1 INTRODUCTION The aim of this thesis is to examine six - Muni

1

INTRODUCTION The aim of this thesis is to examine six English intensifying adverbs: absolutely,

completely, entirely, fully, totally and utterly. Although they are generally regarded as synonymous, there exist semantic nuances between them. Each of the lexemes creates different collocations and is associated with a different level of subjectivity. I will concentrate on these differences and restrictions and examine the collocational ranges of the intensifiers with the help of the British National Corpus. I will include statistics of their usage and define specific semantic features of individual adverbs.

The thesis is divided into theoretical and practical part. The theoretical part contains six chapters dealing with the background. First I briefly introduce the category of adverbs and their syntactic and semantic functions. Next I define the adverbs of degree because this category traditionally includes the group of intensifiers I have selected. The following chapter presents the amplifiers themselves and their division and also pays attention to their position in a sentence. The fourth chapter discusses the complexity of synonymy. I state various views on this subject by several linguists with emphasis on absolute and cognitive synonymy. The next chapter is devoted to collocations as they form an important part of my research. The last chapter introduces the concept of corpus and its use in modern linguistics and offers a brief description of a website VIEW which I will work with.

In the second, practical part I explain how I have chosen the six amplifiers and account for the reason why they are not to be taken as absolute synonyms. Then I provide definitions from five dictionaries and prove that the dictionaries are not sufficient for distinguishing the semantic shades between the intensifiers. The last chapter of the practical part deals with the actual analysis, it provides statistical data of their occurrence in various registers and make overviews of the most frequent collocations according to the BNC.

Examining the expressions, I only work with adjectival collocations and take into account the connotations, the level of subjectivity or objectivity and formality or informality.

2

1. THEORETICAL PART

1. 1 ADVERBS Huddleston and Pullum (2002:562) define adverbs as “a grammatically distinct category

of words whose members are characteristically used to modify verbs and other categories except nouns, especially adjectives and adverbs.” They divide adverbs into these three types:

1. simple adverbs, e.g. just, only, well 2. compound adverbs, e.g. somehow, therefore 3. derivational adverbs – the majority of them have the suffix –ly, by means of which new adverbs are created from adjectives, e.g. interestingly, oddly

Huddleston (1988:120-121) defines adverbs as follows:

a) Its central members characteristically modify verbs, adjectives and other adverbs. In languages which distinguish between adjectives and adverbs the primary difference is that adjectives modify nouns (or stand in a predicative relation to noun phrases) while adverbs modify verbs. b) Central members commonly express manner or degree; other frequent meanings (often associated with grammatically less central members) include time and place. c) It is commonly the case that many members, especially those belonging to the manner subclass, are morphologically derived from adjectives.

Huddleston and Pullum (2002:263) mention that “the fact that adverbs can modify a wide range of expressions makes the category somewhat heterogeneous”. David Crystal (1995:211) agrees that “the adverb is the most heterogeneous of all the word classes in English grammar”. Moreover, Huddleston and Pullum (2002:563) maintain that traditional grammar included under this heading various items that did not “satisfy the more specific criteria for nouns, verbs, adjectives, prepositions, and conjunctions, and the adverb became a miscellaneous or residual category”. However, David Crystal (1995:211) claims that modern grammars have endeavoured to identify the main functions of the adverb and set up subclasses to handle the most divergent types. Adverbs then become a more coherent category (Huddleston and Pullum 2002:564).

3

1.1.1 THE SYNTACTIC FUNCTIONS OF ADVERBS Biber et al. (1999:540) claim that adverbs have two chief uses. They can be “integrated

into an element of the clause or function themselves as an element of the clause. In the first case, the adverbs serve as modifiers; in the second, they are adverbials.”

Biber provides these examples: 1. First, Health service managers must be able to prize their services reasonably accurately for trading purposes. (a modifier) 2. I think she’ll be married shortly. (an adverbial)

1.1.2 THE SEMANTIC CATEGORIES OF ADVERBS Biber et al. (1999:552) argue that “adverbs cover a wide range of semantic categories.”

Grammarians, however, have not agreed on a unified division of them. Only three groups are recognized generally: place, time and manner, and in most cases also degree. Scholars are then making up various additional groups: intensifiers and focusing adverbs (Chalker 1984:190), adverbs of stance, additive/restrictive adverbs and linking adverbs (Biber et al. 1999:556-558) or viewpoint adverbs and connectives (Alexander 1988:122). Huang (1975:30) establishes completely different types of adverbs, for example attitudinal adverbs, state-of-mind adverbs, performative adverbs, epistemic adverbs and resultative adverbs.

Since my thesis deals with the intensifying adverbs, I will now concentrate on the adverbs of degree which traditionally include them, although some grammarians have created a special ‘category of intensifiers’ for them.

4

1.2 ADVERBS OF DEGREE Huang (1975:21) defines degree adverbs as follows: “Degree adverbs express the

degree or extent of a certain quality or state and presuppose an analysis of the grading properties in the semantics of, especially, adjectives. These adverbs either serve to indicate descriptively something about the degree, as in “She was very tall” or indicate the speaker’s reaction to the degree, as in “She was surprisingly tall.”

Biber et al. (1999:554) say that “they can be used to mark that the extent or degree is either greater or less than usual or than that of something else in the neighbouring discourse” and that “they occur as both adverbials and modifiers”.

1.2.1 LABELLING THE INTENSIFYING ADVERBS

Collecting materials for the theoretical background, I have found out that there is no consistency in naming the group of intensifying adverbs. I have summed up the main concepts in this subchapter, trying to follow the time line.

Bolinger (1972:242) labels these adverbs ‘relatively ungrammaticised intensifiers’ or ‘hyperbolic intensifiers’ and treats them as adverbs of “purity and veracity”. He includes thoroughly, totally, completely, utterly, absolutely, 100%, really, clean, unqualifiedly, genuinely, honestly into this group.

Bäcklund (1973:194) calls them simply ‘adverbs expressing the highest degree’ and a similar view is presented by Verdieva et al. (1983:206), who place the adverbs under the heading ‘adverbs which denote a high point or the upper extreme on the intensity scale’ with subheading “to the greatest degree or extent”.

Chalker (1984:190) and Alexander (1988:139) name them ‘intensifiers’, claiming that “an intensifier normally strengthens (or ‘intensifies’) the meaning” (Alexander 1988:139) although Quirk (1985:589) assures that intensifiers can express high as well as low point on an intensity scale. Therefore Quirk is inclined to name them ‘amplifiers’ (or ‘maximizers’ as well) and he is followed by Geoffrey Broughton (1990:146) in this respect. Biber et al. (1999:554) seem to combine these two views and denote the adverbs both ‘amplifiers’ and ‘intensifiers’.

John Sinclair gives them a label of ‘emphasizing adverbs’ because they “add emphasis to the action described by a verb” (1990:294). Quirk, however, acknowledges emphasizers as a different group of adverbs (cf. Quirk 1985:583).

Leech and Svartvik are more concerned with the syntactic function of amplifiers as

5

adverbials and particularly modifiers. They treat them as “adverbs indicating that the limit word’s meaning is used to its fullest extent” (1994:154).

Huddleston and Pullum denote these expressions either ‘degree adverbs in –ly’ or ‘degree modifiers’ (2002:583), or include them into ‘the maximal subgroup’ (2002:721). They add that “these items indicate a degree at the top end of the scale” (2002:721).

Hence the terminology is rather confused and sometimes misleading. From my point of view the most accurate label is provided by Quirk and I find it suitable for my thesis as well. Therefore I decided to use the term ‘amplifiers’ and also the second most frequent label ‘intensifiers’ for the group of selected adverbs.

6

1.3 AMPLIFIERS The most thorough and accurate presentation of the amplifiers is offered by Quirk et

al. who devote them a whole chapter (Quirk et al. 1985). He describes them as the “intensifier subjuncts” that are “broadly concerned with the semantic category of degree” (1985:589). However, he calls attention to the fact that “the term ‘intensifier’ does not refer only to means whereby an increase in intensification is expressed. Rather, an intensifying subjunct indicates a point on an abstractly conceived intensity scale; and the point indicated may be relatively low or relatively high” (ibid., 589) He distinguishes two subsets of intensifiers (ibid., 589-590) I. amplifiers - maximizers (e.g.: completely) - boosters (e.g.: very much) II. downtoners - approximators (e.g.: almost) - compromisers (e.g.: more or less) - diminishers (e.g.: partly) - minimizers (e.g.: hardly)

Quirk goes on saying that “amplifiers scale upwards from an assumed norm; downtoners have a lowering effect, usually scaling downwards from an assumed norm” (ibid., 590). He adds that the subtypes provide nothing more than a rough guide to semantic distinctions, because

i) the varying effects of intensifiers represent a semantic gradient, which is obscured by a clear-cut division into classes

ii) some intensifiers are sometimes used for different effects iii) speakers vary in their use of intensifiers

Since this thesis is aimed at intensifiers scaling upwards, I will now go on with the characteristics of the amplifiers. Quirk (1985:590-591) divides amplifiers into two subgroups:

a) maximizers, which can denote the upper extreme of the scale b) boosters, which denote a high degree, a high point on the scale

Quirk comments on the fact that “both subsets, but especially boosters, form open

classes, and new expressions are frequently created to replace older ones whose impact follows the trend of hyperbole in rapidly growing ineffectual” (ibid., 590). This observation

7

was already made by Stoffel in 1901. He wrote that “frequent use is apt to weaken the sense of a word: the general run of speakers are so much given to using hyperbolical language, …, that the very words they use for this purpose will come to be discounted in the public estimation, and taken for what they are worth, which is usually a good less than what they imply etymologically” (Stoffel 1901:1) He arrived at a conclusion that “most of those intensives that originally expressed completeness, have in course of time come to mean merely a high degree of quality” (ibid., 1).

