106_2004_V3_Silvia CACCHIANI_Towards a Model for Investigating Predicate_intensifier Collocations

8/17/2019 106_2004_V3_Silvia CACCHIANI_Towards a Model for Investigating Predicate_intensifier Collocations

1/5

WORK IN

PROGRESS

Towards a

Mode l

for

Investigating

Predicate-Intensif ier

Collocations.

Silvia acchiani

Post-doctoral student

Dipartimento

di

Anglistica,

Università

di Pisa

V ia

Santa Maria 67,1 56126

Pisa

(PI)

[email protected]

Abstract

Adverbial

ntensifiers xpress he

emantic

ole f

egree.

ere,

e

hall ocus n

nglish

pgrading

intensifiers

ik e

ery ,

bsolute ly ,

xtremely , mpossibly.

pecifically, what

w e av e mainly

spire t s

o

develop

an d

apply

a simple

bu t

efficient

model

that

investigates

the

motivations

behind

choosing from

among

competing intensifiers in

a

non-haphazard

way.

uch

a

model

is

meant to work as

a combinatory

chart that

allows fo r fair comparison ofnear-synonymic intensifiers with respect

to

a

number ofparameters ofvariations

(or textual preferences) on

the

morpho-syntactic,

lexico-semantic an d discourse-pragmatic levels. Its ultimate

lexicographic

ontribution

o

he

ssue

f predicate-intensifier

ollocations

will

e

uilding

ombinatory

dictionary of English intensifiers

and,

ater

on,

bilingual

ombinatory

ictionary

f

English

an d

Italian

intensifiers.

1.

Corpus

Data

and

Methodology

bi

he urrent

aper

e

ant o epict

model

or

nvestigating redicate-intensifier

collocations.

1

pgrading

ntensifiers onstitute

n

xtremely

aried

exico-functional

category.

hey

oost uality

b:eady resent n

heir redicate i.e. ead)

long n

imaginary

cale

of degree of intensity.

he

modification ntroduced cannot b e bjectively

measured (e.g.

deadgorgeous

as

agaiastfully

developed

countries).

The

orpus

onsulted

w as

he BN C http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/index.html) We

only

searched

the

w w w

in

the

case

ofpoorly

or

not represented at al l

intensifiers. Since most

intensifiers

re

olyfimctional words mbiguous etween ifferent nterpretations, ne f

which is precisely intensification (e.g. mazingly,just, madly , ea l ly) , continuous decisions

had to be

made

in order

to

thin

th e

downloaded

solutions.

2

Collocational restrictions/preferences

are

a matter of degrees of shared meaning. Of

th e

20

ntensifiers

aken ro m

rammars,

revious works

n

he

ubject,

nd he

OED

online www.oed.com),

n

Cacchiani

2003)

om e

20 ighly epresentative

nstances

f

each degree nd pattern of intensification (cf. 2.2) were etailed with

respect

to a se t of

parameters

ofvariations (o r

contextual

preferences)

which will be briefly

outlined below.

3

943


2/5

EURALEX2004

PROCEEDINGS

Parameters o Variation

2.1 The

Morphr>Syntactic Dimension

(a)

The

Principle

ofMinimal

Distance

(van

Os

1998) . All

intensifiers

typically

occur next

to

their

predicate, mostly

before

it

in

English

(yet:old

enough) .

(b )

Grammatical

ategory

of the predicate. ll

rammatical

ategories

re

ntensifiable.

Still,

ndividual ntensifiers

may

differ

as to the

(sub)category

selected. For

instance, ery

takes

scope

over

adjectives and adverbs of the positive degree, as in v e r y

nice, v e r y

lucki ly,

while

considerably is

typically

a

modifier

of

comparatives,

as in cons iderably older.

(c)

Modification ofthe

intensi f ier , mtensifiers

may

occur

in

complex collocations (e.g. very

v e r y nice

indeed),

and may

be in the scope ofnegation

(e.g.

notso bad).

(d )

Morphosyntacticfeatures

ofthepredicate.

ake,

for

instance,

the

definite

preference

of

supremely,

a

Latinate

word,

for

polysyllables, as in

supremely

dis ingenuous.

2.2

The

Lexico-Semantic

Dimension

(a )

tructural

features

f

the redicate.

On

he

asis

f

the

nderlying

y pe

f

cale,

predicates an

e

ivided

nto: . Gradable

redicates,

ik e

ood/bad ,

r ood/poor; i.

Extreme (or

superlative)

predicates,

like gorgeous;

iii. Limit predicates, like

alone.

(b )

Degree ofthe

intensif ier.

