *********************

Not necessarily is used with these adjectives: exclusive, exhaustive, harmful, identical, incompatible, inconsistent, indicative, permanent, related, relevant, representative, suitable, transferable, typical, valid, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

179

Not exactly is used with these adjectives: alike, cheap, ecstatic, friendly, glamorous, good-looking, happy, overjoyed, perpendicular, pleasant, popular, presentable, reliable, subtle, thrilled. *************************************************** *********************

Intrinsically is used with these adjectives: bound, evil, harmful, improbable, interesting, masculine, rewarding, superior, theoretical, unstable, valuable, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Definitely is used with these adjective: eccentric, false, fishy, hostile, interested, possible, suspicious, unsatisfactory, worth, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Plainly is used with these adjectives: delighted, furnished, hostile, inadequate, inconsistent, terrified, unsure, visible, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Undoubtedly is used with these adjectives: correct, false, genuine, great, impressive, influenced, superior, true, useful. *************************************************** *********************

Overtly is used with these adjectives: dramatic, erotic, horrific, hostile, masculine, political, sexy, subversive, violent. *************************************************** *********************

Patently is used with these adjectives: absurd, artificial, false, inadequate, obvious, ridiculous, unfair, untrue. *************************************************** *********************

Supposedly is used with these adjectives: factual, homogeneous, independent, objective, superior, universal, unprecedented. *************************************************** *********************

Undeniably is used with these adjectives: exciting, gifted, handsome, impressive, pleasant, popular, pretty. *************************************************** *********************

Certainly is used with these adjectives: false, guilty, peculiar, possible, true, worth. *************************************************** *********************

Evidently is used with these adjectives: intent, pleased, superior, unaware. *************************************************** *********************

Possibly is used with these adjectives: damaging, dangerous, harmful.

180

Sincerely is used with these adjectives: grateful, pleased. *************************************************** *********************

Probably is used with inevitable. *************************************************** *********************

Unquestionably is used with true *************************************************** *********************

Objectively is used with true. *************************************************** *********************

181

Appendix III: ‘’Evaluative’’ Category

Appendix III lists all adjectives found to be modified by the selected members of the ‘‘evaluative’’ category in the OCD and LTP. The adverbs are ordered according to the wideness of their collocational range. Their collocating adjectives are listed in alphabetical order.

Terribly is used with these adjectives: afraid, angry, anxious, ashamed, bored, boring, brave, busy, busy, cold, complicated, confusing, conscious, cruel, dangerous, depressed, deprived, disappointed, disappointing, distraught, dull, embarrassed, embarrassing, excited, exciting, expensive, expensive, extravagant, fascinating, frightened, frustrating, funny, glad, good-looking, grateful, greedy, guilty, homesick, hot, hungry, hurt, ill, important, impressed, inaccurate, inconvenient, indiscreet, inefficient, interested, interesting, involved, irresponsible, keen, lonely, lucky, naïve, negative, nervous, nice, noisy, old, old-fashioned, oppressive, ordinary, painful, pale, pessimistic, plausible, proud, romantic, rude, sad, sensitive, shocked, short, shy, sick, significant, skinny, slow, small, sorry, spoilt, steep, surprised, sweet, tedious, thin, tired, tragic, uncomfortable, unfair, unfashionable, unhappy, unnatural, unpopular, unsure, upset, violent, worried, worrying, wrong, young. ************************************************** *********************

Reasonably is used with these adjectives: able, acceptable, accessible, accurate, active, balanced, bright, broad, capable, cheap, clear, comfortable, competent, complete, comprehensive, confident, consistent, constant, content, democratic, dry, educated, effective, efficient, encouraging, fair, familiar, fast, firm, fit, flexible, free, friendly, fruitful, generous, good, good-looking, happy, harmless, healthy, honest, impartial, inexpensive, informed, intact, intelligent, knowledgeable, large, lengthy, light, mild, moist, numerous, objective, optimistic, peaceful, plain, plausible, pleasant, pleased, powerful, practical, precise, predictable, predictable, presentable, proficient, prudent, quick, quiet, realistic, reliable, representative, safe, satisfactory, satisfied, secure, sensible, skillful, smooth, sober, sound, spacious, stable, straightforward, tight, tolerant, tough, up-to-date, valid, warm, wealthy, wide. ************************************************** *********************

