Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
“Insanely great”: Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Fiona Rossette, Université Paris 10
insanely great ─ really gorgeous ─ just gorgeous ─ we’re really, really excited about this ─ it’s also
very beautiful, very very nice ─ we’re pretty thrilled with this ─ an absolute jewel […] the most
beautiful product we’ve ever made bar none…
According to Paradis (2008), not only are degree expressions more proliferate in oral language than in
written language, but some appear uniquely in the former. In addition, the construal of high degree
tends to overshadow that of low/weak degree, whatever the mode: “In general there seem to be more
resources for turning the volume up than for turning it down” (Martin & White 2005: 37), a point
confirmed by the corpus findings of Biber et al (1999: 564-7).
The examples listed above have been taken from a specific type of oral discourse, that of public
addresses and, more specifically, keynote addresses of the company Apple. 1 The keynote came into its
own via the iconic figure of Steve Jobs, founder and then CEO of Apple, who made it a cornerstone of
his marketing strategy, to present and promote Apple products. Keynotes can be likened to other forms
of advertising, exemplify “sales-pitch” talk, in which the expression of high degree naturally plays an
important role. For example, the adjectival phrase insanely great was coined during the original
presentation of the Macintosh computer in 1984, and become a slogan for the product.
This study aims to examine high degree “in action” within a small corpus2 of contemporary oral
language, drawing on the Apple keynote product presentations and, for contrastive purposes, four
other examples of public speaking not delivered for marketing purposes: Ted talks.3 The focus will be
on sub-modification of adjectives, nouns and noun phrases (cf. degree modifiers “express degree in its
purest form” (Paradis 2008: 318)). After first touching on some initial areas of theory, the frequencies
of the different modifiers are established and an attempt is made at their categorization. I will then
look more closely at innovative/novel usage, before exploring specific phenomena thrown up by an
oral corpus (e.g. repetition/re-elaboration/“stretching”). I will end by addressing the problem of where
to draw the line as regards the phenomena to be studied under the “degree” banner.
I.
Beginning with the theory
1.1. Terminology: degree, scale, amplifier, emphasizer, booster, intensifier…
1
Sources: insanely great: Macintosh introduction, 1984; it’s really gorgeous: iPod, 2001; just gorgeous: iPhone
4, 2010; we’re really, really excited about this: iPhone 3G, 2008; it’s also very beautiful, very very nice: iPhone
3G, 2008; we’re pretty thrilled with this: 3G, 2008; an absolute jewel […] the most beautiful product we’ve ever
made bar none: iPhone 5, 2012 (presented by Phil Schiller).
2
The corpus comprises eight different product presentations taken from Steve Jobs’ keynotes (11 500 words), an
extract from the 2012 iPhone 5 product presentation by Phil Schiller (780 words) and four Ted talks (totaling
9,500 words).
3
“Ted Talks”, delivered at “Ted Conferences” can be viewed at the website Ted.com, which describes itself as a
“nonprofit devoted to Ideas Worth Spreading”. Started in 1984, T.E.D. originally stood for “technology,
education and development”, however speakers now come from all fields (e.g. science, innovation, art,
humanities etc.). Four talks have been included in the study: Al Gore, in the most persuasive of the four, speaks
about climate change; the writer Elizabeth Gilbert talks about the creative process; a business expert discusses
what happens in the workplace (“Why work doesn’t happen at work”); and another writer delivers a partiuclarly
lyrical speech when she speaks about what she wishes for women.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
When dealing specifically with nominal and adjectival modification, a first issue relates to the
metalanguage. High degree modifiers are given different labels depending on the author. Quirk et al
(1985: 429) distinguishes between “amplifiers”, which “scale upwards from an assumed norm”, and
“emphasizers”, which “have a generally heightening effect” (ibid. p. 447) but are not related directly
to degree or scale. It can, however, be argued that the difference between the notions of degree and
scale, on the one hand, and that of heightening/addition, on the other, is not clear cut. Quirk et al also
identify a specific type of amplifier, “maximisers”, which realize the highest possible intensity, which
finds an echo in Paradis (e.g. 2008), who differentiates between two main types of degree modifiers:
(i) totality modifiers, which are bounded in that they are “associated with a definite boundary”, of
which the high degree variant is realized by maximisers (e.g. absolutely, completely); (ii) scalar
modifiers, which are unbounded, “indicating a range of scale”, with high degree expressed by
(“reinforcing”) boosters (e.g. extremely). Paradis’ categorization suggests a difference in meaning
between the notion of degree and that of scale, with scale presented as a sub-type within degree. Such
a difference is not emphasised by Bolinger (1972), who adopts the general term “intensifier” to cover
all cases, and that of “booster” for the expression of high degree. For the sake of simplicity, and to
avoid any a priori, I will simply refer to “modifiers”, or “high degree modifiers”.
1.2. Appraisal Theory and the Category of “Graduation”
Another term, that of “upscaling” (as opposed to “downscaling”), 4 has been coined in the linguistic
sense by those working in appraisal theory. Appraisal theory, borne out of Systemic Functional
Grammar (e.g. Halliday 1985) provides an all-encompassing approach to the analysis of subjectivity in
language. It is concerned with “the interpersonal in language, with the subjective presence of
writers/speakers in texts as they adopt stances towards both the material they present and those with
whom they communicate” (Martin and White 2005: 2). The system of appraisal is organized into
three categories: (i) Attitude, covering the expression of judgments and evaluations; (ii) Engagement,
relating to authorial voice (e.g. epistemic modality; asserting, quoting, denying; monoglossic vs.