The note on the hyperbolic usage is an interesting and important point as it is applicable on most of the adverbs I have selected. When absolutely, totally or utterly are used in a sentence as adverbs of degree, they in fact function as hyperbolic expressions and they are not to be taken literally. Their absolute meaning has weakened in the course of time and they often serve as means of intensification nowadays.

Next Quirk notes that “most amplifiers can be contrasted in alternative negation with to some extent, and this propensity is a semantic test for their inclusion in the class of amplifiers” (1985:590):

He didn’t ignore my request completely, but he did ignore it to some extent. They don’t admire his music greatly, but they do admire it to some extent.

Thus Quirk distinguishes between amplifiers and emphasizers which cannot be so used: *He didn’t really ignore my request, but he did ignore it to some extent. As I have noted before, some linguists, for example Bolinger (1972:242), put amplifiers

and emphasizers into one group.

1.3.1 MAXIMIZERS AND BOOSTERS According to Quirk (1985:590-591), common amplifiers include:

a) maximizers - absolutely, altogether, completely, entirely, extremely, fully, perfectly, quite,

thoroughly, totally, utterly; in all respects; the intensifying use of most e.g. They fully appreciate our problems. She entirely agrees with you.

b) boosters - badly, bitterly, deeply, enormously, far, greatly, heartily, highly, intensely,

much, severely, so, strongly, terribly, violently, well; a great deal, a good deal, a lot, by far; exclamatory how; the intensifying use of more

8

e.g. They greatly admire his music. He must have bitterly regretted his mistake many times.

Quirk (1985:591) says that “the distinction between maximizers and boosters is not a hard and fast one. In particular, when maximizers are in the middle position they often express a very high degree, whereas when they are in the end position they are more likely to convey their absolute meaning of extreme degree. For example, many speakers may see very little difference in force between the maximizer utterly and the booster violently when these are in the middle position”:

They utterly detested him. violently

According to Quirk (ibid., 591), “speakers vary in the extent to which they give a seriously hyperbolic reading to the maximizer. The tendency to use the maximizer for merely a high degree is especially great for attitudinal verbs such as detest.”

Since the position of ‘–ly amplifiers’ in the sentence is important for distinguishing their semantic role, I discuss this issue in the next subchapter.

1.3.2 THE POSITION OF AMPLIFIERS

As far as the syntactic position is concerned, Quirk (1985:595) observes that “middle and end positions are open to most adverbs that are amplifiers; noun phrases and prepositional phrases are restricted to end position. In positive declarative clauses, middle position is favoured for both boosters and maximizers when we want to express a scaling upwards, but end position is preferred for maximizers when we want to denote the absolute upper extreme of the scale.”

Quirk (ibid., 595) provides such an example: He completely denied it. The effect of maximizer completely in middle position is “close to that of the booster strongly or the emphasizer really, which can have a scaling effect similar to that of boosters” (ibid., 595): He strongly/really denied it. On the other hand, when completely is in end position, He denied it completely. the intention seems to be closer to He denied it in every respect.

9

Quirk points out that “where the absolute meaning is expected, some people find only end position acceptable” (ibid., 596): ?He completely dissected the animal. He dissected the animal completely. (‘into all the prescribed parts’)

Quirk (ibid., 596) states one more example which shows us two probable interpretations of violently appearing in two different positions. They violently attacked him. They attacked him violently. In middle position, violently is likely to be interpreted as a booster [‘strongly’] and attacked will then mean a verbal assault. On the other hand, “when violently is in end position, we are likely to interpret it literally [‘with violence’] as a manner process adjunct, with attacked now referring to physical assault” (ibid., 596).

In this respect Quirk makes reference to the importance of the position of an amplifier in a sentence and implies that it may cause a change of meaning.

Huddleston and Pullum and Biber et al. ascribe this shift of meaning to the ability of some adverbs to function as manner adverbs as well as degree adverbs. Huddleston and Pullum (2002:583) then assert that “for some of the degree adverbs in –ly the primary meaning has to do with manner, with the degree meaning secondary.” To illustrate such a shift, they use this example: a) They behaved dreadfully. b) I’m dreadfully sorry. In a), dreadfully means “very badly” (‘in a dreadful manner’), whereas in b) it simply indicates a very high degree (‘extremely’).

Biber et al. (1999:555) claim that “adverbs that can also be used as manner adverbials sometimes lose their literal semantic value when they are used as amplifiers.” He offers this example: in the sentence New York’s an awfully safe place, “awfully does not mean ‘in an awful way’; it simply increases the intensity of safe” (1999:555). This leads him to the conclusion that the literal meaning belongs to the adverbs of manner which tend to occur in end position and metaphorical, secondary meaning is carried by the adverbs of degree that are used largely in end position.

10

A similar view is presented by Strang, who draws on H. E. Palmer’s theory of adverbs used as epithets and complements.

Strang (1968:186) asserts that “adverbs, being adjuncts, have the function of modifying, and that their position depends in many cases on the nature of the modification. There are cases where the placing in one of two positions appears to be merely a matter of stylistic preference”, but sometimes “the choice between the positions is significant”. Furthermore, “when an adverb functions as an epithet its value may be roughly described as adding intensity, but nothing more specific, to the utterance as a whole; it occurs early in the sentence, before the verb, or even before the subject.”

By contrast, adverbs used as complements carry “fuller lexical meaning and are given greater prominence in the utterance”. They are generally in the post-verbal position.

Although the linguists mentioned use different terms to describe the situation, they

agree on the fact that the position of the adverb may cause a shift in its semantic value. This thesis will deal with the degree adverbs functioning as modifiers (or epithets), i.e.

with those which can be found in the middle position and which carry the metaphorical meaning, adding intensity to the utterance. It will only focus on the modifiers of adjectives.

11

1.4 SYNONYMY It was noted before that although the amplifiers slightly differ, they are generally

regarded as synonymous. This chapter discusses this sense relation and its main concepts and offers insights on synonymy by various linguists. It also explains why the amplifiers must not be thought of as absolute synonyms but rather as cognitive synonyms.

Synonymy is generally perceived as the ‘sameness of meaning’ (Palmer 1986:88) but with a deeper insight the matter gets more complex. Geoffrey Finch (2000:184) notes that “total synonymy would mean that words are interchangeable in all linguistic environments”, but we must recognize that “synonyms frequently differ stylistically” and “connotational differences are also fairly common”. Last but not least, we must take into consideration the collocational restriction which will be discussed in the next chapter on collocations.

D. A. Cruse (1986:266) notes that “there is unfortunately no neat way of characterising synonyms”. He attacks the problem in two ways: “first, in terms of necessary resemblance and permissible differences, and, second, contextually, by means of diagnostic frames”. He maintains that “synonyms must have a significant degree of semantic overlap, as evidenced by common semantic traits”, like for example truthful and honest which fall within the broad class of synonyms. However, synonyms must also have “a low degree of implicit contrastiveness”. Here Cruse uses an example of spaniel whose major function is to exclude certain other closely related items, such as alsation or collie. Although they have some semantic traits in common, they are, intuitively, not synonyms. He goes on saying that “if the appropriateness of a term like spaniel with respect to some referent is denied (e.g. That’s not a spaniel), there is at least an expectation that some other member of the implicit contrast set would be appropriate – in this case a dog of some other breed. Synonyms, however, are not like this.” Cruse asserts that “usually, denying one member of a pair of synonyms implicitly denies the other, too” (1986:266-267), e.g. John is honest does not imply that John is truthful would be more appropriate.

Cruse claims that “synonyms, then, are lexical items whose senses are identical in respect of ‘central’ semantic traits, but differ, if at all, only in respect of what we may provisionally describe as ‘minor’ or ‘peripheral’ traits” (ibid., 267).

Cruse adds that synonyms can characteristically occur together in certain types of expressions. For instance, they are often employed as an explanation, or clarification, of the meaning of another word, e.g. This is an ounce or snow leopard.

12

1.4.1 A SCALE OF SYNONYMITY In connection with synonyms, Cruse speaks about ‘a scale of synonymity’ which is

pointed to by two semantic intuitions: “the first is that certain pairs or groups of lexical items bear a special sort of semantic resemblance to one another” (ibid., 265) – these are customarily called synonyms. “The second intuition is that some pairs of synonyms are ‘more synonymous’ than other pairs”, e. g. settee and sofa are more synonymous than boundary and frontier (ibid., 265). With regard to degrees of synonymity, Cruse makes absolute synonymy the zero point on the scale. Here he gets to the core of the matter: He asserts that “two lexical units would be absolute synonyms if and only if all their contextual relations were identical” (ibid., 268). He searches the absolute synonyms in terms of relative normality and syntactic normality (e.g. begin: commence, hide: conceal). Nevertheless, he comes to the conclusion that “if they exist at all, they are extremely uncommon” (ibid., 270). Furthermore, the relationship between them would be unstable. Cruse explains that “there is no obvious motivation for the existence of absolute synonyms in a language, and one would expect either that one of the items would fall into obsolescence, or the difference in semantic function would develop.” He agrees that “natural languages abhor absolute synonyms” (ibid., 270). Palmer (1986:89) is even more straightforward: he maintains that “there are no real synonyms, that no two words have the same meaning.” Similar opinion is held by Roy Harris (1973:118). Nevertheless, Stephen Ullmann (1964:141-142) asserts that complete synonymy can be encountered “where one would least expect it: in technical nomenclatures”, for example “in medicine there are two names for the inflammation of the blind gut: caecitis and typhlitis.” However, he agrees on the fact that in ordinary language, one can rarely be so positive about identity of meaning: “very few words are completely synonymous in the sense of being interchangeable in any context without the slightest alteration in objective meaning, feeling-tone or evocative value” (1964:142).