Incredibly is used with these adjectives: accurate, ancient, bad, beautiful, big, boring, brave, bright, bright, busy, cheap, cheerful, clever, comfortable, complex, complicated, courageous, dangerous, difficult, dull, easy, efficient, enthusiastic, exciting, expensive, fast, foolish, frustrating, generous, greedy, guilty, handsome, hard, hot, ignorant, impressive, insensitive, intelligent, interesting, knowledgeable, lazy, long, lucky, naïve, nice, obscure, old, optimistic, patient, persistent, popular, powerful, precious, prolific, rich, romantic, rude, selfish, serious, sexy, silly, slow, smooth, smug, soft, sophisticated, steep, stupid, supportive, swift, talented, tedious, tense, thin, tough, ugly, uncomfortable, unlikely, wealthy.

182

Seriously is used with these adjectives: affected, alarmed, committed, concerned, damaging, defective, deficient, detrimental, disabled, disadvantaged, distorted, disturbed, embarrassing, endangered, flawed, flawed, hampered, handicapped, handicapped, hindered, hurt, ill, impaired, inaccurate, inadequate, incomplete, injured, interested, involved, lacking, limited, misleading, mistaken, neglected, negligent, overrated, overweight, polluted, restricted, rich, shaken, threatening, unbalanced, upset, wealthy, worried, worrying, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Sufficiently is used with these adjectives: accurate, balanced, broad, challenging, convincing, educated, effective, evident, experienced, explicit, flexible, high, hot, impressed, interested, interesting, large, numerous, oriented, persuasive, powerful, precise, profitable, qualified, rare, realistic, relaxed, reliable, satisfied, secure, senior, sensitive, severe, shallow, skilled, sophisticated, stable, stupid, thick, unusual, vague, varied, vigorous, warm, wide, widespread. ************************************************** *********************

Severely is used with these adjectives: affected, afflicted, autistic, beaten, censored, congested, constipated, constrained, critical, criticised, damaging, defective, deficient, deformed, depressed, deprived, disabled, disadvantaged, disturbed, emaciated, hampered, handicapped, ill, indebted, inflamed, injured, limited, masculine, neglected, overcrowded, polluted, practical, pruned, reduced, repressed, restricted, retarded, shaken, strained, subnormal. *************************************************** *********************

Notoriously is used with these adjectives: bad, careless, confusing, conservative, controversial, corrupt, cruel, dangerous, different, difficult, dishonest, elusive, expensive, fickle, hierarchical, imprecise, inaccessible, inaccurate, inadequate, incomplete, indiscreet, inefficient, insecure, lacking, misleading, prone, reluctant, selective, slow, treacherous, tricky, uncertain, unfair, unpleasant, unreliable, unsatisfactory, unstable, vague, violent, volatile. ************************************************** *********************

Wonderfully is used with these adjectives: absurd, beautiful, comfortable, comforting, comic, cool, creamy, decorative, entertaining, exciting, expressive, fragrant, funny, generous, handsome, happy, imaginative, informative, inventive, luxurious, mellow, pretty, refreshing, rich, romantic, secluded, soothing, spontaneous, supportive, tolerant, tranquil, varied, versatile, vivid, warm. ************************************************** *********************

Beautifully is used with these adjectives: arranged, balanced, carved, coloured, cool, designed, detailed, displayed, dressed, elegant, executed, formed, furnished, groomed, illustrated, light, maintained, marked, mellow, patterned, polished, proportioned, restored, rounded, scented, shaped, situated, smooth, soft, tailored, tender, tidy, warm. *************************************************** *********************