heteroglossic voice); and (iii) Graduation, which “attends to grading phenomena” (Martin and White
2005: 35). “Graduation” is therefore placed on a par with phenomena such as epistemic modality. At
the same time, it encompasses a wide range of phenomena, as presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Graduation within Appraisal Theory
1. Force
Graduation
1.1. Intensification
(modification of qualities & processes;
comparatives, superlatives, repetition and
intensified lexis, e.g. loathe = really dislike)
1.2. Quantification
(e.g. a few, many, a tiny/huge/gigantic
problem, recent arrival, long-lasting, widespread)
2. Focus
(e.g. true, genuine, sort of, kind of…)
4
“Upscaling” is also a synonym for “upmarket” in a commercial context and hence has not been chosen here.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Graduation is subdivided into two main categories, “Force” and “Focus”. The latter relates to “grading
according to prototypicality and the preciseness by which category boundaries are drawn”, and scaling
“by reference to the degree to which they match some supposed core or exemplary instance of a
semantic category” (137), “sharpening” or “softening” membership within a category; it finds a
parallel in enunciative linguistics in Culioli’s Interior/Exterior of the Notion distinction (applied to
degree-related phenomena for example in Albrespit 2005 and Huart 2012). “Force” is further divided
into “Intensification”, which includes phenomena traditionally associated with degree, and
“Quantification”, involving the graduation of “the force of the utterance” and comprising not only
quantifiers (a few, many…) but also reference to size or mass (e.g. a tiny/huge/gigantic problem) and
to “extent”, itself divided into the domain of “proximity”, with relation to time (e.g. recent arrival) or
space (e.g. distant/nearby mountains) and the domain of “distribution” (e.g. long-lasting, widespread).
By its formalization of the system of graduation, appraisal theory provides a far-reaching approach to
the study of degree, placing it within the bigger picture of subjectivity in language. 5 Due to the
magnitude of different phenomena it includes, it raises the main theoretical question of where to toe
the line as regards degree, a point I will return to in section 4.
II.
Distribution of degree modifiers
2.1. Different types of high degree expressions
Compared to the sample of Ted Talks, the keynote product presentations are characterized by much
higher frequencies of:
a) superlative forms, e.g. the thinnest smartphone ever; the biggest leap since the original
iPhone; one of the most amazing products 6;
b) comparatives, e.g. ten times faster than…; ten pounds lighter..; thinner than any smart phone
out there;
c) reference to totality, e.g. every product; your whole music library; the entire user interface;
IBM wants it all;
d) hype-inducing lexis, e.g. milestone; mind-blowing; state-of-the-art; gold-standard;
e) high-degree modifiers.
These five phenomena can, particularly in combination and in the high frequencies in which they
occur in the corpus, be regarded as typical components of marketing discourse.7 They all realize, at
different levels, meanings associated with high degree. Their combination, and the specific tone they
produce, can be observed over a sample stretch of discourse:
(1) Now, this is really hot, and there are, there are well over 100 new features and we don’t have time to
cover all of them today, so I get to cover 8 of them with you. 8 new features of the iPhone 4. The first
one, an all-new design. Now, stop me if you’ve already seen this. Believe me, you aint seen it. You’ve
got to see this thing in person, it’s one of the most beautiful designs you’ve ever seen. This is beyond the
doubt the most precise thing, one of the most beautiful things we’ve ever made. Glass on the front and
the rear and stainless steel running around, and the precision of which this is made is beyond any
consumer product we’ve ever seen. Its closest kin is like the beautiful old Leica camera. It’s unheard of
in consumer products today. Just gorgeous. And it’s really thin. This is the new iPhone 4. Now, it is
just 9.3 mm thick, that is 24% thinner than the iPhone GS. Again, a quarter thinner, in something you
5
Appraisal theory was first developed to identify differences between genres, such as the hard news/commentary
distinction in journalistic writing.
6
In the keynotes, the frequency of superlatives is often quite close to that of comparatives.
7
The corpus contains only one exclamative involving a degree expression (Schiller: what an incredible
breakthrough).
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
didn’t think could get any thinner. As a matter of fact, it is the thinnest smartphone on the planet.
(iPhone 4, 2010)
This sequence contains comparatives (2% thinner than the iPhone GS; a quarter thinner) and
superlatives (the most precise thing; the most beautiful designs you’ve ever seen; one of the most
beautiful things we’ve ever made; its closest kin; the thinnest smartphone on the planet). Adjectives
receive pre-modification with respect to degree (really hot; all-new; just gorgeous; really thin). Also
of note are instances of degree at the heart of predications: beyond any consumer product…; It’s
unheard of…as well as the epistemic disjunct beyond the doubt which expresses high degree in terms
of speaker commitment. If high-degree modifiers are singled out as the main object of study in what
follows, it would be artificial to dissociate them completely from the other four phenomena, which
share the same pragmatic purpose.
2.2. Semantic classifications
The different modifiers found in the corpus were counted and classified syntactically and semantically,
drawing on the semantic categories identified by Bolinger (1972) and also Guimier (1986). The
findings are summarised below, and the details and discussion follow.
1. Modification of processes is low in frequency and in variety (only six different modifiers)
compared to that of adjectives and nouns. Innovation in less apparent in the former case, as
intensification is not as free for verbs (e.g. I have a thumping fondness for that man; I am
thumpingly fond of him BUT *I thumpingly like that man - Bolinger (1972: 245)). In contrast, the
domains of adjectival and nominal modification offer a rich field of exploration of the expression
of degree.
2. Adjectival and nominal modifiers (30 types: 10 grammaticised and 20 ungrammaticised) are more
frequent than modifiers of adverbials or processes; they also reflect greater variety than the latter.
3. If classification of the modifiers into semantic fields, such as size, evaluation, purity etc., proves
hazardous and questionable (particularly on such a limited sample of examples), we can
tentatively put forward the hypothesis that different semantic fields are summoned depending on
the word category being modified. For example, more recruitment of modifiers can be observed
within the field of evaluation when the head is an adjective, while the fields of size and totality
are more prevalent in the modification of nouns.
