1887
image of The missing link between truth and intensification
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Truth markers commonly evolve into intensifiers ( ), but we here argue that this shift is only indirect, and a counter-loosening phase necessarily mediates between truth marking and intensification. Counter-looseners instruct the addressee to avoid (or rather, constrain) the very natural interpretative process of broadening, whereby the speaker-intended concept would have been taken as a loosened, “more or less” interpretation of the meaning of the modified expression ( ). We provide a diachronic analysis for Hebrew ‘really’, which supports our point, and we reinterpret diachronic analyses of other truth markers in order to show that they too underwent a counter-loosening phase before turning intensifiers. Finally, we briefly distinguish between a counter-loosening mediated intensifier evolution (for truth markers, particularizers and maximizers) and a direct evolutionary path into intensification for originally upscaling expressions (extreme scalar modifiers and augmenters).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20076.bar
2021-06-08
2021-12-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    2002English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bar-Asher Siegal, Elitzur A. & Nora Boneh
    2015 Reconsidering the emergence of non-core dative constructions in Modern Hebrew. Journal of Jewish LanguagesVOL3, issue1–2. 309–323. 10.1163/22134638‑12340056
    https://doi.org/10.1163/22134638-12340056 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardenstein, Ruti
    2020 Persistent argumentative discourse markers. The case of Hebrew rectification marker be-ʕecem (‘actually’). Journal of Pragmatics, 172: 254–269.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardenstein, Ruti & Mira Ariel
    . In preparation. Mamash: Chizuk tiuni matmid [(‘Real(ly)’: Persistent argument strengthening]. Tel Aviv university.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, Hava
    1995 Subordonnées circonstancielles et dépendance sémantique. Comparaison, concession et condition: Grammaticalisation et sens des connecteurs. Faits de langues5. 145–155. 10.3406/flang.1995.987
    https://doi.org/10.3406/flang.1995.987 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beltrama, Andrea
    2018 Intensification, gradability and social perception: The case of totally. InElena Castroviejo, Louise McNally & Galit Weidman Sassoon (eds.), The semantics of gradability, vagueness and scale structure, 169–197. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑77791‑7_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77791-7_7 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ben Yehuda, Eliezer
    1940Complete Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Hebrew. New York: T. Yoseloff.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey N. Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan
    1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, Essex: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolinger, Dwight L.
    1972Degree words (Janua Linguarum, Series Maior 53). The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110877786
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877786 [Google Scholar]
  10. Breban, Tine & Kristin Davidse
    2016 The history of very: The directionality of functional shift and (inter)subjectification. English Language and Linguistics20. 221–249. 10.1017/S1360674315000428
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674315000428 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Bucholtz, Mary, Nancy Bermudez, Lisa Edwards, Victor Fung & Rosalva Vargas
    2007 Hella nor cal or totally so cal. Journal of English Linguistics35. 325–352. 10.1177/0075424207307780
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207307780 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee, Joan. & Pagliuca, William
    1985 Crosslinguistic comparison and the development of grammatical meaning. InJacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical semantics: Historical word-formation, 59–83. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110850178.59
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110850178.59 [Google Scholar]
  14. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  15. Even Shushan
    Even Shushan 1981Hamilon Haxadash (The new dictionary). Jerusalem: Qiryat-Sefer.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ghesquière, Lobke
    2014The directionality of (inter)subjectification in the English noun phrase: Pathways of change. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110338751
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110338751 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2017 Intensification and focusing: The case of purel(y) and mere(ly). InMaria Napoli & Miriam Ravetto (eds.), Exploring intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives, 33–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.189.03ghe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.189.03ghe [Google Scholar]
  18. Ghesquière, Lobke & Kristin Davidse
    2011 The development of intensification scales in noun-intensifying uses of adjectives: Sources, paths and mechanisms of change. English Language and Linguistics15. 251–277. 10.1017/S1360674311000037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000037 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grice, H. Paul
    1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
    2002World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613463
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613463 [Google Scholar]
  21. Herrero-Ruiz
    Herrero-Ruiz 2002 Sequencing and integration in metaphor-metonymy interaction. RESLA15. 73–91
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hopper, Paul J.
