Table Of ContentINTRODUCTION
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.
1
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).
2
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.
3
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
4
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.
5
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
6
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
7
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.
8
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.
9
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.
10