If absolute synonymy is the end-point of Cruse’s scale of synonymity, the next stage is represented by cognitive synonymy, then plesionyms and after that it “ultimately shades into non-synonymy” (1986:270). He says that “within each region of the scale, degree of synonymity varies continuously” (ibid., 270).

Cruse (1986:88) defines cognitive synonymy as follows: X is a cognitive synonym of Y if i) X and Y are syntactically identical ii) any grammatical declarative sentence S containing X has equivalent truth-conditions to another sentence S1, which is identical to S except that X is replaced by Y (e.g. fiddle and

13

violin) Cruse adds that “very few pairs of cognitive synonyms are absolute synonyms; it

follows from this that in the majority of cases a lexical item must, in some respect at least, be different in meaning from any of its cognitive synonyms” (1986:270-271). He also notes that cognitive synonyms can be lexical items which differ only in respect of inherent expressive traits, or potential expressivity, e.g. jolly and very or father and daddy. According to these criteria, the intensifiers meet all the requirements for being cognitive synonyms.

1.4.2 THE SEMANTIC MODE

Cruse mentions an important thing in his discussion of synonymy – the semantic mode. He defines it as the difference in meaning and distinguishes between two components of the semantic mode, the propositional mode and expressive mode.

The propositional mode depends “partly on the propositional attitude expressed by the sentence” (1986:271) – on whether it is a statement, question etc. and it can determine the truth-conditions (e.g. I just felt a sudden sharp pain). On the other hand, “expressive meaning carried by a lexical item plays no role in determining the truth-conditions”, e.g. Ouch! or Arthur has lost the blasted key (1986:271). The expressive meaning is “valid only for the utterer, at the time and place of utterance” and it “most characteristically conveys some sort of emotion or attitude” (1986:274) – doubt, certainty, surprise, contempt, seriousness etc.

Cruse concludes that “the inherent meaning of a lexical item may be made up of either or both of these types of meaning; if two lexical items are cognitive synonyms, then they must be identical in respect of propositional traits, but they may differ in respect of expressive traits” (1986:273). This is, I believe, exactly the case of the amplifiers in question. Using Cruse’s terminology, their “expressive capacity” (1986:275) differs and they are able to express “different evaluative judgements on their designated referents” (1986:277). A similar observation was made by F. R Palmer (1986:92), who maintains that “synonyms are often said to differ only in their connotations”. He prefers to call them “emotive or evaluative meaning”. Palmer also mentions that sometimes “words become associated with certain characteristics of the items to which they refer” (e.g. woman has the connotation ‘gentle’).

Lyons also gives his opinion on these two types of meaning in the discussion of synonymy. He calls them ‘cognitive’ and ‘emotive’ (or ‘affective’) meaning. The cognitive meaning includes the intellect; the emotive meaning carries the imagination and the emotions. Moreover, the emotional ‘associations’, or ‘connotations’, are likely to occur in the words of everyday language (1968:448-449).

14

Cruse concludes saying that “propositional and expressive meanings are the most important types of meaning in language, and we can think of them as what a speaker principally utilises and directly manipulates in order to convey his intended message” (1986:277).

1.4.3 DIMENSIONS OF VARIATIONS: FIELD, MODE AND STYLE

It is worth mentioning that synonyms can be often found in different dialects of language or they can be marked by a different stylistic usage. Palmer (1986:89) states that “some sets of synonyms belong to different dialects of language” e.g. fall in the USA and autumn in Great Britain, and there is a similar situation with “words that are used in different styles”, e.g. an obnoxious effluvium in high style and colloquial an ‘orrible stink (Palmer 1986:89). Cruse (1986:283-284) develops this aspect of language in relation with registers and distinguishes three interacting dimensions of variation: field, mode and style.

Field refers to the topic or field of discourse, e.g. legal discourse, advertising language or political speeches. Mode is concerned with “the manner of transmission of a linguistic message” (1986:284) – whether it is written, spoken, or whatever. Style relates to language characteristics which mark different relations between the participants in a linguistic exchange, for instance formal-informal dimension. According to Cruse, style is of particular interest to us “because it is this dimension of variation which spawns the most spectacular proliferation of cognitive synonyms” (1986:284). This division will be also important in the practical part of the thesis.

1.4.4 ‘LOOSER’ INTERPRETATIONS OF SYNONYMY

Describing the scale of synonymity, Cruse also mentions plesionyms which are “distinguished from cognitive synonyms by the fact that they yield sentences with different truth-conditions” (1986:285). He states that “there is always one member of a plesionymous pair which it is possible to assert, without paradox, while simultaneously denying the other member” (1986:285), e.g. It wasn’t foggy last Friday – just misty. However, “as the semantic distance between lexical items increases, plesionymy shades imperceptibly into non-synonymy” (1986:286).

There also exist some other kinds of synonymy introduced by different authors, or more precisely, the type of synonymy gets different label. Lyons (1995:60) presents near-synonyms, i.e. “expressions that are more or less similar, but not identical in meaning” (these are close to Cruse’s plesionyms), and partial synonymy, “which meet the criterion of identity

15

of meaning, but which fail to meet the conditions of what is generally referred to as absolute synonymy” (close to cognitive synonymy). Partial synonymy is also mentioned by Richard Hudson (1984:68).

Palmer makes an important point in mentioning ‘loose sense of synonymy’ which is, in connection with a stricter sense of synonymy, recognized also by Lyons (1968:446). This is “a kind of synonymy that is exploited by the dictionary-maker” (Palmer 1986:91). To make his point, Palmer states examples of possible synonyms of govern: direct, control, determine, require. He points out that “if we look for the synonyms for each of these words themselves, we shall have a further set for each and shall, get further and further away from the meaning of the original word”. Palmer concludes that dictionaries “tell us little about the precise connections between words and their defining synonyms or between the synonyms themselves” (1986:91). This fact will be proved in the chapter dealing with definitions of intensifiers – the dictionaries do provide synonyms as explanations but do not try to comment on their connotational meaning, stylistic usage or collocational range.

16

1.5 COLLOCATIONS AND COLLOCATIONAL RANGE John Sinclair (1991:170) defines a collocation as “the occurrence of two or more

words within a short space of each other in a text.” According to him, “collocations can be dramatic and interesting because unexpected, or they can be important in the lexical structure of the language because of being frequently repeated”. Collocation in its purest sense, he adds, “recognizes only the lexical co-occurrence of words” (1991:170). He also specifies the term collocate – it is “any word that occurs in the specified environment of a node”, i.e. “the word that is being studied” (1991:115).

According to Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English (2002:vii), “collocation is the way words combine in a language to produce natural-sounding speech and writing”, for example strong wind or heavy rain. Howard Jackson (1990:256) adds that “all these lexical items occur in the text, creating semantic coherence, but also providing cohesion.”

In relation to synonymy, we must not forget about collocational range and collocational restriction. John Lyons (1995:62) speaks about “collocational range of an expression, i.e. the set of contexts in which it can occur.” He relates it to the condition that two expressions are absolutely synonymous when “they are synonymous in all contexts” (1995:61). He denies the idea that “synonyms must of necessity have the same collocational range” (1995:62). Lyons exemplifies his thesis by big and large. There are many contexts in which these two expressions cannot be substituted “without violating the collocational restrictions of one or the other” (1995:62):

You are making a big mistake. You are making a large mistake.

Although the second sentence is well-formed and meaningful, it is “collocationally unacceptable or unidiomatic” (1995:62). Lyons states that very often “collocational differences can be satisfactorily explained, in terms of independently ascertainable differences of meaning” (1995:62). However, we must be careful not to assume that the collocational range of a lexeme is predictable from its meaning, although it is possible in some cases.

Palmer (1986:76-77) agrees with him at this point and insists that in spite of the fact that “collocation is very largely determined by meaning, it is sometimes fairly idiosyncratic and cannot easily be predicted in terms of the meaning of the associated words.” He uses an example of rancid which occurs only with bacon and butter, and addled with brains and eggs. Similarly, pretty child and buxom neighbour normally refer to females.

17

However, Palmer (1986:78) rejects the concept of separating a collocation and semantics. He negates the assumption that “a word will often collocate with a number of other words that have something in common semantically” (1986:78). Quite the contrary, “individual words or sequences of words will not collocate with certain groups of words. Thus, though we may say The rhododendron died, we shall not say The rhododendron passed away, in spite of the fact that pass away seems to mean ‘die’.” (1986:78). This is caused by the restriction on the use of a particular word with a group of words that are semantically related. Cruse explains the problem by saying that pass away requires the grammatical subject to be human and that’s why it cannot be used with a shrub.

Cruse emphasises the semantic arbitrariness of the restriction and calls it collocational restriction. He defines it as “co-occurrence restrictions that are irrelevant to truth-conditions – that is to say, those in respect of which lexical items may differ and still be cognitive synonyms” e.g. engine and motor (1986:279). Thus he establishes a relationship between collocational restrictions and cognitive synonymy.