4. Applying Paradis’ distinction between totality/bounded and scalar/unbounded configurations, a
difference can be noted within the keynote presentations: bounded meanings are more pervasive
in nominal modification than in adjectival modification. This provides an exception to the general
preference noted by Paradis for scalar over bounded meanings.
2.2.1.
Adjectival modifiers
The corpus (keynote presentations + Ted Talks) contains thirty different types of adjectival modifiers
conveying meanings which can be associated with the expression of degree, of which the majority
correspond to high degree. Ten of the items are grammaticised (e.g. very, really, so, just) and twenty
are ungrammaticised/lexical (e.g. completely, ultra, amazingly…). The frontier between these two
categories is not straightforward and in fact, by definition, cannot be:
Turning to degree intensifiers, we find again the rather fuzzy but useful distinction between the relatively
grammaticised and the relatively ungrammaticised. The escape hatch of relativity has to be left open because
some of the relatively grammaticised are more grammaticised than others and the same is true of the
relatively ungrammaticised (Bolinger, 1972: 59)
While Bolinger is speaking here about modification of nouns, he returns regularly to the notion of
relativity, at all other levels of modification. Grammaticalisation is therefore in itself a question of
degree. His bottom-line criteria for grammaticised modifiers is that they can both premodify another
modifier (e.g. a really truly pretty girl) and also be modified themselves (e.g.*so brick hard > “brick”
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
is not grammaticised), and can modify a far greater variety of heads compared to ungrammaticised
modifiers. Restriction is, however, directly linked to how conventionalized a modifier has become, as
compared with novel usage (Paradis 2008).8 For example, in the present classification, pretty (e.g.
pretty cool) is regarded as grammaticised, whereas insanely or ravishingly are for instance placed at
the other end of the spectrum (ungrammaticised), while modifiers such as completely or awfully
occupy a middle ground (ungrammaticised, although conventional). Unsurprisingly, the frequency of
ungrammaticised items is far lower (26 instances) than that of grammaticised items (109 instances),
due notably to the pervasiveness of really (58 instances) and very (18).
Most of the ungrammaticised modifiers appear only once in the corpus, with exceptions provided by
ultra or incredibly, bearing frequencies (up to 5 instances) which place them closer to the
grammaticised modifiers. Interestingly, the ratio of ungrammaticised compared to grammaticised
modifiers is higher in the Ted Talks, where they account for one quarter of adjectival modification
(1:4), than in the keynotes (1:7).
Among the modifiers appearing more than once in the corpus, some are used by only one speaker. For
example, within the adjectival modifiers, ultra is used only by Steve Jobs, completely or brand only by
Phil Schiller, extremely only by Al Gore, while sort of appears as an adjectival modifier in only two of
the Ted talks. Such preferences point to idiosyncratic usage, which adds grist to the argument that
these expressions are more inherently lexical than grammatical.9
For the ungrammaticised modifiers, an attempt was made to classify them semantically. Guimier
(1986: 61) identifies two categories of intensifiers (“adverbes intensifs”), informed by either the
semantic field of quantity (e.g. enormously, great) or that of feelings and emotions (e.g. frightfully,
incredibly, wonderfully). Similarly, Paradis (2008: 318) identifies the different “content structures”
which are “foregrounded” in items liable to be invested with the role of degree modifier via the
process of metonymization, such as ‘merit’, ‘existence’, ‘mental state’ and ‘appearance’. Bolinger
(1972: 149; 242) goes into more detail in his classification of intensifiers (which he considers the
result of hyperbolic usage): alongside the field of size can be placed “strength” (e.g. heartily) and
“consistency” (e.g. solidly), while that of emotion can be divided into “impact” (e.g. strikingly),
“abandonment” (e.g. wildly), “tangibility” (e.g. palpably) and “evaluation” (e.g. badly). He also
identifies the categories of “irremediability”(e.g. hopelessly), “singularity” (e.g. distinctly) and “purity
and veracity” (e.g. completely, genuinely). These categories “have much in common – if they did not
they would not all serve so well for a single purpose – and there is a good deal of transfer between
them” (Bolinger 1972: 150). For example, “Impact” can be regarded as a sub-category of
“Evaluation”, in the sense that it instantiates a very positive reaction, and therefore constitutes a “high
degree” within evaluation.
Such notional overlap makes a semantic classification hazardous and even questionable. Nevertheless,
I have chosen to present the results of my attempt at classification for what they are worth, that is, as a
preliminary exploration of the examples at hand. The “results” presented in the tables in this section
should not be taken as hard-fast but rather as a basis for further discussion, even to debunk such
categorisations. The corpus provides examples of adjectival modifiers belonging to Bolinger’s fields
of impact, tangibility, evaluation, singularity and purity (cf. Table 1; see appendix for items placed in
each category).
8
“In novel uses of form-meaning pairings, the mappings between lexical items and their meanings have not yet
been conventionalized”; “change involves entrenchment of metonymical readings, to become conventional”
(Paradis 2008: 334).
9
By the same token, we can track the evolution in Jobs’ speeches between 1984 and 2010: frequency of
modifiers seems to multiply as we advance chronologically.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Evaluation proves the richest semantic resource (awfully, insanely, perfectly, super, wonderfully),
followed by that of impact, due to 3 instances of incredibly.10 If Bolinger stresses that the common
denominator within all the categories is that of “extremity” (cf. “the pervasiveness of ‘extremity’” p.
149), I felt the need to add a separate category for items construing extremity directly rather than
metaphorically in order to accommodate the examples exceedingly, extremely and ultra. I also added a
“spatial” category to accommodate an isolated occurrence of far, while brand (e.g. brand new) and
downright (e.g. downright paranormal) defy categorization (“miscellaneous”).
