Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T14:29:24.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Configurations, construals and change: expressions of DEGREE1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

CARITA PARADIS
CARITA PARADIS*
Affiliation:
School of Humanities, Växjö University, 351 Växjö, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article challenges the widespread view that degree is a grammatical phenomenon characteristic of certain types of word classes and, instead, argues that degree is pervasive in language and may be associated with most meanings. The main aim of the article is to discuss the results of a number of corpus investigations and experiments of degree meanings in general and of the modification of degree in particular, and to accommodate these results in a general and dynamic model of Lexical Meaning as Ontologies and Construals (LOC; Paradis 2005). The claims are that (i) degree is a boundedness configuration in conceptual space; (ii) degree modifiers operate on the degree structure of the meanings to which they apply through a construal of contextually motivated zone activation within conventionalized senses; (iii) nonconventionalized degree readings of form–meaning pairings are invoked through implication by means of construals of metonymization between senses; and (iv) this process of metonymization is the mechanism through which change may or may not take place.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , July 2008 , pp. 317 - 343
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aijmer, Karin. 2007. Totally in American English – a new maximizer. Presented at the 20th Triennial Conference of the International Association of University Professors of English (IAUPE), Lund University.Google Scholar
Barcelona, Antonio (ed.). 2003. Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Berlin and New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Bierwisch, Manfred & Lang, Ewald (eds.), Dimensional adjectives, 71–262. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1972. Degree words. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Borst, Eugen. 1902. Die Gradadverbien im Englischen. (Anglistische Forchungen 10). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1998. Aspectuality and countability. English Language and Linguistics 2 (1), 37–63.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 1984. The very idea: A case study in polysemy and cross-lexical generalizations. CLS XX, Papers from the Parasession on Lexical Semantics, 21–38.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2006. The lady was al demonyak: Historical aspects of Adverb all. English Language and Linguistics 10 (2), 345–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia. 2007. The superlative in spoken English. In Facchinetti, Roberta (ed.), Corpus linguistics twenty-five years on. Selected papers from the Twenty-Fifth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerised Corpora, 121–48. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William & Wood, Esther. 2000. Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In Albertazzi, Liliana (ed.), Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach, 51–78. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowdy, Steve. 1995. The BNC spoken corpus. In Leech, Geoffrey, Meyers, Greg & Thomas, Jenny (eds.), Spoken English on computer, 224–35. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan. 2002. The construal of sense boundaries. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 12, 101–19.Google Scholar
Cruse, Alan & Togia, Pagona. 1996. Towards a cognitive model of antonomy. Journal of Lexicology 1, 113–41.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1981. On the definition of the telic-atelic (bounded-non-bounded) distinction. In Tedeshi, Philip & Zaenen, Annie (eds.), Tense and aspect (Syntax and Semantics 14), 79–90. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Declerck, Renate. 1979. Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction. Linguistics 17, 761–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse. 1995. On the necessity of distinguishing between (un)boundedness and (a)telicity. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diehl, Hannele. 2005. Quite as a degree modifier of verbs. Nordic Journal of English Studies 4 (1), 11–34.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An inquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekberg, Lena. 2006. Construal operations in semantic change: The case of abstract nouns. In Thomsen, Ole Nedegaard (ed.), Competing models of linguistic change, 235–52. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekberg, Lena (in press). . . .sån svensk å blond å sånt du vet. Lexiko-grammatiska drag i Malmöungdomars talspråk. In Ekberg, (ed.), Språket hos ungdomar I en flerspråklig miljö I Malmö. Rapport från projektet Språk och Språkbruk hos ungdomar i flerspråkliga storstadsmiljöer. Nordiska språk. Språk-och litteraturcentrum. Lund University.Google Scholar
Frawley, William. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter. 2000. Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk. 1997. Diachronic prototype semantics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 1997. Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics 8, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel. 2006. Anything negatives can do affirmatives can do just as well, except for some metaphors. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 981–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Balaban, Noga, Fein, Ofer & Alkabets, Inbar. 2005. Negation as positivity in disguise. In Colston, Herbert & Katz, Albert (eds.), Figurative language comprehension, 233–58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Svartvik, Jan. 1990. The London–Lund Corpus of spoken English. In Svartvik, Jan (ed.), The London–Lund Corpus of spoken English (Lund Studies in English 82), 11–17. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Haslerud, Vibecke & Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1995. The Bergen Corpus of London Teenage Language (COLT). In Leech, Geoffrey, Meyers, Greg & Thomas, Jenny (eds.), Spoken English on computer, 235–42. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, & Diewald, (eds.), 83–101.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 2001. Minimizers, maximizers and the rhetoric of scalar reasoning. Journal of Semantics 18, 297–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1991. Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41, 9–45.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey & Goodluck, Helen. 1978. Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster–Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English for use with digital computers. Oslo: Department of English.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher & McNally, Louise. 2005. Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81 (2), 345–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, John (ed.). 2000. Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987a. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987b. Nouns and verbs. Language 63 (1), 53–94.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1, 2–38.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1998. Conceptualization, symbolization and grammar. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The new psychology of language, 1–40. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin and New York: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, Gunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the lexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In Wischer, & Diewald, (eds.), 143–61.Google Scholar
Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2007. He nas nat right fat: On the origin and development of the intensifier right. In Mazzon, Gabriella (ed.), Studies in Middle English forms and meanings, 191–207. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. Semantic relations and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu. 1991. But, only, just: Focusing adverbial change in Modern English 1500–1900 (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 51). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu & Rissanen, Matti. 2002. Fairly pretty or pretty fair? On the development and grammaticalization of English downtoners. Language Sciences 24, 359–80.Google Scholar
OED = Oxford English dictionary, 2nd edn. 1989. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Online version with revisions: www.oed.comGoogle Scholar
Panther, Karl-Uwe & Thornburg, Linda (eds.). 2003. Pragmatic inferencing in metonymy. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 1997. Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English (Lund Studies in English 92). Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2000a. It's well weird. Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. In Kirk, (ed.), 147–60.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2000b. Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, Denison, David, Hogg, Richard & McCully, C. B. (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies. A dialogue from 10ICEHL, 233–58. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 12 (1), 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2003a. Between epistemic modality and degree: The case of really. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Palmer, Frank & Krug, Manfred (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 197–220. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2003b. Is the notion of linguistic competence relevant in Cognitive Linguistics? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1, 247–71.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2004. Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol 19 (4), 245–64.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita. 2005. Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes 15, 541–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita & Willners, Caroline. 2006a. Antonymy and negation. Journal of Pragmatics 38, 1051–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, Carita & Willners, Caroline. 2006b. Polarity, scalarity and boundaries: A psycholinguistic experiment. Presented at the 5th Congress of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, Murcia.Google Scholar
Paradis, Carita & Willners, Caroline. 2007. Antonyms in dictionary entries: Methodological aspects. Studia Linguistica 62 (3), 261–77.Google Scholar
Peters, Hans. 1993. Die englischen Gradadverbien der Kategorie booster. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1949. Grading: A study in semantics. In Mandelbaum, David (ed.), Selected writings of Edward Sapir in language, culture and personality, 122–49. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie. 2007. Almost certainly and most definitely: Degree modifiers and epistemic stance. Presented at the 20th Triennial Conference of the International Association of University Professors of English (IAUPE), Lund University.Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 2000. It's enough funny, man: Intensifiers in teenage talk. In Kirk, (ed.), 177–90.Google Scholar
Stoffel, Cornelis. 1901. Intensives and downtoners (Anglistische Forschungen 1). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Roberts, Chris. 2005. So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech 80 (3), 280–300.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. The relation of grammar to cognition. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Barbara (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 165–205. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a cognitive semantics I. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1999. The role of pragmatics in semantic change. In Verscheuren, Jef (ed.), Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th International Pragmatics Conference, vol. 2, 93–102. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, Brian & Janda, Richard (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 624–47. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B.. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk. 1993. A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Beatrice. 1992. Sense developments. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Wischer, Ilse & Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar