The degree intensifiers, gradability and boundedness

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

constant invention and illocutionary influence, while the latter indicates that an intensifier is inclined to change its meaning and recycle through times. To be more precise and consistent, the present study will adopt the expression degree intensifier, which specifically refers to those functions to intensify, as the key term.

2.2 The degree intensifiers, gradability and boundedness

Generally speaking, a degree intensifier is usually positioned adjacent to

adjectives, adverbs, and certain types of verbs or broadly, the predicates modified by antecedent. However, the syntactic behavior of degree intensifiers may not fully explain the characteristics of degree intensifiers (Bolinger, 1972). A more fine-grained semantic analysis should also include gradability or boundedness. Under most

circumstances, an adjective which can be modified by a degree intensifier is said to be gradable on a scale. For example, the gradable adjective tall denotes the scale of tallness. The predicate very tall in the sentence Gina is very tall will entail a reading that Gina’s height exceeds the standard of tallness. Yet, the notion of gradability brings about the constraint that only certain adjectives can be modified. Hence, the sentence Gina is completely tall would be infelicitous because there is no closed endpoint on the scale of tallness. The degree intensifier completely cannot be used with the adjective tall. Some researchers have proposed the idea of scalar structure or a configurational meaning structure to solve this situation triggered by the interaction between the degree intensifiers and the gradable adjectives (Kennedy & McNally 1999, 2005a; Paradis 1997, 2001, 2008; Toledo and Sassoon, 2011; Burnett, 2012).

The subsequent sections will review the two most crucial works.

First, extending the observation made by Bolinger (1972), Kennedy & McNally (1999) examine the degree (of) modification in de-verbal gradable adjectives. The general semantic type for any adjective which is gradable can be formulated as <d <e,

11

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

t>> and for a degree morpheme the formulation can be illustrated as <d <e, t>, <e, t>>. The computational equivalents of adjectives and degree modifiers can be formulated as [[A]]= λdλx. mA (d) (x) (<d, et>), where mA(x) represents the

projection of x onto the scale associated with the adjective A (Kennedy and McNally 2005: 367). The concept of gradability is usually realized by a so-called scalar structure. As they indicate, gradability as a fundamental semantic property can produce effects “beyond adjectives to other lexical categories” (Kennedy & McNally 2005a: 348). They further claim that a gradable adjective can project either an open scale or a closed scale according to the characteristics of the adjective. The structure of scale variation can be placed on a scale graded from open scale, to lower-closed-scale, to upper-closed-lower-closed-scale, and then to totally-closed-scale adjectives. Whether the two ends with or without minimal or maximal value can result in the scale variations in an adjective. These types can be visualized as follows.

(3)

Typology of Scale Structure Open (e.g. tall)

Lower closed (e.g. dirty) Upper closed (e.g. clean) Totally closed (e.g. full)

An open-scale adjective (e.g., tall) has neither a minimal nor a maximal value. A lower-closed-scale adjective merely has a minimal value. Taking the adjective dirty as an example, an entity being described as dirty cannot be 100% dirty. Similarly, an upper-closed-scale adjective can be contrasted with a lower-closed-scale one. It only has a maximal value. Taking the adjective clean as an example, an entity being described as clean is usually at its maximum. There is no minimal degree of

12

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

cleanliness. Next, a scale with both minimal and maximal value is the type of totally-closed-scale adjective. For instance, the adjective full is usually used to describe an entity as completely full. For there to be any values lower than 100% of fullness is unacceptable. The characteristics that are manifested by these scale types can explain their interaction with certain degree intensifiers well.

Another crucial contribution of Kennedy & McNally (2005) lies in their

discussion of the interplay of gradability and the standard of comparison in context, which can be specified as the relative/absolute distinction. Since the characteristic of an open-scale adjective is a lack of endpoints, it is context-dependent. That is, when describing an entity as being tall, the height of this entity exceeds the norm for the group to which this entity belongs. The standard of the comparison thus varies. This type of adjective is called a relative adjective. Yet, the standard of comparison for the closed-scale adjective which has minimal value or maximal value or both is usually fixed and does not vary through contexts. This type of adjective is called an absolute adjective. Kennedy & McNally’s proposal gives insights into interpreting adjectives and motivates other studies of adjectives such as those of Mandarin Chinese (Lin &

Peck 2016).

Second, granted the fact that gradability plays a crucial role in interpreting the meaning of the degree intensifier, Paradis (1997, 2001, 2008) explores the

possibilities of multiple layers when analyzing the grouping of degree intensifiers and adjectives. She pays much attention to the concept of boundedness within a scale. The concept is prominent that refers to “a high-level schematic domain mode” (Paradis 2001: 3) and highly correlates with gradability. Three layers—gradability,

oppositeness, and boundedness—are identified and configured into the meaning structures (see Figure 1). Degree modifiers are classified into two types: scalar modifiers (e.g., very, terribly, fairly) and totality modifiers (e.g., completely,

13

‧

absolutely, almost). The former type is usually unbounded and reflects the range of a scale, while the latter one is bounded and inherent with precise value. As for the adjectives, Paradis (1997) divides them into those of non-degree (this discussion will not go into further detail) and degree structure. Next, under degree structure, gradable adjectives fall under two subsets: complementarity and contrariety. According to the operation of boundedness, these adjectives will correspond to different degree modifiers in most cases. However, as Paradis (1997) claims, contextual modulation might cause the matching between the degree intensifiers and the adjectives to be more flexible.

Configurational meaning structures

Gradability Nondegree Degree

Oppositeness complementarity

(NONSCALE)

contrariety (SCALE)

│

Boundedness BOUNDED UNBOUNDED BOUNDED

financial dead narrow excellent

Degree FIGURE 1 The non-degree/ degree dichotomy and the interaction between scale and boundedness (Paradis 2008: 323)

14

‧ 國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

In order to scrutinize the operation of this configuration of meaning structures, three pairs of adjectives, death-alive, terrific-disgusting and narrow-wide are adopted to illustrate. (i) The pair of dead-alive belongs to non-scale adjectives which are denoted by an “either-or” feature; that is, such an adjective is always situated at the endpoint and no other possibility can be yielded. It usually combines with a bound degree intensifier such as completely. (ii) The pair of terrific-disgusting is on a

bounded scale which selects the bounded intensifiers. Yet, this pair correlates with the subjective-evaluative usage depending on different speakers. In this situation,

unbounded degree intensifiers could also modify bounded adjectives for pragmatic functions. (iii) The pair of narrow-wide illustrates scalar opposites in that when unbounded intensifiers are added, they “move away from one another in opposite directions of the scale” (Paradis 2008: 324). Yet, as mentioned previously, Paradis (1997, 2001, 2008) finds that the combination might be asymmetric and could yield a dual interpretation, e.g., absolutely clear and very clear. Once an adjective selects a degree intensifier, which may not seem to correspond with its type, that degree intensifier will pressure it to restrict the interpretation (see Figure 2).

FIGURE 2 The bidirectionality of semantic pressure between the degree modifier and the adjective (from Paradis 1999: 62 Figure 3-6)

15

‧