183

Hopelessly is used with these adjectives: addicted, biased, confused, confusing, dated, disorganized, drunk, entangled, flawed, impractical, inaccurate, inadequate, incomplete, inefficient, inept, inexperienced, lost, muddled, optimistic, out-of-date, romantic, tangled, unprepared, unrealistic, unreliable, vague, wrong. ************************************************** *********************

Amazingly is used with these adjectives: accurate, beautiful, brave, calm, cheap, cheerful, consistent, expensive, fast, frank, generous, happy, intricate, inventive, knowledgeable, lucky, lucrative, naïve, profitable, quick, successful, tricky, ugly, unscathed, versatile. ************************************************** *********************

Suitably is used with these adjectives: abashed, apologetic, cautious, clad, dramatic, dressed, educated, equipped, experienced, heroic, impressed, impressive, ironic, qualified, somber, subdued, sympathetic, trained, uplifting, vague. ************************************************** *********************

Properly is used with these adjectives: accountable, appreciated, balanced, closed, educated, equipped, heated, informed, insulated, married, organized, qualified, recovered, representative, researched, resolved, rewarded, shut, trained. *************************************************** *********************

Painfully is used with these adjectives: apparent, aware, awkward, beautiful, conscious, emaciated, embarrassed, evident, exposed, familiar, honest, obvious, self-conscious, sensitive, shy, slow, thin. *************************************************** *********************

Horribly is used with these adjectives: afraid, aware, confused, conspicuous, deformed, drunk, empty, expensive, false, familiar, gruesome, self-conscious, sick, sticky, swollen, wrong. *************************************************** *********************

Unbelievably is used with these adjectives: accurate, awful, bad, beautiful, busy, confusing, exciting, fast, ignorant, lucky, overcrowded, popular, simple, strong, stupid, tricky. *************************************************** *********************

Ridiculously is used with these adjectives: busy, cheap, easy, exaggerated, expensive, guilty, happy, inadequate, optimistic, pleased, romantic, sentimental, small. *************************************************** *********************

Awfully is used with these adjectives: boring, busy, careful, clever, glad, hot, keen, nice, pleased, sorry, sweet, tired. *************************************************** *********************

184

Adequately is used with these adjectives: compensated, equipped, furnished, heated, informed, insured, prepared, qualified, supplied, trained. *************************************************** *********************

Brilliantly is used with these adjectives: coloured, designed, edited, effective, funny, imaginative, inventive, patterned, sunny. *************************************************** *********************

Overly is used with these adjectives: ambitious, cynical, enthusiastic, generous, impressed, keen, optimistic, simplistic. *************************************************** *********************

Exquisitely is used with these adjectives: beautiful, carved, charming, designed, detailed, sensitive, tailored. *************************************************** *********************

Delicately is used with these adjectives: balanced, carved, coloured, falvoured, patterned, poised, scented. *************************************************** *********************

Understandably is used with these adjectives: anxious, cautious, fearful, keen, nervous, reluctant, suspicious. *************************************************** *********************

Violently is used with these adjectives: antagonistic, attacked, hostile, huddled, ill, opposed, sick. *************************************************** *********************

Brutally is used with these adjectives: attacked, frank, honest, murdered, oppressive, repressed, repressive. *************************************************** *********************

Ludicrously is used with these adjectives: expensive, inadequate, irrelevant, out-of-date, sentimental. *************************************************** *********************

Elegantly is used with these adjectives: dressed, furnished, handsome, tailored. *************************************************** *********************

Comfortably is used with these adjectives: furnished, settled, warm. *************************************************** *********************

Justifiably is used with these adjectives: optimistic, pleased, proud. *************************************************** *********************

185

Insufficiently is used with these adjectives: accurate, flexible, precise. *************************************************** *********************