1.5.1 TYPES OF COLLOCATIONS

Palmer (1986:79) sees three kinds of collocational restrictions: “first, some are based wholly on the meaning of the item as in the unlikely green cow. Secondly, some are based on range – a word may be used with a whole set of words that have some semantic features in common.” This accounts for instance for the unlikeliness of The rhododendron passed away. The third point is concerned with the fact that “some restrictions are collocational in the strictest sense, involving neither meaning, nor range” (1986:79), as for example addled eggs.

Göran Kjellmer (1991:125-126) proposes an imaginary scale of collocations. It is similar to Palmer’s classification but Kjellmer operates with the predictability of collocations. He claims that “a decisive characteristic of collocations is the predictable nature of their constituents: the presence of one of them will predict the presence of the other(s)” (1991:125). The predictability “varies from being total or near-total, and recognized as such by all speakers, to being only partial and recognized by some speakers but not by others. By the same token, collocations range from well-established and integrated phrases to doubtfully cohesive sequences of words (1991:125-126). Therefore he says that there is “no generally valid cut-off point between collocations and accidental groupings of words” (1991:126).

Taken all in all, Kjellmer gets to the same point as Cruse with the scale of synonymity: it is possible to define one firm starting point of the scale but extremely difficult to find the end-point of it and delimit the principles of such a procedure without any obscurity.

18

1.6 CORPUS AND ITS USE IN MODERN LINGUISTICS In this chapter I will briefly introduce the concept of corpus and point out the

advantages of its usage in modern linguistics as I will rely on the corpus in the practical part of my thesis.

Crystal (1985:77) defines corpus as “a collection of linguistic data, either written texts or a transcription of recorded speech, which can be used as a starting-point of linguistic description or as a means of verifying hypotheses about a language.”

Aijmer and Altenberg (1991:2) appreciate especially computerized corpora which “have proved to be excellent resources for a wide range of research tasks. In the first place, they have provided a more realistic foundation for the study of language than earlier types of material, a fact which has given new impetus to descriptive studies of English lexis, syntax, discourse and prosody. Secondly, they have become a particularly fruitful basis for comparing different varieties of English, and for exploring the quantitative and probabilistic aspects of the language.” These advantages have inspired many scholars to start their research in this field.

Examining the intensifying expressions, I will work with the British National Corpus (the BNC), which is “a 100 million word collection of samples of written and spoken language from a wide range of sources, designed to represent a wide cross-section of current British English, both spoken and written” (<http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/>).

For the purpose of writing the thesis, I will use the website VIEW (Variation in English Words and Phrases) which is based on the BNC. The advantage is that not only is it able to search collocations combining various parts of speech but it is also possible to find the frequency of words and phrases in registers (spoken, fiction, news, academic and miscellaneous). Analysing the amplifiers, I decided to disregard the catch-all category of miscellaneous as it is too vague and does not help much in my research.

19

2. PRACTICAL PART The practical part of my thesis deals with the selection of synonymous intensifiers and

their definitions and offers the semantic analysis of individual expressions with the help of the British National Corpus.

2.1 SELECTION OF SYNONYMOUS INTENSIFIERS

I decided to concentrate on the intensifiers with the ‘–ly suffix’ and started with the adverb absolutely when choosing the amplifiers that are used synonymously. I worked in two stages: first I consulted Longman Synonym Dictionary. It is possible to find various synonyms for individual words in it although it gives a rather long overview of related words without any semantic differentiation. Second I used the British National Corpus which showed me the most frequently used expressions.

Concerning the adverb absolutely, Longman Synonym Dictionary offers these synonyms (I mention just those groups of synonyms which are relevant to my thesis): absolutely, adv. 1. completely, wholly, fully, entirely; totally, nothing short of, unqualifiedly, utterly; categorically, unconditionally, unreservedly, implicitly; purely, clearly (1986:8).

I also checked all the expressions which I had found in the dictionary: completely, adv. 1. entirely, purely, wholly, stone, totally, comprehensively, plenarily, fully; into thin air, bag and baggage; solidly, soundly; throughout, altogether, nothing short of. 2. thoroughly, extensively, from the ground up, from A to Z, Brit. from A to Zed, absolutely; utterly, grossly, quite; unqualifiedly, unconditionally, unreservedly, Sl. all the way, to the nth degree, Sl. like mad, Sl. like crazy, Inf. hook, line, and sinker; enthusiastically, fervently, heart and soul, whole hog (ibid., 200). wholly, adv. 1. entirely, all, completely, purely; totally, stone, perfectly, plenarily, fully; comprehensively, universally, inclusively; aggregately, collectively; as a whole, in all, all in all, in the main, Latin. in toto; lock, stock, and barrel; Inf. Hook, line, and sinker; bag and baggage; nothing short of, 100%, every whit, every inch, to the nth degree; in a body, en masse, all together. 2. thoroughly, from the ground up, to a nicety, extensively, throughout; through and

20

through, backwards and forwards; in all respects, in every respect, from first to last, from head to foot, cap-a-pie, from to top to toe, U.S. from A to Z, Brit. from A to Zed; utterly, grossly, root and branch, quite, absolutely, altogether; fundamentally, actually, really, truly, verily, essentially, radically; unqualifiedly, unconditionally, unmitigatedly, unreservedly; enthusiastically, heart and soul, whole hog, Sl. all the way, Sl. like mad, Sl. like crazy (ibid., 1337). fully, adv. 1. completely, entirely, totally, blankly, comprehensively, in every respect, at length, from tip to toe, from head to food, cap-a-pie, over every inch; thoroughly, inside out, heart and soul, root and branch (ibid., 442). entirely, adv. 1. wholly, purely, fully, Latin. in toto, Latin. in extenso, completely; totally, plenarily, aggregately, every whit, every inch, nothing short of, 100 %; comprehensively, extensively, from the ground up, universally, inclusively; soundly, substantially, solidly; as a whole, all in all, in the main; throughout, at length, altogether; en masse, in a body. 2. thoroughly, in all respects, in every respect, exhaustively, arrantly, absolutely, from first to last, from head to foot, cap-a-pie, from top to toe, U.S. from A to Z, Brit. from A to Zed; utterly, sheerly, quite, root and branch; downright, out-and-out, outright, all-out, straight-out; through and through, backwards and forwards; radically, fundamentally, essentially (ibid., 357). implicitly, adv. absolutely, completely, wholly, fully, entirely; totally, nothing short of, unqualifiedly, utterly; categorically, unconditionally, unreservedly; purely, clearly; beyond the shadow of a doubt, positively, certainly, veritably, unquestionably, unequivocally, unambiguously, explicitly; ultimately, infinitely, infallibly (ibid., 540). clearly, adv. 2. positively, determinately, certainly, veritably, unequivocally, unambiguously, explicitly, expressly; surely, confidently, assuredly, unquestionably, beyond question, conclusively, incontestably, irrefutably, uncontrovertibly, undeniably, irrefragably; demonstratibly, indubitably, undoubtedly, beyond doubt, decidedly, definitely, decisively, admittedly; unqualifiedly, unconditionally, absolutely, totally, implicitly, utterly; officially, confirmedly, emphatically, dogmatically, authoritatively (ibid., 174).

21

purely, adv. 3. entirely, wholly, totally, fully, thoroughly, completely; integrally, indivisibly, absolutely, utterly, unequivocally, indeed, altogether, all, in all respects; punctiliously, meticulously, consistently, certainly, assuredly; impeccably, spotlessly, unconditionally, in good faith; perfectly, faultlessly, flawlessly (ibid., 959).

As we can see from the overview, all the expressions have a) plenty of synonyms in common b) plenty of near-synonyms which differ from adverb to adverb – this fact indicates that

there really exist semantic nuances between them Nevertheless, all of them share the meaning of ‘very much’, or ‘to a great extent’. Examining the entries, it is visible that all the amplifiers have those words among their

synonyms which appear regularly in the entries of the other ones. After excluding words and phrases that do not belong to the class of ‘intensifying adverbs in –ly’, I came to the conclusion that the most frequent synonymous amplifiers are: ABSOLUTELY COMPLETELY ENTIRELY FULLY TOTALLY UTTERLY

I have also checked their occurrence in the British National Corpus and summarized the information in the table below.

The first column comprises the intensifiers, the second their occurrence in the Longman Synonym Dictionary and the third the total occurrence in the BNC. The fourth column shows the normalized frequency of the adverbs per million words. amplifier LSD tokens (BNC) per mil totally 8× 5693 56.93 absolutely 7× 5672 56.72 completely 7× 8339 83.39 utterly 7× 1251 12.51 entirely 6× 6741 67.41 fully 6× 8795 87.95

22

In Longman Synonym Dictionary all of the amplifiers were quite often presented as synonyms to each other, with totally being the most frequent one. Their occurrence in the corpus shows greater imbalance in the distribution: fully and completely are the most numerous adverbs, entirely, totally and absolutely are in the middle and utterly is relatively infrequent.

However, the table shows the total occurrence of these adverbs and as my thesis deals with the adjectival phrases, the second table is more important. It gives an account of how often each intensifier occurs in the pre-adjectival position.

amplifier tokens per mil totally 3318 33.18 absolutely 2994 29.94 completely 3303 33.03 utterly 760 7.60 entirely 2851 28.51 fully 2070 20.70

The order of the intensifiers has not changed much – completely and utterly have kept their statuses, totally moved up and fully, in contrast, down. Absolutely and entirely remained in the upper half of the scale. Except for utterly, their usage is relatively balanced.

