Semantic and syntactic properties of adverbs of degree

 

Expounded in this chapter is the class of adverbs of degree as one of the most numerous and syntagmatically active classes of adverbs.

In English there is a class of lexical elements known as adverbs of degree [13] or intensifiers [18]. They are so labeled because they are considered to operate on certain linguistic elements to magnify the degree of intensification or to amplify certain qualities.

There is a substantial discrepancy of opinion concerning the terminology related to adverbs of degree. It can be argued that intensifier is a subcategory of adverbs of degree, since some (most) adverbs of degree are not necessarily intensifying. Another view is that an intensifier is a different category altogether. In this paper neither of these distinctions will be made, but adverb of degree and intensifier will be used interchangeably. The main reason for this is that there seems to be no distinction between degree adverb and intensifying adverb in academic literature.

There has been considerable academic interest in such adverbs for many years. Stoffel discusses intensive adverbs, noting that those which etymologically express completeness have a tendency to weaken over time [33]. There is a high turnover of such words and this area of language changes relatively quickly.

Stoffel’s terms, ‘intensives’ and ‘downtoners’, are adopted by Quirk in the seminal Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (1985) [29]. Intensification is a pervasive function in language [10]. Dwight Bolinger expands the discussion of intensifiers from the use of adverbs to qualify adjectives and adverbs, to these and other parts of speech modifying the strength of nouns and verbs as well such as the intensifying adjective qualifying the noun:

It was utter heaven [14, 151].

He notes that some syntactic forms also function as intensifiers:

He talked back to her and was she mad! [14, 151]

More recently, intensifiers have been the object of corpus research. Partington relates the delexicalisation of intensifiers to syntactic flexibility. In his view the lower the semantic content of an intensifier, the more restricted the syntactic environments in which it may occur. The more restricted the syntactic flexibility of an item, the more reduced is its semantic potential [27, 190].

That is, an intensifier like ‘extremely’ today occurs almost exclusively in premodifying position, whereas in the past it was also comfortable in postmodifying position:

A sinecure which would fitt me extremely [27, 190].

Or it could occupy position before a prepositional phrase:

Two humours equall abounding together, extremely in superfluite [27, 190].

This in turn relates to the phenomenon of collocation. In fact, the more delexicalised an intensifier, the more widely it collocates: the greater the range and number of modifiers it combines with [27, 183]. In other words, the less meaning is contained within the intensifier itself, the more it will acquire from its surrounding co-text.

Thus, adverbs of degree (or intensifiers) are those adverbs which function to increase or tone down the strength of another word in the sentence, usually an adjective, verb or another adverb. Intensifiers are said to have three different functions: they can emphasize, amplify, or downtone [11].

Adverbs of degree exhibit a number of syntactic and semantic properties typical of an adverb. They are often used, for example, in a preverbal (including adjectival) position and form a syntactic sequence [20]:

Adverb of degree Adjective (Phrase) / Verb (Phrase)

e.g.: (1): Quitting my old job was an extremely difficult decision [40].

(2): He hardly noticed what she was saying [40].

(3): I am too tired to go out tonight [41].

(4): You absolutely have to confront this belief [41].

Examples (1)-(4) also represent some of the commonly recognized syntactic functions of adverbial elements, namely, as a modifier modifying a single verb or an adjective, or as an adverbial affecting the whole adjectival or verbal phrase. Thus, in example (1) extremely can be seen as modifying the adjective difficult, in (2) hardly modifies the verb notice, and in (3) and (4) adverbs of degree too and absolutely modify, respectively, verbal expressions.

Some intensifiers, however, occupy different position in the sentence. For instance, enough as an adverb meaning 'to the necessary degree', when it modifies an adjective or another adverb, is placed in post-position to them:

Is your coffee hot enough [38]? (adjective)

He didn't work hard enough [38]. (adverb)

It also goes before nouns, and means 'as much as is necessary'. In this case it is not an adverb, but a 'determiner':

We have enough bread [40].

They don't have enough food [40].

Adverbs of degree can also modify certain kinds of prepositional
phrases:

They lived nearly on the top of the hill [41].

I'm almost through with my work [41].

His remarks were not quite to the point [38].

There are a few intensifiers in English which can function as attributes modifying nouns:

He was fully master of the situation [38].

She was quite a child [41].

While the syntax and semantics of intensifiers are generally well understood, thanks to the work of descriptive grammarians, little has been done to investigate other patterns connected with intensifiers, notably, their freestanding use. The freestanding use here refers to a situation where adverb of degree is not followed by any adjectival or verbal predicate. This is illustrated by examples below:

(1) An interview between a reporter and a famous soprano:

Reporter: Was it a bit learning process doing that recording session with the playbacks?

Soprano: Oh, absolutely, also because it was one of my earliest recordings, and in fact in every recording, and in every performance, I learn something. [24]

(2) A dialogue between a parent and a child:

Parent: Have you finished your essay?

Child: Almost. I didn’t have enough time for that. [24]

Quirk R. proposes a number of adverbial categories for English [29, 590, 613]. Relevant here are the categories of adjuncts and disjuncts, and the freestanding use of intensifiers presented in the above examples would be instances of disjuncts. The scholar mentions that unlike the intensifier adjuncts, which have a narrow orientation, disjuncts are more freestanding: they are syntactically more detached and have a scope that extends over the sentence as a whole [29, 613]. In fact Quirk R. notes that not only can disjuncts stand alone, but they also can be responses to questions or can be used as a comment on a previous utterance, usually accompanied by ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [29, 628]. Clearly the distinction made by Quirk between adjuncts and disjuncts is a useful one. Nevertheless a number of important properties concerning the freestanding disjuncts absolutely and almost have not been fully explored.

Firstly, the adverbial element absolutely is considered by Quirk R. as both an adjunct and a disjunct. The question is whether there is any connection between the adjunct, dependent use and the disjunct, freestanding use.

Secondly, the freestanding pattern, as exemplified above, is interesting not only in terms of the deviant syntactic behavior (a modifier without a head) from the point of view of a typical adverb, but also in terms of semantics and interactive pragmatics. From a semantic point of view, even without any adjectives or verbal elements (i.e., syntactic heads that are supposed to indicate the content of the semantic scale), absolutely alone can imply a positive answer or an affirmative action. Thus, in example (1) even though the interviewee does not state explicitly whether she agrees with the interviewer’s assessment, the interviewer and the reader can infer unequivocally that she does.

Lastly, Quirk R. asserts that disjuncts are usually accompanied by ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [29, 628]. This statement leaves an impression that both affirmative and negative answering tokens are possible candidates with the disjuncts. However, there are preferred patterns in actual language use. It is necessary to look at actual language use and understand language structure, including modification structure, as a dynamic, unsettled phenomenon [14, 18]. The epistemic propensity of the lexical item and the context in which the modifier is used gives rise to the independent use.