Fabulously is used with these adjectives: rich, wealthy. *************************************************** *********************

Sweetly is used with these adjectives: innocent, scented. *************************************************** *********************

Prettily is used with these adjectives: furnished, patterned. *************************************************** *********************

Breathtakingly is used with these adjectives: beautiful, lovely. *************************************************** *********************

Disgustingly is used with healthy. *************************************************** *********************

Terrifically is used with exciting. ************************************************** *********************

Extortionately is used with expensive. *************************************************** *********************

Spectacularly is used with successful. *************************************************** *********************

Fantastically is used with healthy. *************************************************** *********************

186

Appendix IV: ‘‘Comparative’’ Category

Appendix IV lists all adjectives found to be modified by the selected members of the ‘comparative’ category in the OCD and LTP. The adverbs are ordered according to the wideness of their collocational range. Their collocating adjectives are listed in alphabetical order.

Relatively is used with these adjectives: accessible, advanced, autonomous, benign, brief, broad, calm, cautious, cheap, comfortable, complex, conservative, constant, content, controversial, conventional, costly, depressed, deprived, difficult, diverse, dominant, dry, early, easy, efficient, empty, expensive, explicit, exposed, fast, fixed, flexible, fluid, formal, free, frequent, generous, happy, harmless, healthy, homogenous, immaterial, immature, immobile, immune, impartial, important, inactive, ineffective, inefficient, inert, inexpensive, inexperienced, inflexible, informal, infrequent, innocent, innocuous, insensitive, insignificant, intact, intelligent, isolated, junior, large, late, lengthy, lenient, liberal, light, limited, low, low-key, manageable, mild, minor, mobile, moderate, modest, narrow, neglected, neutral, novel, numerous, obscure, opaque, orderly, painless, passive, peaceful, permanent, pessimistic, poor, popular, powerful, powerless, precise, predictable, privileged, profitable, progressive, prolonged, prosperous, quick, quiet, rapid, rare, recent, remote, resistant, restricted, rich, rigid, safe, satisfied, scarce, secure, self-contained, senior, sensitive, separate, serious, severe, shallow, sheltered, short, simple, slight, slow, small, smooth, sober, soft, sophisticated, specialized, stable, static, steady, steep, straight, straightforward, strict, strong, successful, superficial, temporary, theoretical, thick, thin, tiny, tolerant, tricky, trivial, unaffected, unchanged, uncomfortable, uncommon, unconcerned, unexpected, unfamiliar, unfashionable, unknown, unmoved, unprepared, unscathed, unstable, unusual, upright, useful, useless., warm, , wealthy, wide, young. *************************************************** *********************

Particularly is used with these adjectives: aggressive, agreeable, alarming, busy, careful, cautious, complex, complicated, concentrated, concerned, confused, difficult, effective, embarrassed, evident, fine, fond, fortunate, frustrating, grateful, gratifying, gruesome, happy, harmful, harsh, hazardous, helpful, important, impressed, impressive, inappropriate, influential, informative, instructive, interested, interesting, ironic, keen, kind, lovely, marked, memorable, nasty, noisy, notable, noted, noteworthy, noticeable, numerous, outstanding, painful, pertinent, pleased, pleasing, poignant, popular, potent, powerful, prominent, promising, prone, pronounced, proud, quick, rare, relevant, resistant, revealing, rewarding, rich, sad, scarce, sensitive, serious, severe, sharp, significant, skilled, stressful, striking, strong, stupid, successful, suitable, suited, susceptible, tight, tough, tragic, traumatic, troubled, true, unfair, unfortunate, unpleasant, unpopular, unusual, upset, urgent, useful, valuable, vicious, vigilant, violent, visible, vital, vulnerable, warm, weak, welcome, worried, worrying. *************************************************** *********************