Table 1: Semantic classification of ungrammaticised adjectival modifiers (based on Bolinger
1972)
9
8
7
6
5
4
Ted Talks
3
Schiller
2
1
Jobs
0
The corpus can also be classified according to Paradis’ totality/bounded and scalar/unbounded
taxonomies, grammaticised and ungrammaticised variants combined (Table 2 - see appendix for items
placed in each group). Certain parallels can be established between Bolinger’s semantic categories and
Paradis’ configurations: for example, the category of “Impact” (amazingly, incredibly, ravishingly)
construes a totality/bounded reading. Applying Paradis’ categorization confirms the higher rate of
scalar meanings compared to that of totality: “Language users are more willing to lay things out on a
scale than to set up boundaries where there are none” (Paradis 2008: 339) – more adjectives or
adverbials are recruited to degree modification to express reinforcing (scalar) meanings than
bounded/totality ones.11 Moreover, it bears out the preference in the corpus for the expression of high
degree (via maximisers and boosters) compared to that of low or moderate degree (via approximators,
moderators or diminishers – in fact, the corpus contains no examples of approximators).
10
Although incredibly does not appear in his lists of examples of adjectival modifiers, Bolinger classifies the
nominal modifier incredible within “Impact”.
11
Examples quoted by Paradis of scalar meanings: extreme pleasure, awful mess, dreadful coward, horrible
muddle; examples of bounded meanings: absolute bliss, complete bitch, total crap; examples of scalar
adverbials: awfully, terribly, horribly.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Table 2: Totality and Scalar categories of adjectival modifiers (based on Paradis 2008)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ted Talks
Schiller
Jobs
2.3. Nominal modifiers
Twenty-eight different nominal modifiers feature in the corpus, mostly only once, except for full (4
occurrences, e.g. full swing) real (4), revolutionary (4) and sort of (2). The
grammaticised/ungrammaticised divide is less prevalent than for adjectival modifiers: only kind of and
sort of were classified as grammaticised. Compared to the adjectival modifiers, the nominal modifiers
represent a different configuration of the semantic fields (Table 3): outside that of impact, which
scores most highly (e.g. incredible, extraordinary, remarkable, revolutionary) and in which I placed
awesome, emotional categories are limited (one instance of evaluation).
The field of size, absent from the adjectival modifiers, also ranks relatively highly, followed by a
category I felt compelled to introduce: totality (full, total), in which I included unabashed, the only
example of litotes in the corpus (iTunes as I mentioned has been an unabashed success - iPod
presentation, 2001); its inclusion within totality is less straight-forward compared to full or total,
however a paraphrase via absolute or complete does come to mind.12 Purity/veracity is well placed
(e.g. absolute, true, real), and includes gold (gold standard), as I feel it is due to the association of
gold with purity (as opposed to metal alloys) that the item has been recruited to high degree modifier
status. Singularity also features (major, number one), while blazing denies categorization
(“miscellaneous”), just like award-winning (the award-winning iPod user interface), which I feel is
not used in the literal sense (i.e. having won a specific award) and has come to express a more general
meaning of high degree, similar to milestone, (see discussion in 5.4. below).
In summary, the field of impact proves important in the modification of both adjectives and nouns, but
it can be posited that the role of evaluation in adjectival modification is “replaced” by that of size and
totality in nominal modification, a hypothesis which deserves exploration over a larger corpus.
Table 3: Semantic classification of nominal modifiers
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Ted Talks
Schiller
Jobs
A different distribution also becomes apparent as regards the division of labour between totality and
scalar meanings (Table 4): totality, via maximisers, far surpasses scalar meanings, specifically due to
the modifiers classified in relation to “totality” above. In fact, it is the keynotes which skew the
distribution by containing a proportionally higher frequency of maximisers compared to boosters. In
addition, the role of modifiers relating to low/moderate degree is low in the entire corpus.
Table 4: Totality and Scalar categories of nominal modifiers
35
30
25
20
15
Ted Talks
10
5
Schiller
0
Jobs
2.4. Modifiers of Processes
The other level of modification worth mentioning briefly concerns that of processes.13 Comparatively,
they display far less variety: only six different items are represented (really, sort of, kind of,
13
Adverbial modifiers do not throw up any really interesting axis of investigation: most are grammaticised (very,
kind of, sort of, pretty, such, almost) or at least not novel (e.g. completely). The keynotes contain a very high
frequency of modification of prepositional phrases by right, the majority of which indicate location (e.g. And
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
dramatically, completely, definitely)14, and they are far less frequent than the adjectival or nominal
modifiers, particularly in the keynotes (six instances in total, compared to thirty-two in the Ted talks).
While really rates highest in both types of speeches, in the Ted talks, modification at this level
contains more instances of low/moderate degree (“compromisers” for Bolinger, or “moderators” for
Paradis), in the form of kind of and sort of, whose scope will be addressed specifically in section 5.
III.
“Insanely great”: on the examples of novel/less conventional usage
3.1. Adjectival modifiers
I will now return to the least grammatical/least conventional end of the spectrum, concentrating on
adjectival and nominal modification. Let us begin with the adjectival phrase insanely great, the catch
phrase from the 1984 presentation of the Macintosh computer:
(2) Many of us have been working on Macintosh for over two years now, and it has turned out insanely
great. (Mac presentation, 1984)
The phrase functions predicatively (as complement of the verb “turn out”) and appears in end position,
which confers focus. Insanely modifies the degree word great, which realizes an attitudinal meaning.
Insanely/insane draw on the field of evaluation, therefore making them prime candidates as degree
modifiers (nominal modification could be envisaged with insane, e.g. an insane
dress/book/computer…). As Herwig (1998) underlines in his study of “quality-descriptive” adjectives
which have become modifiers (such as mild, sad, absurd, amazing, terrible, loose, stout…), these
adjectives are apt as degree expressions because “by describing a certain quality they necessarily also
delimit this quality.” Comparison lies at the cornerstone of degree modification: referring to absurd,
which is notionally quite close to insane, Herwig notes that “applying the label absurd intuitively
requires operations of comparing and rating against a scale of related values in order to choose what
along this scale seems to be most appropriate” (my emphasis). Bolinger (1972: 23) also insists on the
operation of comparison as a prerequisite motivating degree modification and employes the paraphrase
“more/less than ordinarily”, e.g. “One who is innately good is one who is more than ordinarily good;
one who is coldly polite is less than ordinarily polite.”