Following

KIein

(1998) , upgrading

intensifiers

ar e subdivided

here

nto:

.

bsolutives

or ompletives) btain

egree-fixing

ntensification

when

modifying

imit

and

extreme

predicates

(respectively,

bso lu t e l y

alone

an d

absolutelyfirst

class);

ii.

bitensifiers

of

the

extremely high degree obtain a degree-modifying

intensification

and

combine

with

gradable

predicates (e.g. extremely interest ing);

iii.

fntensifiers ofthe high

degree

modify

gradable

predicates

(e.g. very good).

(c)

emantic restrictions n he predicate,

itensifiers m ay ho w

.

ositive s gainst i.

negative onnotations

e.g.

perfectly

ew

s gainst

tterly

ad)

r

ii.

e

eutral

n

his

respect

(e.g. really,

v e r y ) .

(d)

exico-semantic

estrictions: nderlying

attern

f

ntensification.

nlarging

nd

adapting

Lorenz

(1999),

w e

have

distinguishedthe

following patterns

ofintensification:

i.

Degree intensifiers,

or

grammaticalized

intensifiers

(e.g.

ery ,

wfully); ii. Compa ra t i v e s

(e.g. xtraordinarily); ii.

Modals.

ik e

enuinely, ea l l y ,

ru ly; v.

el ic nd

on-tel ic

intensifiers

respectively,

nbelievably

nd

mazingly);

.

eman t i c

eature

opy ing

intensifiers,

which opy conceptual meaning (as in

radiantly

cheerful); vi.

t aboo intensif iers

(like bloody, or damn);

vii.

Phonestemic intensifiers,

or

noise

metaphors denoting

strong

emotional

reactions

(e.g.

in

screamingQy)funny).

(e) Grammaticalization/

elexicalization

or

he xtent

o

hich

ntensifiers

nderwent

semantic

bleaching

while

developing from other

classes).

Five

levels can b e

distinguished

on

the

basis

ofwidth ofcollocation

and

stylistic

and

register

restrictions,

most notably:

i. Highly

grammaticalized

intensifiers,

like

v e r y ;

ii. Convent ional i zed

intensif iers

like

highly,

which ollocate

widely

ut

re till

ubject

o

egister

estrictions;

ii.

e la t ive ly

e s s

grammaticalized ntensifiers

e.g.

abulously

ea l thy);

v.

o-lex ical i zed

ntensif iers

typically ccurring n trong ollocations.

hey re

oth

ossilized

xpressions,

uch

s

94 4


3/5

WORKINPROGRESS

precious

few,

nd

semantic feature

copying intensifiers like

doggedly

insist;

v.

Lexicalized

intensifiers,

which still retain

their

original

meaning (e.g.

shockingly

underpaid) .

2.3 The Discourse-Pragmatic Dimension

Roughly

speaking,

ll

th e

variables here

apply

to

the

class

as a

whole

rather

than

to

individual

intensifiers,

which

turns out

to

b e

one major problem

for our combinatory

chart.

(a)

Expressivity

nd

b)

peaker's

nvo l v emen t ,

itensifiers re

always,

n ifferent

degrees,

modal, peaker-oriented dverbs

contrast

furiously

ngry , n

hich

furiously

expresses a

specific characteristic of

behaviour, an d de d t ired, where

dead

conveys a

more

generalized ttitude).

They

m ay

ntroduce nd7or

modify n valuation or

good

nd

ad

(e.g. reatly

dmi r e )

nd, y

mplication,

m ay e more r

ess

marked

or

pistemic

evaluation (e.g. deadgorgeous as against v e r y

nice). The source

domain

ofan

intensifier an d

its

tatus

s

more

r

es s

rammaticalized

ntensifier

re

esponsible

ot

nly

or

ts

collocational ehaviour ut lso or ts

xpressivity

in oth

espects,

ontrast

e r y ,

he

intensifier

par

excellence,

an d

stunningly)

beautif id).

(c)

peech ct odification, .

tensifiers

ay

ontribute

llocutionary orce

modification

ofall

five speech

acts,

either

aggrava t i on (term from Merlini

Barbaresi

997) ,

as in

You

b loody

silly

donkey ,

or

mit igat ion ,

as

in

Iwouldbe

verygrateful

toyou if... .

4

ii.

Second, intensifiers m ay

convey

inner and mental

states

like (seLf-) approval,

disapproval,

belief an d irony, ii.

uch

factors connect

up

with text types (cf.

Werlich

983)

an d

genre

conventions

(politeness

strategies

included)

and with the components of

th e

communicative

situation,

s

n

Biber

1988) :

articipant

o l e s

nd

haracteris t ics;

elat ions

mong

participants;

set t ing;

topic;

purpose;

social

eva lua t ion;

re la t ions

ofparticipants

to

the

text;

channel .