23

2. 2 DEFINITIONS OF THE SELECTED INTENSIFIERS In this chapter I provide various definitions of the intensifiers. They are taken from

five dictionaries: Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged, 2nd edition, 1978 (WNTCDU) Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus, 1988 (WCT) The Systematic Dictionary of English Adverbs, 1983 (SDEA) Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary, 1987 (CCELD) The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, 1971 (CEOED) At the end of each section I will compare the dictionaries and evaluate the definitions.

ABSOLUTELY

WNTCDU 1. completely; wholly 2. without dependence or relation; in a state unconnected 3. without restriction or limitation 4. without condition 5. positively, peremptorily syn. – completely, unrestrictedly, unconditionally

WCT - definitely, doubtlessly, positively, unequivocally, unquestionably

SDEA - to the fullest extent; in the highest or utmost degree; entirely; wholly; altogether; quite

(Now, Louis Armstrong, well, he was the greatest jazz trumpeter who ever lived, absolutely the most skilful and creative improviser …)

CCELD

- absolutely is used 1.1 to emphasize what you are saying, especially when you are expressing an opinion

(That’s an absolutely fascinating piece of work.) 1.2 in descriptions of situations or things in order to say that something is exactly and

completely the case

24

(He forced himself to lie absolutely still.) 2. absolutely is used in speech as an emphatic way of agreeing with someone or of saying yes (“They are just silly.” – “Absolutely.”)

CEOED - absolutely – in an absolute position, manner, or degree

I. separately, independently 1. in a manner detached from other things; without the existence or presence of anything else; separately, independently 2. essentially (obsolete) 3. with unrestricted or unlimited ownership or authority; despotically 4. without the addition of any qualification, logical or grammatical 5. viewed by itself, without reference to, or comparison with, others (opposed to comparatively or relatively) II. without doubt or condition 6. certainly, positively (obsolete) 7. without condition or limitation; unconditionally; unreservedly 8. actually, positively, as a simple fact (qualifying the truth of the statement rather than the fact stated) III. of manner and degree; completely, perfectly 9. in a way that clears off everything; conclusively, finally, completely, unreservedly 10. perfectly; in the most excellent manner (obsolete) 11. to the fullest extent; in the highest or utmost manner; entirely, wholly, altogether, quite

According to the dictionaries, absolutely is connected with a lack of restriction or limitation rather than depth. The dictionaries offer synonyms completely, wholly, entirely or positively but none of it mentions thoroughly (like they did when dealing with completely, fully or utterly). The intensifier can thus be seen as ‘horizontal’.

WTC views absolutely as a definite and unquestionable word with no reference to completeness, like a mere intensifying word.

CCELD notices its emphasizing element when “expressing an opinion” and mentions its function as “an emphatic way of agreeing with someone”. This attribute is valuable from the

25

semantic point of view and it can indicate why absolutely collocates with a certain group of adjectives.

COMPLETELY

WNTCDU - fully; perfectly; entirely

WCT

- 1 syn fully, through-and-through, idiom down to the ground - 2 syn thoroughly, detailedly, exhaustively, in and out, inside out, up and down - 3 syn á fond, altogether, entirely, fully, perfectly, quite, thoroughly, utterly, wholly

SDEA

- entirely; wholly; thoroughly ( I’m completely sober, sir.) CCELD

- completely is used to emphasize that something is as great in extent, degree, or amount as it is possible (Her whole personality had suddenly changed completely.)

CEOED

- in a complete manner; fully, perfectly; entirely, wholly, thoroughly

The dictionaries do not differ much in the definitions - in fact we can doubt whether they define something at all. It seems they just provide synonyms of the adverb – fully and entirely are most frequent ones. CCELD tries to specify the meaning of completely but in the end we do not learn anything about its connotations or expressive meaning.

26

ENTIRELY WNTCDU

1. wholly; completely; fully; unreservedly 2. solely; only

WCT

- 1 syn altogether, completely, fully, perfectly, quite, thoroughly, utterly, wholly - 2 syn only, alone, but, exclusively, solely

SDEA

- completely; wholly ( He seemed entirely different with the bandages removed, and younger, even than she had thought.)

CCELD

- entirely means 1.1 completely and only in the way mentioned, without anyone or anything else being included or involved (It was entirely the work of these women’s organizations.) 1.2 all the time and without any exception or change (Wee all lived our lives entirely on the farm)

2. entirely is also used to emphasize what you are saying (I must agree entirely.)

CEOED 1. in an entire state; without diminution or division (obsolete – now the adj. is used instead of the adverb) 2. wholly, completely, perfectly; without exception or reservation 3. wholly and exclusively, solely 4. heartily, sincerely; earnestly (obsolete) Wholly and completely are stated as the most frequent synonyms. Majority of the

dictionaries include solely and exclusively as well and CCELD emphasise the notion of “without anyone or anything else being involved”, which could affect its shade of meaning. Entirely may reflect the sense of exclusiveness and this can underline the wholeness of the situation or action.

27

Only CCELD defines entirely more precisely but again does not point out any distinctive semantic features.

FULLY

WNTCDU

1. to the full; completely; entirely; thoroughly 2. exactly 3. abundantly 4. at lest syn. – completely, unreservedly, amply, entirely, wholly, sufficiently, perfectly, plentifully

WCT

- 1 syn completely, through-and-through - 2 syn altogether, completely, entirely, perfectly, quite, thoroughly, utterly, wholly

SDEA

- completely; entirely; in a full degree (Not surprisingly, this territory had never been fully prospected …)

CCELD

- 1. fully means to the greatest degree or extend possible (fully automatic washing machine) = completely

2. you use fully to say that a process is completely finished (It was weeks before he fully recovered) 3. if you describe, answer, or deal with something fully, you do it in such a way that you leave out nothing that should be mentioned or dealt with (She answered his questions fully and candidly.) = thoroughly 4. fully is also used to emphasize how great an amount is (Fully one-quarter of the workers are Turks.)

CEOED

a) in a full manner or degree; to the full, without deficiency; completely, entirely;

28

thoroughly, exactly, quite c) with numerals and expressions of quantity

The dictionaries are more generous in this case – not only do they offer synonyms to

fully but they also pay more attention to its usage. The basic range of synonyms has not changed but one cannot overlook the new abundantly, amply and plentifully (WNTCDU) which reinforce the notion “without deficiency” (CEOED). CEOED and CCELD also draw our attention to its usage with numerals and expression of quantity; thereby the amplifier differs from the others.

CCELD says that “if you describe, answer, or deal with something fully, you do it in such a way that you leave out nothing that should be mentioned or dealt with” and altogether it gives the most detailed description of all.

TOTALLY WNTCDU

- wholly; entirely; fully; completely (to be totally exhausted, all hope totally failed) WCT

- syn all in all, altogether, completely, exactly, in toto, just, quite, utterly, wholly SDEA

- wholly; completely; entirely; altogether (It was so totally unexpected that now, for once, he too was driven into silence.)

CCELD

- we use totally to say that something is complete, or to emphasize its completeness (He became almost totally blind. I totally disagree.)

CEOED

- in a total manner or degree; wholly, completely, entirely, altogether - in a body, collectively, in one lot (obsolete, rare)

29

Dealing with totally, none of the dictionaries, not even CCELD or CEOED, go into depth in their definitions. Time and again, we get just the synonyms and have to make do with the examples stated: the phrases of totally with negatively coloured words (totally exhausted, totally disagree) indicate that the intensifier is likely to collocate with negative adjectives.

UTTERLY

WNTCDU

- in an utter manner; to the fullest extent; fully; absolutely; totally (utterly powerless)

syn. – fully, entirely, completely, totally WCT

- 1 syn á fond, completely, entirely, fully, perfectly, quite, thoroughly, wholly - 2 syn all in all, altogether, exactly, in toto, just, purely, quite, totally, wholly

SDEA

- to an absolute or extreme degree; altogether; entirely; absolutely („Didn’t I tell you not to go out any more after dark?“ said Gerhardt, utterly ignoring Brander.)

CCELD

- you use utterly to give emphasis to the adjective or verb with which it is being used, in order to indicate that the quality mentioned is complete and total (On the other side of the island, the view was utterly different.)

CEOED

- 1. without reserve or extenuation; sincerely, truly, plainly, straight out, straightway; verily, indeed (obsolete)

- 2. a) in a complete or utter matter; to an absolute or extreme degree; altogether, entirely, absolutely; fully, thoroughly, out and out

b) frequently with verbs of perishing, refusal, etc. or qualifying adjectives (esp. words implying negation, defect, or opposition)

30

The most precise definition is provided by CEOED – “without reserve or extenuation” and together with SDEA it also mentions the “absolute or extreme degree”. However, CEOED is the only one to observe that utterly is frequently used “with verbs of perishing, refusal, etc. or qualifying adjectives (esp. words implying negation, defect, or opposition).” No other dictionary pays attention to this semantic shade.

The definitions prove that it is possible to regard absolutely, completely, entirely, fully,

totally and utterly as synonymous expressions; in most cases the dictionaries offer one amplifier as a synonym to the other one. However, they equal merely in their conceptual meaning, they are not identical in all contexts and therefore we must not treat them as absolute synonyms but rather as ‘near synonyms’ (Lyons 1995:60), or using Cruse’s terminology as ‘cognitive synonyms’ (Cruse 1986:88). There exist semantic nuances between them and each of the lexemes creates different collocations and is associated with different level of subjectivity and different kind of import.