The process whereby adverbials of manner are recruited as degree modifiers is described for example
by Paradis and Herwig. However, to claim that insanely has been “recruited” to degree modifier status
would be difficult, as a “pure” meaning as an adverbial of manner cannot be identified. The dictionary
definition of insanely - “extremely and unreasonably” - contains the notion of extremity identified by
Bolinger as common to all degree modifiers. Within Paradis’ categorization, we are inclined to read
insanely as a maximiser, in a bounded configuration (totality): insane contrasts with sane and suggests
that some sort of limit has been reached – it is not easy to imagine a higher degree than that referred to
by insanely.
A question worth raising is whether the phrase coined by Jobs (or his strategists) constitutes an
example of novel as opposed to conventional/relatively entrenched usage (Paradis 2008). Of note is
that dictionary definitions of insanely quote the same example: insanely jealous. Apart from this most
common collocation, the modified head in examples in dictionary entries is not necessarily connoted
as negatively (e.g. insanely busy) and can even be positive (e.g. insanely optimistic). However, the
configuration modifier + modified is motivated by a negative judgment by the speaker, due to the very
meaning of the modifier (cf. insanely = “unreasonably”). The semantics of excessiveness can be
here’s what one looks like right here. - iPad 2004), confirming Bolinger’s observation that in American English,
right is limited to indicating precise direction and location.
14
The corpus contains no examples of rather which, unlike sort of (9 occurrences) is “elegant, if not prissy” for
Bolinger (1972: 239) and is reserved for a higher register.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
glossed in these dictionary examples by “too”: too jealous; too busy; too optimistic. The originality of
the phrase insanely great lies in the fact that the modified head is positive, and that the degree
modifier nsanely which typically construes a negative judgment actually works hyperbolically with
respect to the head, great.15 Insanely takes its cue from great.
Other combinations induce a positive interpretation: insanely wonderful/beautiful/ brilliant. But what
makes these phrases, together with insanely great, different from insanely optimistic, which
substantiates a negative judgment of excessiveness? Perhaps it is the reductive semantic content of
great, which is conceptually simple, and makes it more malleable. (If insanely tips the balance towards
hyperbole/a positive reading, other parameters can help to construe a negative one, such as intonation,
e.g. Oh, great! = oh, damn!) Indeed, when Paradis (2008: 337) remarks that nouns that take degree
adjectives are “conceptually simple”, this can be extended to adjectives taking degree modifiers.
Bolinger basically formulates the same hypothesis but from the opposite angle when he explains the
inacceptability of *He was highly funny by the fact that “funny requires an intensifier that is less staid”
– in other words, more connoted, more colourful. On the other hand, insanely funny would be
acceptable. It is as if both funny and great, as run-of-the-mill adjectives, benefit from being “dressed
up” by a colourful modifier – particularly in attributive structures where they coincide with final, focal
position.
The semantic mutations of the modifier and of the modified can be likened to general collocation
dynamics. Recent literature has highlighted the process of delexicalisation which occurs with
collocation:
“The meaning of words chosen together is different from their independent meanings. They are at least partly
delexicalized. This is the necessary correlate of co-selection. If you know that selections are not independent,
and that one selection depends on another, then there must be a result and effect on the meaning which in
each individual choice is a delexicalisation of one kind or another. It will not have its independent meaning in
full if it is only part of a choice involving one or more words.” (Sinclair, 1994: 23 “Trust the Text” in
Coulthard, M. Advances in Written Text Analysis – quoted by Martin & White 2005: 143)
A parallel can be drawn with figurative use of modifiers in combinations such as ice cold, crystal
clear, dirt poor (cited by Martin and White 2005: 143). These authors note that “ice cold Coke is in
fact virtually never ice cold. And someone who is deliriously happy is not delirious”.
To summarise so far: great can be considered a prime candidate for modification engendering both
negative and positive configurations due to the fact that it is conceptually simple. The next question to
be addressed is why the combination insanely great achieves catch phrase status, compared for
example to insanely wonderful/beautiful/ brilliant or insanely gorgeous which, it can be argued, are
less catchy. These heads are not as conceptually simple compared to great, which is more
commonplace in English. The contrast with insanely, which is conceptually more complex, is
therefore made more striking. Conversely, insanely can be compared with another modifier sharing
similar semantics:
?Crazily great but crazily wonderful
Crazy/crazily can also construe a positive reading. However, what makes the first example more
difficult? Crazily is conceptually more simple and common than insanely (there is also a register
variable here) and so the contrast is compromised. Also at the level of the signified is the meaning
itself; it is difficult for an item collocating with insanely to share the same meaning:
? Insanely crazy
15
A similar mechanism is at work in the relatively recent trend in French whereby trop bien carries a positive
judgment which can be glossed by “très/tellement/merveilleusement bien” rather than by “excessivement bien”.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
The discrepancy at the level of the signified can be echoed at the level of the signifier. Bolinger (1972:
53) addresses the issue of prosody, for example the number of syllables the modified item contains:
discussing the modifier highly, he notes the tendency to avoid monosyllabic heads, as “there seems to
be a curious imprint of the semantics onto the phonology. High is an intensifier of impressive
meanings. Impressiveness carries over into the shape of the word itself. It is as if more than one
syllable were needed to dignify the adjective.” 16 Such an explanation may be valid for highly (e.g.
highly impenetrable vs. *highly dense), but seems to be disproved by the combination of monosyllabic
great with insanely, which can also be regarded as an intensifier “of impressive meanings”. However,
the combination of a multisyllabic modifier with a monosyllabic head can be perceived as quite
jarring, creating a syncopated rhythm which contributes to the unexpectedness. The contrast is not as
strong with a two-syllable item (e.g. happy), or a three-syllable item (e.g. wonderful), and it can be
posited that the resulting phrases are less “up-beat”:
Insanely happy
Insanely wonderful
-
when compared with another one-syllable item as the modified item:
Insanely short
By the same token, contrast is reduced in the face of other types of phonological assimilation, such as
alliteration (/s/) for example:
? Insanely superb
But: insanely brilliant
In summary, contrast is an important vector in the coining of the catch phrase, both at the level of the
signifier (three vs. one syllable) and of that of the signified. At the level of the signified, a discrepancy
between a conceptually more complex modifier and a less complex modified head makes for a more
memorable phrase, which heightens the basic semantic contrast of negative (insanely = excessive) and
positive (“great”).