187

Comparatively is used with these adjectives: brief, cheap, clear, easy, expensive, fortunate, harmless, important, inexpensive, infrequent, insignificant, junior, large, liberal, light, limited, low, mild, minor, modest, narrow, neglected, painless, peaceful, pessimistic, poor, powerless, quiet, rare, recent, remote, safe, satisfied, secure, serious, severe, shallow, short, simple, slight, slow, small, stable, straightforward, strong, theoretical, tidy, tolerant, tiny, trivial, unaffected, unaware, unaware, unexpected, unknown, unlikely, unpleasant, unstable, up-to-date, urgent, useful, useless, weak, wealthy, young. *************************************************** *********************

Especially is used with these adjectives: careful, complex, concerned, effective, evident, fond, grateful, gratifying, helpful, important, impressed, influential, interested, interesting, keen, kind, marked, notable, noted, noteworthy, noticeable, numerous, pertinent, pleased, popular, powerful, prominent, prone, pronounced, proud, rare, relevant, rich, sensitive, severe, skilled, striking, suitable, suited, useful, valuable, vigilant, vulnerable, welcome. *************************************************** *********************

Extraordinarily is used with these adjectives: beautiful, candid, clever, complex, complicated, courageous, detailed, difficult, excited, exciting, favourable, funny, generous, good, good-looking, handsome, influential, interesting, intricate, intriguing, light, lucky, mobile, moving, persistent, pleasant, powerful, prolific, quiet, rapid, resistant, rich, subtle, talented, vivid, wide. *************************************************** *********************

Unusually is used with these adjectives: bright, broad, complete, detailed, fine, forthcoming, gentle, good, helpful, hot, large, long-lived, mild, powerful, prominent, quiet, rapid, restrained, rich, secretive, sensitive, severe, silent, strong, subdued, susceptible, tall, tidy, warm, wide. *************************************************** *********************

Eminently is used with these adjectives: acceptable, deserving, desirable, logical, possible, practical, predictable, qualified, readable, reasonable, respectable, sane, satisfactory, satisfying, sensible, sensible, suitable, suited, valuable. *************************************************** *********************

Not particularly is used with these adjectives: bothered, comforting, difficult, enthusiastic, friendly, good-looking, happy, helpful, illuminating, inspiring, inviting, necessary, nice, pleasant, surprised, talented. *************************************************** *********************

188

Appendix V: ‘‘Semantic Feature Copying’’ Category

Appendix V lists adverb-adjective collocations that are interpreted as instances of ‘’semantic feature copying’’. They are drawn from the OCD and LTP.

Badly needed Heavily loaded Badly injured Heavily overweight Bitterly cold Immediately noticeable Blatantly clear Instantly recognizable Blindingly obvious Intensely frustrating Clearly defined Intimately acquainted Clearly evident Irrevocably committed Clearly visible Loosely structured Closely related Peacefully asleep Crucially important Permanently handicapped Dangerously misleading Plainly evident Deeply disappointed Readily available Deeply impressed Ruthlessly exploited Deeply insulting Savagely contemptuous Deeply interested Scrupulously honest Deeply involved Serenely peaceful Deeply rooted Shockingly disfigured Directly involved Spotlessly clean Easily accessible Strictly limited Easily comprehensible Strongly nationalistic Easily readable Tightly constrained Fiercely opposed Vaguely aware Firmly attached Vitally important Firmly embedded Warmly welcome

*************************************************** ******************

˜Ýƒn�¾a@ @

@sïy@óî�ïÝ−ýa@óÍÝÜa@À@píÉåÜa@ì@Óì‹ÅÜa@µi@óá÷bÕÜa@pbàŒþn¾a@‹èbÅà@&Éi@ó�aŠ†@¶a@szjÜa@ a‰è@Ó‡éî

�Üa@píÉåÜa@ ì@Óì‹ÅÜa@&ÉjÜ@óïÜý‡Üa@˜÷b—©a@Ò“Ùî@µÐì‹Éà@µávÉà@ôÝÈ@ :a‡ánÉà@Ú܈@ ì@ béàŒþm@báè@ì@