Biber et al. (1999:564) maintain that “even for similar degree adverbs, there are differing preferences across registers and associations with different adjectives.” Exploration of these differences, restrictions and variations is the main aim of the practical part of my thesis. As far as the collocations and the frequency of their occurrence are concerned, I will rely on the British National Corpus and use the results for further semantic analysis of the intensifiers.

31

2.3 THE SEMANTIC ANALYSIS The amplifiers are organized alphabetically in this chapter. Each of the following

sections contains two tables. The first table represents the occurrence of a particular intensifier across four registers (spoken language, fiction, news and academic discourse) and I always comment on its distribution briefly. The second table is the overview of the ten most frequent collocations. The first column shows the most often used phrases in all registers (the occurrence is provided in brackets); next columns give account of the collocations in individual registers. ‘Tokens’ stand for the number of occurrence, ‘per mil.’columns represent the normalized frequency of the adverbs per million words. The tables are followed by the analyses, which make use of the statistical data and also offer some of Ulf Bäcklund’s observations concerning the collocations of degree adverbs.

2.3.1 ABSOLUTELY REGISTER TOKENS PER MIL IN REG. all registers (100,000,000 words)

2994

29.94

spoken (10,334,947 words)

863

86.41

fiction (16,194,885 words)

509

31.43

news (10,638,034 words)

335

31.49

academic (15,429,582 words)

212

13.74

Absolutely is an amplifier appearing predominantly in spoken language – it makes

approximately one-third of the total number in this category, but it is used less often in news and academic discourse. The number is also relatively high in fiction – it is similar to completely and totally.

In comparison with other intensifiers, absolutely is the most frequent adverb in the spoken language. This indicates that it is typical of natural and spontaneous conversation rather than of formal register.

32

spoken language fiction news academic ABSOLUTELY… tokens per mil. tokens per mil tokens per mil tokens per mil right (236) 89 8.61 28 1.73 6 0.56 5 0.32 clear (145) 36 3.48 17 1.05 13 1.22 14 0.91 necessary (139) 9 0.87 24 1.48 12 1.13 15 0.97 sure (138) 23 2.23 55 3.40 8 0.75 9 0.58 essential (122) 22 2.13 4 0.25 9 0.85 16 1.04 certain (104) 21 2.03 29 1.79 8 0.75 7 0.45 free (63) 7 0.68 3 0.19 6 0.56 4 0.26 brilliant (55) 27 2.61 6 0.37 11 1.03 - - vital (53) 12 1.16 1 0.06 6 0.56 4 0.26 wonderful (51) 25 2.42 12 0.74 5 0.47 - -

The most frequent collocations are absolutely right, absolutely clear and absolutely

necessary. Although I expected more emotional and subjective expressions, the first seven adjectives are neutral or objective (clear, sure, essential). Only brilliant and wonderful are more emotive, expressing higher degree of personal involvement.

However, there are differences across registers: in spoken language we can see that absolutely collocates with emotional adjectives more often than with the neutral ones: brilliant (27), wonderful (25), also marvellous (39) and perfect (29) /not included in the table/. On the other hand, necessary appears just nine times and free seven times. In fiction, absolutely collocates with sure, certain and right – with words of certainty. Adjectives like brilliant and fascinating do not occur more than eight times.

In news, absolutely is not represented very much. It goes with clear, necessary but also brilliant and delighted (25, not included in the table). The amplifier seems to be drawn by the words of positive connotations like delighted and brilliant.

The situation is quite different in academic register. Even neutral and objective expressions appear no more than sixteen times, subjective words are not represented at all. Absolutely does not find suitable lexemes, academic discourse is too formal and precise to use emotive expressions. This fact helps a lot in the analysis: absolutely is typically used in conversation and with words either positive and neutral or positive and emotive. On the other hand, absolutely tends to avoid formal style and words with negative connotations. Generally it is used more often in spoken rather than written language.

33

To support this conclusion, I have compared the collocability of other intensifiers with attitudinal adjectives expressing positive evaluation - brilliant, wonderful and marvellous (in all registers).

1. absolutely brilliant……….. 55× 2. utterly brilliant…………….4× 3. totally brilliant…………….3× 1. absolutely wonderful……...51× 2. utterly wonderful………….1× 3. totally wonderful…………..1×

1. absolutely marvellous……..35× 2. utterly marvellous…………1×

The only other two adverbs which can possibly be used with the adjectives involved are

utterly and totally but their occurrence in all registers is very scarce anyway. It is clear that absolutely is leading in the chart and predominates in collocations with positive import and subjective evaluation. Bäcklund (1973:222) also observes that “a common feature of the words modified by absolutely is that their denotation is fairly strong and emotional” and classifies the adverb into the category of “highly context-sensitive adverbs of a colloquial character” (1973:217). Moreover, Cruse (1986:276) claims that “lexical items characteristic of informal style are more likely to be ‘expressive amplifiers’ than items belonging to more formal styles.”

To sum up the observations, absolutely predominates in spoken, spontaneous language and collocates with neutral or positive adjectives. It carries a great amount of expressive meaning and can manifest emotions and attitudes very well.

34

2.3.2 COMPLETELY REGISTER TOKENS PER MIL IN REG. all registers (100,000,000 words)

3303

33.03


345

33.38


528

32.60

news (10,638,034 words)

271

25.47


499

32.34

The occurrence of completely in all registers is quite high, the number is growing in

fiction and academic discourse – it makes approximately one third of the total amount. It is used far less frequently in spoken language than absolutely but more than fully or utterly. This fact indicates that completely is slightly more formal than absolutely and inclines to occur in written language. Nevertheless, when we consider the normalized frequency, it is visible that completely still keeps a certain degree of subjectivity and does not reach the formality of entirely or fully.

spoken language fiction news academic COMPLETELY tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. different (512) 96 9.29 49 3.03 44 4.14 65 4.21 new (263) 16 1.55 11 0.68 28 2.63 36 2.33 free (72) 5 0.48 3 0.19 8 0.75 8 0.52 wrong (63) 17 1.64 8 0.49 12 1.13 4 0.26 separate (30) 8 0.77 1 0.06 - - 5 0.32 independent (29) 1 0.10 1 0.06 - - 6 0.39 mad (29) 2 0.19 14 0.68 1 0.09 - - clear (27) 5 0.48 3 0.19 2 0.19 7 0.45 unaware (26) 1 0.10 8 0.49 2 0.19 1 0.06 dry (24) 1 0.10 - - 1 0.09 4 0.26

35

Taken all in all, completely collocates most frequently with different, new and free. Moreover, different and new are common to all registers – such congruence in collocations is quite rare as far as the other intensifiers are concerned.

The adjectives are all more or less objective and without any greater emotional involvement. They tend to express negative rather than positive attitude, for example wrong, mad or unaware. The same feature was observed by Greenbaum. He concentrated on verb-intensifier collocations and also noticed the ‘negativeness’ of most of the verbs that occur with completely and also with utterly (1970:74)

The collocations with subjective or personal evaluation can be found scarcely: unreliable (3), outrageous (2) or appalling (1).

In spoken language completely collocates also with wrong and anonymous (12), fiction replenishes the list of frequent collocations with completely mad and completely naked (18). The latter attracted my attention and I checked its collocability with the other intensifiers:

1. completely naked ……..18× 2. totally naked…………...12× 3. entirely naked………….3× 4. utterly naked…………...1× 5. fully naked……………..1× Completely and totally are the most frequent intensifiers. This could support my idea

about the proximity of these two adverbs, which will be introduced later. News does not demonstrate much presence of completely, nor does it provide any new

phrases. Academic register is more generous in this respect. Besides completely different and completely new, which form the most frequent collocations of this register, it offers also completely random (10), accurate (9) or reliable (8); the range of phrases is richer and the adjectives start to express a little bit more of subjective opinion and positive assessment.

In terms of collocations, completely is close to entirely and totally. All these amplifiers most often collocate with different and new but completely keeps the highest number of their occurrence (512 and 263 in all registers). Furthermore, completely agrees with entirely in phrases with free and clear and with totally in wrong and unaware.

The difference between completely and entirely lies in their connotational meaning: completely tends to be associated more often with neutral or negative adjectives while entirely goes with the neutral or positive ones, for example sure, happy, consistent or satisfactory. However, when we take into consideration their distribution across registers, it is similar – the largest numbers concern fiction and academic language.

36

The distinction between completely and totally is reversed in comparison with the above mentioned pair. Totally collocates very frequently with adjectives of negative import, for instance with wrong, unacceptable or inadequate which, in addition, bear a certain degree of subjective evaluation.

Thus completely seems to stand in between the two intensifiers but slightly closer to totally when we take into account the negative connotations. Its distribution is balanced and thus can be considered neutral in terms of register or style.

To bring another insight into this issue, I will state the view of Ulf Bäcklund. He maintains that “completely is essentially quantitative in nature” and “it resembles fully in that it expresses the result of a process” but admits that “there is no overlap between the ranges of these two adverbs.” According to him, “its function is consequently basically dynamic” (1973:205). His examples of sentences with negative import outnumber those with neutral or positive import, which supports the thesis about the negative orientation of completely.

37

2.3.3 ENTIRELY REGISTER TOKENS PER MIL IN REG. all registers (100,000,000 words)

2851

28.51


152

14.71


436

26.92

news (10,638,034 words)

189

17.77


671

43.49

There is a noticeable difference in the proportion of the amplifiers used in the written

and spoken registers. Entirely is quite rare in spoken language and news but numerous in fiction and particularly in academic discourse.

spoken language fiction news academic ENTIRELY tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. different (259) 25 2.42 29 1.79 23 2.16 41 2.66 new (259) 6 0.58 17 1.05 11 1.03 52 3.37 clear (76) 5 0.48 3 0.19 3 0.28 24 1.56 sure (53) 6 0.58 31 1.91 2 0.19 4 0.26 free (47) 1 0.10 2 0.12 4 0.38 12 0.78 appropriate (44) 3 0.29 6 0.37 7 0.66 7 0.45 happy (43) 4 0.39 9 0.56 5 0.47 6 0.39 dependent (40) 3 0.29 1 0.06 1 0.09 14 0.91 consistent (39) 4 0.39 1 0.06 3 0.28 14 0.91 satisfactory (39) 2 0.19 2 0.12 1 0.09 13 0.84

The most used adjectival phrases with entirely are entirely different, entirely new and entirely clear. The expressions are objective and almost exclusively carry a neutral or positive meaning – for example free, happy and satisfactory. There is just a few negative words – dependent or wrong (39, not included in the table).

Entirely does not tend to collocate with adjectives expressing attitudes, emotions or feelings of surprise – such words (e.g. surprising (8) or delightful (3) appear occasionally.

38

Moreover, the amplifier is not used in conversations very much and the research in this register proved that 48 out of 74 word phrases occur just once. On the other hand, it shares certain adjectives with absolutely, namely clear, sure and free.

Entirely is used relatively often in fiction. The collocations differ a lot in comparison with the other registers and they are not included in the ‘top ten’ phrases: entirely true (11), entirely wrong (10), entirely alone (9), entirely innocent (8), entirely possible (6), entirely convinced (6) or entirely natural (5). Again, the adjectives are neutral and more with positive rather than negative implications, which has been already mentioned in the previous chapter on completely.

Entirely predominates in academic language, the range of collocations is rich but on the other hand just fifty of them occur more than two times. Nevertheless, the number implies that entirely is typical of formal register and written mode.

Bäcklund (1973:196) argues that entirely belongs to the group of adverbs which are “chiefly descriptive, i.e. not context-sensitive.” Unlike completely, he sees the intensifier as being qualitative” (1973:203) and also emphasizes its “restrictive function” (1973:201). Bäcklund asserts that it is due “partly to its restrictive function, partly to the sense of its underlying adjective” and “partly to its descriptive character” (1973:201). According to him, entirely is more restrictive and descriptive while completely is dynamic and expresses quantity rather than quality. With regard to this observation, we can think of entirely different and entirely new as of qualitative and descriptive phrases while of completely different and completely new as expressing quantity and more dynamic process.

Considering the import, he also comes to the conclusion that entirely “primarily occurs in sentence with a positive or neutral import” (1973:201).

Taken all in all, entirely is inclined to appear in formal style and written texts and collocates with descriptive and neutral or positive words.

39

2.3.4 FULLY REGISTER TOKENS PER MIL IN REG. all registers (100,000,000 words)

2070

20.70


77

7.45


142

8.77

news (10,638,034 words)

166

15.60


430

27.87

Fully is used less than the previous intensifiers in English. It occurs very rarely in

spoken register, sometimes in fiction and news but fairly often in academic language, which implies its formal character.

spoken language fiction news academic FULLY tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. aware (239) 23 2.23 25 1.54 21 1.97 30 1.94 operational (91) 3 0.29 4 0.25 10 0.94 8 0.52 independent (57) - - - - 5 0.47 12 0.78 fledged (50) 3 0.29 5 0.31 5 0.47 13 0.84 integrated (50) - - - - 3 0.28 3 0.19 fit (40) 1 0.10 3 0.19 24 2.26 - - conscious (35) - - 10 0.62 3 0.28 8 0.52 qualified (35) 5 0.48 2 0.12 5 0.47 6 0.39 developed (31) - - - - 2 0.19 13 0.84 automatic (30) - - 3 0.19 3 0.28 1 0.06

Bäcklund introduces this amplifier as an “adverb with a purely quantitative function” and makes clear at the very beginning that it is used “basically to express quantity” (1973:194). The same feature is mentioned by CCELD and CEOED in the previous chapter and it seems that this quality distinguishes fully from the other intensifiers.

The most common collocation is fully aware followed by fully operational and fully independent. Fully aware is frequent even in spoken language which otherwise tends to avoid

40

it. However, it may be caused partly by the fact that the adjectives involved are not used in everyday spontaneous conversation. It is visible that fully lacks emotiveness and personal attitude and serves more as a means of expressing ‘to the fullest extent’. Furthermore, its frequent use in the academic register gives evidence to the fact that fully is a fairly formal adverb of degree.

It combines with neutral adjectives which do not evaluate but describe; sometimes they can be connected with a function (e.g. operational, automatic). They represent positive rather than negative standpoint (e.g. aware, fit, qualified). To learn more about the relationship between fully and these adjectives, I have compared the collocations of all the amplifiers + aware, fit and qualified and checked their negative forms (i.e. unaware, unfit and unqualified) as well. A) positive forms

1. fully aware ………………239× 2. totally aware……………..5× 3. completely aware…….......4×

1. fully qualified……………56× 2. totally qualified………….1× 1. fully fit…………………..40× 2. completely fit……………2× 3. entirely fit……………….2× 4. absolutely fit…………….2× 5. totally fit…………….......1×

B) negative forms 1. totally unaware…………33× 2. completely unaware…….26× 3. entirely unaware……......10× 4. utterly unaware…………3× 5. absolutely unaware……..1×

41

1. totally unqualified………4× 2. entirely unqualified……..1×

1. totally unfit……………...4× 2. completely unfit………....3× 3. absolutely unfit……….....1× 3. entirely unfit………….....1×

The results show clearly that fully collocates with positive adjectives far more than with

the negative ones. In addition, this test also supports my previous findings about completely, entirely and totally as far as the negative import is concerned. When we look at the collocations of unaware and unfit, totally is always on the first place, completely on the second and entirely is the last. It confirms that totally carries the highest degree of negative connotations and entirely the lowest of these three adverbs.

Fully can be regarded as a distinct intensifier mainly due to its “purely quantitative nature” (Bäcklund 1973:194) and lack of emotional involvement. The latter can indicate that fully has not followed “the trend of hyperbole” (Quirk et al. 1985:590) as the other amplifiers whose literal value has weakened and when they function as modifiers in the middle position they just add intensity to the sentence. This hypothesis is supported by Broughton (1990:146) or Leech and Svartvik (1994:154), who do not include fully into their overview of common amplifiers.

Fully keeps most of the original meaning ‘to the fullest extent’ and remains objective and business-like, conveying not personal view but primarily facts.

42

2.3.5 TOTALLY REGISTER TOKENS PER MIL IN REG. all registers (100,000,000 words)

3318

33.18


427

41.32


546

33.71

news (10,638,034 words)

366

34.40


399

25.86

The distribution of totally across the registers is more or less balanced. It often appears

in fiction and academic discourse but the highest frequency of its occurrence is to be found in spoken language.

spoken language fiction news academic TOTALLY tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. different (397) 101 9.77 32 1.98 33 3.10 55 3.56 new (92) 6 0.58 9 0.56 9 0.85 13 0.84 dependent (74) 5 0.48 6 0.37 4 0.38 21 1.36 wrong (70) 23 2.23 8 0.49 10 0.94 2 0.13 unacceptable (61) 7 0.68 - - 25 2.35 10 0.65 inadequate (59) 3 0.29 3 0.19 12 1.13 13 0.84 unexpected (46) 3 0.29 20 1.24 6 0.56 4 0.26 unsuitable (36) - - 6 0.37 5 0.47 2 0.13 unaware (33) 2 0.19 13 0.80 4 0.38 3 0.19 unnecessary (32) 8 0.77 5 0.31 5 0.47 2 0.13

The most common adjectives collocating with totally are different and new which are at

the same time the only ones with neutral import. The other adjectives express negative implications, for example in spoken language wrong, in fiction unexpected, in news unacceptable or in academic register dependent.

To give some other evidence, I make reference to the research done in connection with fully. Positive adjectives collocated with fully, completely etc. but their negative forms made

43

phrases predominantly with totally. The negative character of totally was also observed by Bäcklund who classifies it, together with utterly, as a context-sensitive adverb of a predominantly negative character (1973:210). He also notices that a great amount of adjectives are negated by the morphemes {un-}and {in-}, which is at first sight apparent from my table as well – six out of ten collocations are derived by one of these prefixes. No other intensifiers demonstrate this feature so intensively. When I examined the intensifiers more closely and checked twenty most frequent collocations in all registers, I found out that totally collocates with this type of adjectives nine times, utterly five times, completely four times, entirely and fully just once (and only with independent) and absolutely did not make such phrases at all.

Totally provides quite a lot of opportunities for research and that’s why I subject the amplifier to one more test. I have noticed that it tends to occur in the presence of words expressing a handicap, namely blind and deaf.

blind 1. totally blind …………....30× 2. completely blind ….........10× 3. entirely blind....................3× 4. absolutely blind................3× deaf 1. totally deaf.......................14× 2. completely deaf................1× The frequent collocability of totally and these adjectives also supports the theory about

the negative connotation of the intensifier. Another important feature of totally is that it carries a fairly high degree of subjectivity -

the adjectives often express evaluation and a speaker’s involvement. Moreover, Bäcklund’s research demonstrates that totally together with utterly express “the strongest emphasis possible, utterly being the strongest” (1973:210) and he goes on saying that “the context often determines the selection of totally” (1973:211). He regards totally as a more context-sensitive amplifier than completely, entirely and fully but less context-sensitive than absolutely.