    1991 On some principles of grammaticization. InElizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues (Typological Studies in Language 19:1), 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.1.04hop [Google Scholar]
  23. Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum
    (eds.) 2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ito, Rika & Sally Tagliamonte
    2003 Well, weird, right, dodgy, very strange, really cool: layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society32. 257–279. 10.1017/S0047404503322055
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503322055 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kadari Menahem Zvi
    Kadari Menahem Zvi 1990 Trends in the Study of Responsa Hebrew, Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects, Academy of the Hebrew language54. 231–245.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally
    2005 Scale structure, degree modification, and the semantics of gradable predicates. Language81. 345–381. 10.1353/lan.2005.0071
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lasersohn, Peter
    1999 Pragmatic halos. Language75. 522–551. 10.2307/417059
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417059 [Google Scholar]
  30. Maschler, Yael & Roi Estlein
    2008 Stance-taking in Hebrew causal conversation via be’emet (‘really, actually, indeed’, lit. ‘in truth’). Discourse Studies10. 283–316. 10.1177/1461445608090222
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608090222 [Google Scholar]
  31. Méndez Naya, Belén
    2006 Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: On the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica27. 141–169. 10.1515/flih.2006.27.1‑2.141
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.2006.27.1-2.141 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2007He nas nat right fat: On the origin and development of the intensifier right. InGabriella Mazzon (ed.), Studies in Middle English forms and meanings, 191–207. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2008a On the history of downright. English Language and Linguistics12. 267–287. 10.1017/S1360674308002621
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674308002621 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2008b Introduction. English Language and Linguistics12. 213–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2019 Of right heirs, right idiots and bad data. The diachrony of the intensifying adjective right. Studia Neophilologica91. 273–295. 10.1080/00393274.2019.1661012
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2019.1661012 [Google Scholar]
  36. Montserrat, González
    2015 From truth-attesting to intensification: The grammaticalization of Spanish la verdad and Catalan la veritat. Discourse Processes17. 162–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Mustanoja, Tauno F.
    1960A Middle English syntax. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma & Ignacio Palacios-Martínez
    2018 Intensifiers in MLE: New trends and developments. Nordic Journal of English Studies17. 116–155. 10.35360/njes.436
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.436 [Google Scholar]
  39. Paradis, Carita
    1997Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English (Lund Studies in English 92). Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2000 Reinforcing adjectives: a cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization. InRicardo Bermúdez-Otero, Richard M. Hogg & C. B. McCully (eds.), Generative theory and corpus studies, 233–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2001 Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics12. 47–65. 10.1515/cogl.12.1.47
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2003 Between epistemic modality and degree: the case of really. Topics in English Linguistics44. 191–222. 10.1515/9783110895339.191
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110895339.191 [Google Scholar]
  43. Paradis, Carita & Nina Bergmark
    2003 ‘Am I really really mature or something’: Really in teental. InKarin Aijmer & Britta Olinder (eds.), Proceedings from the 8th conference on English studies, 71–86. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey N. Leech & Jan Svartvik
    1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Shaviv, Tamar
    2018/19 Legamrei – gilgulo shel maacim (legamrei ‘completely’ – the evolution of an intensifier). Chelkat Lashon [in Hebrew] 51. 152–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stratton, James M.
    2020 ‘That’s proper cool’. English TodayFirst View. 1–8. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/english-today/firstview (last access15 March 2020), doi:  10.1017/S0266078420000036
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078420000036 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tagliamonte, Sally
    2008 So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Canadian English. English Language and Linguistics12. 361–394. 10.1017/S1360674308002669
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674308002669 [Google Scholar]
  48. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1988 Is internal semantic-pragmatic reconstruction possible?InCaoline Duncan-Rose & Theo Vennemann (eds.), On language. Rhetorica. Phonologica. Syntactica, 339–341. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 2007 The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics18. 523–557. 10.1515/COG.2007.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.027 [Google Scholar]
  50. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
    2002Regularity in semantic change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Vandewinkel, Sigi
    2010 Strengthening uses of pure/puur in English and Dutch. English Text Construction3. 44–73. 10.1075/etc.3.1.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.3.1.04van [Google Scholar]
  52. Vandewinkel, Sigi & Kristin Davidse
    2008 The interlocking paths of development to emphasizer adjective pure. Journal of Historical Pragmatics9. 255–287. 10.1075/jhp.9.2.05van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.9.2.05van [Google Scholar]
  53. Ziv, Yael
    1982 Getting more mileage out of existentials in English. Linguistics20. 747–762.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2013 ‘Staam’: Shmirat ikviyut basiach [‘Staam’: maintaining consistency in discourse]. InMoshe Florentin (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew and its sources (in memory of Shaul Aloni), 251–159. Jerusalem: The Hebrew Academy of language.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20076.bar
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20076.bar
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error