OCD@@ìLTPNì@�Üa@óî‹èí§a@óÝø�ýa@˜ƒÝä@ça@båè@æÙºðÝî@bà@À@ó�aŠ‡Üa@í®@bånéuìZ@ @

oÉåÜbi@ÂjÅÜbi@Ó‹ÅÜa@ ÞÉÑî@ aˆbà@æáš@Óì‹ÅÜa@pbàŒþm@ Šb�a@M@óïÝibÔ@ôÝÈ@ ò†íuí¾a@ †íïÕÜa@ðèbà@ _@píÉåÜa

_µm†‹ÑáÝÜ@xbà‡äÿa@ @

szjÜa@ ñín±@ôÝÈ@szjÜa@ †ì‡¨a@ ôÝÈ@ öí›Üa@ ðÕÝm@�Üa@ óà‡Õ¾a@ béåáš@ æà@ ßí—Ð@ ón�@@ì@ szjÜa@ óÝÙ“à@ ì

‹ÑÜa@ì@Óa‡èÿaì@pbïš@@bén�aŠ‡i@szjÜa@ãbÔ@�Üa@pbäbïjÜa@ì@pbïÜła@N@ðäbrÜa@Þ—ÑÜa@ò‹ÙÑÜ@ :a‡ïé¸@ßìbånî

¾a@âèc@béïÝî@pbàŒþn¾a@Óbå–c@¶a@óÐbša@pbàŒþnáÝÜ@óﲊdm@óïÑÝ‚@ì@ ò‹èbÅÜbi@ :bÑî‹Ém@ã‡Õî@sïy@pbàŒþn

xbà‡äýa@æà@õ‹‚ÿa@Ëaíäc@ì@pbàŒþn¾a@µi@ò†íuí¾a@Óþn‚ÿa@ÃbÕäN@ @

—ÑÜa@ �Ø‹îxŠ‡nÝÜ@ óïÜý‡Üa@˜÷b—©a@ ì@ xŠ‡nÜa@Ò–ì@ôÝÈ@ sÜbrÜa@ Þ@Üÿa@¶a@ :b›îa@ Ó‡éî@ ì@ píÉåÜa@À@pbï

@báèa‡ya@óïÜý†@ :b�íÍš@xŠ‡nÜa@pbÑ–@ì@píÉåÜa@ó�Šb¿@óïÑïØ@Þrà@pbïÜbÙ’a@��Ñm@ôÝÈ@Š†bÔ@ðÜý†@xˆíáåi

‹‚ła@ôÝÈ@ Nßìbånä@Êia‹Üa@Þ—Ð@À@IxŠ‡nÜaH@†@ÂáåØ@ÞÙ“i@óïÜa@ båÔ‹om@‡Ô@ ì@ðÜýÞ—Ñà@ N@÷àb©a@Þ—ÑÜa

@�Üa@ ì@ ó�aŠ‡Üa@ @ ßþ‚@ bèbåvnån�a@�Üa@ÃbÕåÜa@ âèa@�‚ýa@Þ—ÑÜa@À@ ì@Óì‹ÅÝÜ@ óïÜý‡Üa@Ãb¹ÿa@”Ôbåî

ðÝî@bà@À@˜ÝƒnmZ@ @

• @óÉïj�@báåïi@óîí®@ðè@Óì‹ÅÜa@béÝÕåm@�Üa@ôåɾa@óÉïj�@L@Óì‹ÅÜa@ì@píÉåÜa@pbàŒþnà@ójïØ‹m@æáš