The predominance of the amplifier in spoken language also speaks for the increased amount of subjectivity. Apart from phrases introduced in the table there often occur also totally opposed (9), totally honest (6) or totally separate (6). However, the range of collocations is richer in fiction and academic discourse: in fiction we are offered for example

44

totally silent (10) or totally dark (9), in academic language totally symmetric (15), totally absent (9) or totally blind (8). It is also possible to find neutral and positive collocations in this area.

In spite of the fact that totally is used quite often in academic language and provides plenty of collocations in this field, it cannot be said that the intensifier is a formal one. I have already mentioned its subjectivity and context-sensitivity. Totally is similar to absolutely in this respect but they differ in their connotations, totally being of a negative import and absolutely of the positive one.

On the whole, totally can be said to have two shades of meaning: 1. subjective colouring with a negative implications (with adjectives such as

inadequate, unexpected) 2. reinforced sense of thoroughness

The second point was deduced on the basis of Bäcklund’s observation that “totally resembles altogether, entirely and wholly in the sense “throughout”, “in its totality” (1973:210). I have already discussed totally and entirely in relation to completely and found out that except for thoroughness and collocations with different and new these two amplifiers do not have much in common. Entirely is used more frequently in academic register and not very often in spoken language and it is vice versa with totally although its distribution is more balanced. As far as connotations are concerned, totally implies negative or “derogatory” (Bäcklund 1973:211) colouring while entirely express primarily positiveness.

45

2.3.6 UTTERLY REGISTER TOKENS PER MIL IN REG. all registers (100,000,000 words)

760

7.60


28

2.71


282

17.41

news (10,638,034 words)

65

6.11


81

5.52

Utterly is the least frequent intensifier of all. Its distribution is quite unbalanced; there is

a striking difference between fiction and all other registers. This fact, together with a very low occurrence in spoken language, indicates that the amplifier tends to be used in written rather than in spoken language.

spoken language fiction news academic UTTERLY tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. tokens per mil. different (29) - - 8 0.49 1 0.09 7 0.45 ridiculous (13) - - 9 0.56 1 0.09 1 0.06 impossible (11) 2 0.19 3 0.19 - - 2 0.13 miserable (10) - - 5 0.31 - - - - wrong (9) 1 0.10 1 0.06 1 0.09 1 0.06 dependent (8) - - 2 0.12 2 0.19 - - disgraceful (7) 3 0.29 1 0.06 - - 2 0.13 new (7) - - 3 0.19 - - 1 0.06 ruthless (7) - - 2 0.12 1 0.09 1 0.06 free (7) - - 2 0.12 1 0.09 2 0.13 silent (7) - - 5 0.31 - - 1 0.06 unable (7) - - 3 0.19 - - 3 0.19 unexpected (7) 0 0.10 4 0.25 - - - -

The table shows that collocations with utterly are generally rather scarce. None of them

appears more than thirty times and when they disperse into the registers, we do not get very

46

satisfactory survey. In fact, one can hardly talk about collocations as most of them appear no more than two times.

However, the table provides a clear picture of the negative colouring of utterly, which has been already implied by the definition in CEOED. There are just a few neutral collocations – utterly different or utterly new, followed by a series of negative or unflattering ones – utterly ridiculous, utterly impossible or utterly miserable. This feature is recognized also by Quirk (1972:112-113) who finds out that in artificial supplementation of corpus utterly was freely used to intensify verbs like hate, disagree, detest, despise but there were not offered verbs like love, mend or restore. Moreover, when subjects were asked to complete two sentences (“I ------- detest her” and “I ------- agree with you”) with adverbs completely and utterly, they predominantly put utterly before detest and completely before agree. Again, although the test focused on verbs, it demonstrated the negative connotation of utterly.

On the other hand, the corpus also offers collocations with positive adjectives which are more typical of the intensifier absolutely, for instance utterly beautiful (3) and utterly brilliant (4) but it appears very rarely and primarily in fiction.

The collocating adjectives mostly express evaluation and a subjective, negatively-oriented attitude; the phrases have a strong expressive meaning. Bäcklund also unequivocally conforms that utterly is “the strongest intensive in English” and has “an essentially derogatory connotation” (1973:214). He asserts that utterly is able to express “emotions carried to the extreme” (1973:214). It tends to occur more in written than spoken language, namely in fiction and proves itself to be an informal intensifier.

The very strong intensive nature can be the reason why utterly is so uncommon in English. I tried to find out which amplifiers can be used instead of it when one wants to emphasize words such as ridiculous or disgraceful:

ridiculous 1. absolutely ridiculous...........27× 2. totally ridiculous.................16× 3. utterly ridiculous.................13× 4. completely ridiculous...........5×

47

disgraceful 1. utterly disgraceful................7× 2. absolutely disgraceful..........7× 3. totally disgraceful................2× 4. completely disgraceful….....1× Absolutely seems to be an effective substitution for utterly, adding enough emphasis and

emotion to the utterance. Absolutely denies its positive nature here and shows that it can be used even with negative or derogatory adjectives if a speaker wishes to express his or her opinion and put a certain degree of personal involvement into the utterance.

48

CONCLUSION In this thesis I have analysed six amplifiers from the semantic point of view. The

research proved that they cannot be considered absolute synonyms. Although they are syntactically identical, they do not correspond in terms of contextual relations and collocational range. The range of some of the intensifiers sometimes overlaps but on the whole each of the intensifiers creates distinct collocations with a certain group of adjectives and differs semantically from the others.

From the point of view of connotations, there are adverbs with positive, neutral and negative import. According to the analysis, absolutely and entirely are principally positive although absolutely can be possibly used in collocations with negative or derogatory meaning. Fully and completely are neutral amplifiers but completely has a slightly negative colouring. Totally and utterly are of a negative import.

Considering the level of subjectivity, absolutely, totally and utterly are attitudinal and context-sensitive intensifiers which often collocate with emotively coloured adjectives. They are likely to be used as means of an increased intensification when expressing opinion. Completely, entirely and fully appear in phrases with objective meaning. They are less context-dependent, more descriptive and also more formal, entirely and fully in particular.

The choice of an intensifier depends primarily on the speakers and on what they wish to communicate. It is important to bear in mind that by choosing a particular expression we can imply what attitude we decided to adopt and make clear to the recipient what we want to convey.

49

BIBLIOGRAPHY WORKS CITED

Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt, (1991) ‘Introduction’. English Corpus Linguistics. Ed. Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg. Longman. Alexander, L. G. (1988) Longman English Grammar, Longman. Bäcklund, Ulf (1973) The Collocation of Adverbs of Degree in English, Uppsala Reprotryck AB. Biber, D. Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Longman. Bolinger, Dwight (1972) Degree Words, Mouton. Broughton, Geoffrey (1990) English Penguin Grammar A-Z for Advanced Students, Penguin Books. Chalker, Sylvia (1984) Current English Grammar, Macmillan. Cruse, D. A. (1986) Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David (1995) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David (1985) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, Basil Blackwell Ltd. Finch, Geoffrey (2000) Linguistic Terms and Concepts, Palgrave Macmillan. Greenbaum, Sydney (1970) Verb-Intensifier Collocations in English, Mouton. Harris, Roy (1973) Synonymy and Linguistic Analysis, University of Toronto Press. Huang, Shuan-Fan (1975) A Study of Adverbs, Mouton de Gruyter. Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge University Press. Hudson, Richard (1984) Word Grammar, Basil Blackwell. Jackson, Howard (1990) Grammar and Meaning: A Semantic Approach to English Grammar, Longman. Kjellmer, Göran (1991) ‘A Mint of Phrases’. English Corpus Linguistics. Ed. Karin Aijmer and Bengt Altenberg, Longman. Leech,G. and Svartvik, J. (1994) A Communicative Grammar of English, second edition, Longman. Lyons, John (1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John (1995) Linguistic Semantics. An Introduction, Cambridge University Press.

50

Palmer, F. R. (1986) Semantics, Cambridge University Press. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman. Quirk, Randolph (1972) The English Language and Images of Matter, Oxford University Press. Sinclair, John (1990) Collins Cobuild English grammar, Collins. Sinclair, John (1997) Corpus Concordance Collocation, Oxford University Press. Stoffel. C (1901) Intensives and Down-toners: A study in English Adverbs, Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung. Strang, B. M. H. (1968) Modern English Structure, Edward Arnold. Ullman, Stephen (1964) Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning, Basil Blackwell&Mott Ltd.

SOURCES Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary (1987) Collins. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1971) Oxford University Press. Longman Synonym Dictionary (1986) Longman. Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English (2002) Oxford University Press. The Systematic Dictionary of English Adverbs. Book 3 (1983) Elm. Webster’s Collegiate Thesaurus (1988) Merriam-Webster Inc. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary Unabridged (1978) 2nd edition, Collins. Internet Sources British National Corpus (http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/). Variation in English Words and Phrases (<http://view.byu.edu/>).

1 INTRODUCTION The aim of this thesis is to examine six - Muni

Documents

Transcript of 1 INTRODUCTION The aim of this thesis is to examine six - Muni