Insanely, which only appears in this one example, can be distinguished from other adjectival modifiers
used more frequently in the keynotes, such as dramatically, incredibly or amazingly.17 Due to their
rate of occurrence, their usage can be considered “on-the-way-to-being” conventional or entrenched.
Their use/recruitment as degree modifiers appears natural in the context of Jobs’ discourse, which
promotes their cognate forms (e.g. incredible; amazing). The adjective which is modified generally
already construes a positive meaning, and the modifier works hyperbolically. If the modified head is
sometimes conceptually poor (e.g. small; pleased), corresponds to a commonplace word in English
(e.g. cool) or to the comparative form (better), it can also be conceptually more complex and/or
precise (sharp; creative; zippy (= “energetic or fast”)):
(3) Well today I’m incredibly pleased to introduce iMac (iMac 1998)
(4) It’s incredibly small and uh just to let you see what it looks like, it’s got one button on the top for
answering and hanging up a phone call. (iPhone 2007)
(5) It’s…. again, incredibly cool (rest keynote 2007)
(6) That’s dramatically better than any of these smart phones (iPhone 2007)
16
At the same time, he notes that “the few exceptions carry considerable impact” – e.g. highly vexed.
17
Over time, in Jobs’ presentations, these modifiers increase in frequency.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
(7) And so we think the IPS technology is quite superior. And it results in incredibly sharp text, images and
video. (iPhone 4, 2010)
(8) These guys are incredibly creative (iPhone 2007)
(9) This has been my experience using the phone as well, it’s amazingly zippy. This is also pretty amazing.
(iPhone 3G)
The Ted talks provide an interesting example of a one-off use of ravishingly in what can be analysed
as particularly hyperbolic when in combination with beautiful (cf. ravishing = “very beautiful”):
(10) I wish you gratitude for this ravishingly beautiful, constantly surprising world, a sense of wonder, and a
thankful heart. (Ted talk, Nikki Gemmell)
The adverb ravishingly is not listed in most dictionaries; its use here is therefore novel (perhaps the
most novel example, whatever the type, provided by the corpus). The phrase does not achieve catchphrase status (there is no tension/contrast semantically, and the combination of four syllables + three
syllables could well, in Bolinger’s terms, contribute to the “impressive meaning”), but a specific
poetic effect, characteristic of figures of speech, is produced. Note the more acceptable and less
acceptable combinations in the manipulations below:
? ravishingly great but: ravishingly gorgeous
(conceptually more complex and longer phonologically)
?ravishingly intelligent but: ravishingly attractive/good-looking
(necessity to guarantee a hyperbolic
meaning operating within the same semantic field as that of the modified head)
Such hyperbole is simply an extreme case of “essential redundancy” which for Bolinger (1972: 153-4)
characterizes all modifications: “Intensifiers typically add little or no lexical meaning of their own to
the noun phrase of which they form a part. A perfect gentleman is perfect, of course, in a sense, but
one who is truly a gentleman has this degree of perfection, and all that the addition of perfect
accomplishes is to underscore by repetition”.
3.2. Nominal modifiers
In the corpus, incredibly has a counterpart in the nominal modifier incredible. Funnily enough,
dramatic does not appear in the keynotes, either as an adjective on its own, or in combination with a
noun, and amazing is only used predicatively, where it is often the object of pre-modification (it is
amazing; just amazing; pretty amazing). Other nominal modifiers include remarkable, awesome and
revolutionary:
(11) Macintosh comes with two built-in serial ports and an incredible thing called Apple Bust Interconnect.
(Mac 1984)
(12) So 10 hours of continuous music playback with a remarkable battery technology. (iPod 2001)
(13) We don’t stop there. iPod has got Apple design. We’ve got one of the best design teams in the world,
and they have done a remarkable job uh and let me show you. (iPad 2001)
(14) It’s got awesome security (iPhone 2007)
(15) Every once in a while, a revolutionary product comes along that changes everything. […] Well, today,
we’re introducing three revolutionary products of this class. The first one: is a widescreen iPod with
touch controls. The second: is a revolutionary mobile phone. (iPhone 2007)
The examples listed have two things in common: first, the modifier constitutes a bounded/totality
reading. Moreover, the noun which undergoes modification fits into one of two categories: it is either
conceptually simple (thing; job), or it is technical, but hence often referred to and therefore banal in
the context of computing and information technology (battery technology; security; product; mobile
phone). It would appear that the degree modifier works to “dress up” a referent which occurs
frequently in the context of such marketing presentations; it introduces “hype” and makes the technical
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
terms less bland (and therefore the discourse more accessible for the not-so-technically minded
members of the audience).18
Regarding remarkable, awesome and revolutionary, one might expect to have found in the corpus the
cognate form remarkably, which occurs relatively frequently as a modifier in English, but this is not
the case, and neither do we find awesomely, listed in dictionaries with attested examples. On the other
hand, revolutionarily is not listed in all dictionaries, and attested examples are not easy to find.