Üý†@ðè@píÉåÜa@bè‡ïÑm@�Üa@ôåɾaóïÜý†@‹Åä@óéuì@æà@�Øc@óïáèdi@ôű@oÉåÜa@çdÐ@a‰�ì@LóïN

• @ ðè@ ì@ óïÜý†@ †bÉiýa@ ó�½@ ‘b�ýa@ ôÝÈ@ ãíÕm@ bén�aŠ‡i@ båáÔ@ �Üa@ Óì‹ÅÜa@ @ ZBóuŠ‡ÜaBL@

BêïuínÜaB@~BâîíÕnÜaB@LBóäŠbÕ¾aB@@ìBóïÜý‡Üa@˜÷b—©a@„�åÜaBN

@båà‡Ô@:a�‚c@ì@Ž}bnjqƒÝà@ì@szjÜa@À@óà‡ƒn�¾a@Êu‹¾a@âèdióïi‹ÉÜaì@óÙÜa@µnÍÝÜbi@˜N@ @

óØó�bi@õómŠíØ@

�Šóån�‚@ óîòìóåîím@ ãóÜ@ o�óióà�Šìbè@ õ‡äòíîóq@ ôäóîý@ Žõ‡äóè@ õììõóäbïŽî@ICollocation@ Hõ@@çaíŽïä

�ŠóÜ@a‡î�ïÝ&åï÷@ôäbàŒ@óÜ@òŠbÙ*Üòìb÷@ì@ìbå*Üòìb÷@õb&Žî@ìó÷@ì@çbØòŠbÙ*Üòìb÷@óÜ@Žõ‡äóè@ôäbØóîbmaì@báï�@õòìóåì†

õ‡äòíîóq@a‡äbï*Üó�óÜ@õóäaìbå*Üòìb÷@�Šìbèóîóè@çbîóäbïŽî@~àó÷&äóèŠóÐ@ì솊óè@ói@´�ójn“q@ói@•ó@õŠa†ìbä@ô

IOCD@H@ìILTP@N@H�‹ØòìónŽî‹Ùi@pŠíØ@a†òìòŠaí‚@õòŠbï�‹q@ìì†@ãóÜ@Žõ‹Øò†@óØòìóåîím@ôØŽì@Z@ŠbÙ*Üòìb÷@bîb÷

bØ@oŽïåŽî†@ a†ìbå*Üòìb÷@Šó�ói@ôš@íŽïä@óåšò†@ÚŽïmôØóî‡äòíîóq@�Šìbè@ òìóäbïŽîICollocationH@ìó÷@bîb÷@ òì@ _

ìbå*Üòìb÷@ ì@ ìŠbÙ*Üòìb÷@ õbäaím@ Šó�óÜ@ óØ@ µš@ óäa‡äói@ ì@ pŽíØ�Šìbè@ õ‡äòíîóq@ ôn�óióà@ Žíi@ çóè@ a†@õóäbïŽî

@_çóîbä@òìóÙŽïq@õóØ@ì@æŽî†@òìóÙŽïq@õóØ@ómaì@_çbïäaíŽïä@ @

ÛóïØó“Žïq@ ói@óØ@ òìímbéÙŽïq@•ói@•ó’@óÜ@óØòìóåîím@@õŠìíå�@ Šó�@ómb‚ò†@õbå’ŽìŠ@ óØ@pbØò‡Žïq@o�ò†

óØòìóåîím@ ~ôäbØónЋ�@ ~ôäbØó−bàb÷@ ~ôäbØóäbº‹�@ ~@ôn“q@ õóäbîbma†@ ìó÷@ ì@ ôäbØóà�ïäbÙïà

çìín�ójŽïq@N@õòìó䆋ÙäììŠ@ Žíi@óÙŽï䆋ْŽí‚@b&îŠ@ãòìì†@ô’ói@ômóŽî�Šìbè@õóØŽì�iICollocation@H@•óàó÷

@ ì@ 熋Øó�båŽïq@ õb&Žî�Š@ óÜŽïq@bèòìŠóè@ ì@ óäbî‡äòíîóq@ ãó÷@ Žíi@ õìì쉎ïà@ ôÙŽïäbƒ’bq@ ô䆋ْóÙ“