3. Towards a Combinatory

Dictionary

The ntensifiers ictionary w e

ave

n mind s

o

e evised

s

eference oo l or he

advanced learner, th e

translator

an d th e linguist. All 4 00

intensifiers

in

our initial catalogue

will be assigned a separate

entry

within

a

lexically ordered list.

Although th e

classification

proposed

s

ot

s

lear-cut

s

might

e

wished,

specially

n

he

ase

f th e iscourse-

pragmatic arameters, t

till

ains reat

merit

rom

bringing ogether

ll

spects

f and

research on intensification,

and

can

well

turn into

a

combinatory

chart .

A s

a

tentative

start-out

example,

w e

shall

give

here

the

salient

information

to

be

so

far

included

in th e

possible entry for

abso l u t e l y ,

which needs to

be

based

on

a

preliminary

definition of

the

technical

terms deployed

throughout.

Issues

for

future

discussion

are:

ists

of examples; tatistical reatment

o

e iven;

abelling

e.g.

roblems

elating

o

sing

components of

the

communicative

situation

as

labelling

devices, rather than

such

labels

as

formal/informal,

familiar

etc.); dvantages of an electronic ictionary which would

allow

systematic treatment

of

th e

iscourse-pragmatic dimension (only

poorly

represented under

C)

along the

lines

ofCacchiani (2003) ,

for

instance

v ia

links

to

a

separate

section;

layout

an d

typographical

conventions.

945


4/5

EURALEX2004

PROCEEDINGS

3.1

(Provisional) Lexical

Entry for

Abso lu t e l y

Absolutely (BNC:

5,672

hits in

1,787 texts)

A

Grammaticalization:

onventionalized

— »

bighly grammaticalized

intensifier

Pattern:

odal

degree

Degree

bsolute

degree; extremely

high

degree

Other

uses

anner

adjunct:

absolutely(versus relatively)

Collocations

to b e

listed by

frequency)

Synonyms

bsolu te ly ,

dead,

perfectly,

tterly

(synset

in

WordNet

1.7.1.)

B Pre/postmodification omplex collocations:

Qust)

absolutely

ffucking)

ridiculous

negation:

no t

absolutely surprised

(i.e.

not far from

surprised)

morphological

variation:

absofuckinglutely

(tmesis);

abflip

Predicates

modified -

adjective:

alone,

right/wrong

comparative/superlative:

bigger than,

the coldestplace in

- adverb:

well

-

verb:

adore ,

decl ine ,

refuse

-

noun

phrase:

nothing,

he

spitting

image s

qfeach

other

- prepositional

phrase:

in

accordance

with

C

Connotations

ollocates

equally

with positive

and

negative predicates

Expressivity

trongest possible of al l

completives,

primarily

focusing

on

the

speaker.

Hence,

collocations

with

emotional

endpoints,

slang

included (e.g.

absolutely

bloody

crap) ,

also

in

headings,

ads

and

w eb

ETRLs

Communicative

ommonest

intensifier

in

spoken

discourse

situation/uses

lso:

in-group

membership:

ab

brill

(used

among

the

youth)

Speech

ac t

.g., aggravation: Pretty silly idea, really absolutely

crackers

intensification

related

inner

and mental state: disapproval, belief)

Endnotes

The term collocation is meant

here

as

a cover

term

fo r

all

the

possible

combinations

of intensifiers

and

heir

redicatesAieads

egardless

f

the

egree

f

idiomaticity

f

the

ollocation

r

f the

restricted

versus wide

collocability

ofthe

intensifier

under discussion.

2 See Cacchiani (2003) for the relevant selection criteria.

3

Extensive

discussion

ofall

aspects

ofthe

model

is

given

in

Cacchiani

(2003).

4 See

Merlini

Barbaresi

(1997)

fo r

a bibUography

an d

an analysis of aggravation

and

mitigation

of

speech acts.

References

Biber D.

988. ariat ions

across

Speech

and

Writ ing. ambr i dg e :

Cambridge

University

Press.

Cacchiani .

003.

nglish

Predicate-Intensifier

Collocations

etween

emantics

nd

Pragmat ics . PhD

Thesis

(unpublishedmanuscript).

University

ofPisa:

Pisa.

Klein .

1998.

dve r b s

of

Degr e e

n Dutch and

elated anguages.

Amsterdam:

Benjamins.

Lorenz

G.

999.

Adjective

ntensi f ication

Learner

e r s u s

Native

peak e r s .

A

o r p u s

Study ofArgumentative

Writing.

Amsterdam: Rodopi.

94 6


5/5

106_2004_V3_Silvia CACCHIANI_Towards a Model for Investigating Predicate_intensifier Collocations

Documents

Transcript of 106_2004_V3_Silvia CACCHIANI_Towards a Model for Investigating Predicate_intensifier Collocations