Despite the up-beat expression insanely great, in which it is the combinatory effect rather than the
choice of modifier that is original, the keynote presentations do not display innovation in degree
modifier recruitment. However, the latter can be found in the Ted talks, notably those pronounced by
the two writers. Next to ravishingly, already discussed, of note are two interesting uses of adjectives
which can be interpreted as high-degree modifiers:
(16) There are only two ways to live, as a victim, or as a fighter. I wish you the blazing latter. (Ted talk,
Nikki Gemmell)
(17) And for those walloping times of difficulty and doubt which we’ve all been through, I wish you a
soldiering calm to know that the bad times dissolve, always (Ted talk, Elizabeth Gilbert)
Both adjectives are derived from verbs associated with the notion of extremity (blaze = “to burn
brightly/intensively”; wallop = “to hit someone hard”19) and, as degree modifiers, both construe
bounded meanings. Each combines with a relatively simple head noun (latter; times) and receives a
higher degree of sentence stress than the noun, even if, in the second example, the head undergoes
post-modification which introduces another figure of speech, alliteration, duly enhanced by additional
sentence stress (difficulty and doubt).20
To return briefly to the keynote presentations, these contain some interesting examples of compound
nouns in which the first noun can be analysed as a degree modifier, such as number one:
(18) the number one use (Jobs)
(19) It went on to become the number one smartphone in the world. (Schiller)
It can even be posited that the brand name (Apple) or the product name (e.g. iPod) end up construing
high degree, even if such a reading is conditioned by the pre-modification that they themselves receive
(amazing; award-winning):
(20) Amazing Apple design. (iPad 2001)
(21) you don’t get some cheesy user interface, you get the award-winning iPod user interface, the same user
interface. (iPod 2004)
Finally, the presentation of iPhone (2007) contains an interesting variation involving the noun
breakthrough. It appears on its own relatively frequently in the keynotes (e.g. We’ve got a
breakthrough…; a big breakthrough…). Within the iPhone speech, it initially appears as the first item
of a four-part compound noun early in the speech, at the very moment iPhone is introduced:
(22) a breakthrough Internet communications device
18
“Cheesy” provides a rare example of a low/moderate degree modifier in the keynote presentations, but it is
used in a negative sentence and suggests what would be found in the product of a competitor: And it is a half an
inch thick. It is really really beautiful, and when you turn it on, you don’t get some cheesy user interface, you get
the award-winning iPod user interface, the same user interface (iPod 2004).
19
or “defeat someone easily”
20
Note also the novel adjectival use of soldiering in the immediate context.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
It appears later in the speech as the second noun: 21
(23) We’re gonna build on top of that with software. Now, software on mobile phones is like is like baby
software. It’s not so powerful, and today we gonna show you a software breakthrough. Software that’s
at least five years ahead of what’s on any other phone.
And then several minutes later breakthrough appears again in initial position:
(24) And so we’re bringing breakthrough software to a mobile device for the first time.
It can be posited that when breakthrough appears in initial position, where it takes on the status of a
modifier expressing a bounded meaning, it is actually the re-elaboration (not necessarily in real time or
in the linear progression of the speech, but in the collective conscience) of more common structures
which have entered into usage where breakthrough appears second.
3.3. “Think different”: on the key position of degree in marketing discourse
To conclude this section on novel usage, the slogan Think different provides an interesting case in
point. It appeared in a 1997 Apple television commercial. The voice-over of the commercial contains
the more conventional usage with the phrase “The ones who see things differently”; this voice-over
leads up to the slogan think different which is not pronounced but appears on the screen with the Apple
logo. Jobs’ own paraphrase of the expression indicates that degree is clearly at stake (my emphasis,
underlined, below)22:
They debated the grammatical issue: If “different” was supposed to modify the verb “think”, it should be an
adverb, as in “think differently.” But Jobs insisted that he wanted “different” to be used as a noun, as in
“think victory” or “think beauty.” Also, it echoed colloquial use, as in “think big.” Jobs later explained, “We
discussed whether it was correct before we ran it. It’s grammatical, if you think about what we’re trying to
say. It’s not think the same, it’s think different. Think a little different, think a lot different, think different.
‘Think differently’ wouldn’t hit the meaning for me.” (Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs, 2011, London: Little,
Brown, 329-330)
The paraphrase underlines the fact that construal of degree is very much based on comparison (cf.
think the same vs. think different). Think different signifies think differently from others; think in a
more unusual way than others. The think different slogan typifies the strategies behind marketing
discourse, where products are implicitly or explicitly presented as better than those of other
companies. The expression of degree is therefore an essential component in the rhetoric of marketing.
This is amplified in Apple’s discourse as it has developed over the years (e.g. iPhone vs. other
smartphones; Apple vs. Microsoft).
IV.
Observing the manifestation of high degree over stretches of discourse
21
This extract contains another example of a switch in the position of a noun used in two different instances of
compounds: baby software / software breakthrough.
22
Moreover, the final line of the commercial, which is one of the most quoted, features enough: The people who
are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do. Marketing by the same company
challenges other grammatical rules: for example, their product names are often treated like proper nouns,
whereby the zero determiner and the singular noun enduce a generic reference: e.g. We need to sell iPhone in
more countries.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
4.1. High degree at work over stretches of discourse
Extract (1), presented in section 2 above, featured comparatives, superlatives, adjectival degree
modifiers and infused degree within predications. Another extract, taken from the presentation of the
iPhone 3G, is presented below:
(25) So, as we arrive at iPhone’s first birthday, we’re going to take it to the next level, and today we’re
introducing the iPhone 3G. We’ve learned so much with the first iPhone, we’ve taken everything we’ve
learned and more, and we’ve created the iPhone 3G. And it’s beautiful, this is what it looks like. It’s
even thinner at the edges, it’s really beautiful, it’s got a full plastic back, it’s really nice. Solid metal
buttons. The same gorgeous 3.5 inch display. Camera. Flush headphone jack, so you can use any
headphones you like. Improved audio, dramatically improved audio, it’s really really great, and it feels
even better in your hand if you can believe it, it’s really quite wonderful, the iPhone 3G. (iPhone 3G,
2008)
As well as examples of comparison (even thinner; even better - where the comparison is with
reference to something implicit), the extract contains adjectival modification expressing high degree
via the adverb really (really beautiful; really nice), repeated in one instance (really really great) and
combining once with another high degree modifier quite (really quite wonderful). If quite sometimes
construes moderate or low degree (e.g. it’s quite interesting = it’s relatively interesting), it can also
participate in the construal of high degree, perhaps due here to its association both with a positively
connoted modified head (wonderful) and with a high-degree modifier (really) – which goes against the
trend in American English to use it more often as a low-degree modifier, glossed by “to a certain
extent” (Biber et al 1999: 568).