ôäbØó䆋ÙåŽïÜŽíq@ ~@ì@ ômóïŽî�Šìbè@ õ‡äòíîóq@ çaíŽïäóÜ@ óØ@ òìín�‚Šò†@ çbàóäbîŒaìbïu@ ìó÷@ æî�&ä‹�@ ”î‹maì†

óîóè@a‡ïäbØòíŽï’ìbè@òŠŽínØa��@N@ @

@ôäbØòìbå*Üòìb÷@ôäa‡äb“ïq@óÜ@óïnî‹i@ãóïŽï�@ô’óiBóÝq@Bóîbmaìbáï�@ììbå*Üòìb÷@óÜ@õ‡äóióÝq@ôäbØ@~@bèòìŠóè

@óÜó�óà@Žõ‡äóè@õòìóäa‡ÙŽïÜ@ Žíi@òìbåŽïè@çbá“ïÙŽïÝíàóÜ@õŠb’í�@õ‡äóióÝq@ôäbØòŠó‚Šò†@ì@ìbå*Üòìb÷@çŽíš@óäaì

�Øóî@Šó�@óäó‚ò†@ôîbmaì@N@óÜ@çb�bi@¶ó�ómì‹Žïm@ói@a‡àòŠaíš@ô’óióÜBõ‡äóióÝq@BôÙŽï*ÜŽíq@íØòì@òì솋Ø@

ôîbmaì@Nq@ô’óióÜòìóåï*ÜŽíÙŽïÜ@ì@‘biŠói@ómŽín�‚@çb¹bØòŠa†ŠbÙ*Üòìb÷@ôäbØóîbmaì@óÜŽíq@a‡“ïàóvåŽï@N@ô’óióÜ

@æîìín“îó�@ ôŽïq@ óØòìóåîím@ ôàb−ó÷óÜóØ@ òì솋Ø�î�Š@ çbàóä*ýb‚@ ìó÷@ æî�&ä‹�@ a‡“îbmŽíØ@ ì@ ãó’ó’

•óäaìóÜZ@@ @

@ õòíŽïšŠaíšóÜa†ìbå*Üòìb÷@ ì@ ŠbÙMÜòìb÷@ õóäbïŽî�Šìbè@ õ‡äòíîóq@ ~@çbØòŠbÙ*Üòìb÷@ õóîbmaì@ ìó÷@ ôn’ì‹�

óïäbà�Žî�Š@ a‡mò�ŠóåióÜ@ òìóä�Žîí&îò†@ ~@òìóä�Žîí&îò†@ çbØòìbå*Üòìb÷@ õóîbmaì@ ìó÷@ ôn’ì‹�@ ã*ýói

óîbmaì@a‡mò�ŠóåióÜ@N@ @

òíŽïšaíš@óÜ@‘biŠói@ómóäbàín�‚@ a†óØòìóåîím@óÜ@õóäaŠbÙ*Üòìb÷@ìó÷@a†@ôîbmaì@õ‡äóèòŠ@wåŽïq@õ

çóØò†ŠbØ@ ~”ïäaìó÷@ ~BóÝqB@ ~B*ÿa†ŽíàB@ ~BóäaíŽïqB@ ~BôîŠb؆ŠìaŠói@ B@ ìB@báï�@ ô䆋ÙïqŽíØ

çbØóîbmaì@N@B@ @

@ çìbåŽïè@ çbàŠbØóióØ@ õóäaìbšŠó�@ ìóÜ@ òì솋Ø@ çbáÙŽïn�ïÜ@ a‡“îbmŽíØóÜ@ì솊óèói@ óØó�bi@ õón‚íq@ Žßó�óÜ

ôiòŠóÈ@ì@õ†ŠíØ@ôäbàŒ@N@@ @

@@ @