Presenting a sequence of text as opposed to isolated examples draws attention to modulations: for
example, as of the third clause-complex23, the adjective beautiful appears on its own in a predicate
construction and is taken up again two clauses later, modified this time by the high degree modifier
really (And it’s beautiful, this is what it looks like. It’s even thinner at the edges, it’s really
beautiful…). A similar modulation occurs further into the extract, in which an initial (bare) head is
immediately repeated but is pre-modified: Improved audio, dramatically improved audio. Extract (3)
below, taken from the presentation of the iMac, contains variation around the head slow, which
undergoes varying types of modification. It is first modified by really, then in the clause immediately
after, by very, which, two clauses later, is repeated within the same phrase: The first is they’re really
slow. They’re very slow, they’re all using last year’s processor. Very, very slow. This variation again
appears in a context coloured by a high density of degree modifiers (really, very, pretty - the latter
modifying an adverb: pretty much universally) 24 and by other expressions of high degree, such as
comparison (one of the better ones; we’re used to something much better; they’re lower performance,
and they’re harder to use and most of them aren’t so plug and play):
(26) So we think iMac’s going to be a really big deal. Now, what should it be? Well, we went out and we
looked at all the other consumer products out there. This is a picture of one of the better ones. And we
noticed some things about them pretty much universally. The first is they’re really slow. They’re very
slow, they’re all using last year’s processor. Very, very slow. Second is they’ve all got pretty crumby
displays on them. They’re generally 13 inch, a few 14 inch, and the quality of them is very poor. Uh,
Apple designs all of its own displays so we’re used to something much better, but these are pretty bad.
Likely no networking on them, some have it, most don’t. Old generation IO devices, and what that
means is they’re lower performance, and they’re harder to use and most of them aren’t so plug and
play. And, these things are ugly. (iMac 1998)
23
The term clause-complex (Halliday 1985) is used to refer to units higher than that of the clause and which in
writing correspond to the unit of the sentence.
24
The adverbial phrase pretty much universally reflects a rather complex wording (particularly for speech as
opposed to writing) and an instance of grammatical metaphor (Halliday 1985), whereby there exists a more
simple cognate form (e.g. the adjectival phrase some pretty universal things about them).
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
The extract ends (it is followed by a pause) with the rather blunt statement And these things are ugly,
in which the adjective ugly receives no modification. This isolated head contrasts with the density in
the extract of adjectival phrases involving modification. The clause-complex in which it appears is
concise, conferring impact, to which the coordinator And (stressed here) also contributes. The
judgment by the speaker appears intransigent, more so than if a high degree modifier had been
deployed (And, these things are very/really ugly).
Extracts 1, 25 and 26 illustrate the density of high degree expressions over certain passages of the
product presentations. They also draw attention to two interesting phenomena which will now be
discussed in more detail: (i) the paradigm modifier/zero modifier; (ii) examples of
repetition/modulation around the same head.
4.2. On the paradigm modifier/ zero modifier or “plain/positive degree” (e.g. very
ugly/ugly)
If the focus is on pre-modification in this study, the product presentations also foster hype-inducing
lexis which appear without modification, as exemplified by ugly at the end of the above-quoted
sequence. Absence of modification is referred to in the literature as either “plain” or “positive” degree.
The choice made be speakers within the paradigm modifier/zero modifier therefore needs to be
addressed.
In the above sequence, ugly appears in final position, coincides with the tonic syllable, and receives
maximum sentence stress. Other adjectives, e.g. incredible, thrilled, stunning, awesome, remarkable,
wonderful, which appear elsewhere as modified heads, appear “alone” in similar contexts: rather than
being preceded by a modifier, the adjective is preceded by a pause, and receives maximum sentence
stress (e.g. and it is [pause] a’mazing). The prosody induces an intensifying effect akin to the
“multiple prominences” identified by Bolinger (1972: 281-2) when the vowel of the stressed syllable
(of a degree adjective, for example) is lengthened (“intensification by stretching”). Bolinger (1972
102; 291) also points out that, as regards the paradigm modifier/zero modifier, He is a genius
corresponds to a stronger compliment than He is quite a genius, since it implies that “genius” does not
have degrees (= it is perfect vs. it is very perfect - Bolinger, p. 102). In these contexts, and, at least
when contrasted within the paradigm, the modifiers are “more downtoners than boosters”. 25 Similarly,
it is monstrous is “more powerful” than It is monstrously bad ” (p. 291).
In the keynotes, the hype-inducing adjectives devoid of modification may not always appear in final
position of the clause-complex:
(27) I’ve got some slides of what this looks like. This is incredible, compared to what else is out there looks.
It like it’s from another planet, and a good planet. A planet with better designers. Look at this
keyboard, it’s so nice […] (iMac 1998)
However, there are a number of examples in which they coincide with final position and with the end
of a development:
(28) But the biggest thing about iPod is it holds 1000 songs. Now this is a quantum leap, because it’s your,
for most people, it is their entire music library. This is huge. (iPod 2001)
(29) And, it is barely over three quarters of an inch thick. This is tiny. (iPod 2001)
25
In French je t’aime can be compared with je t’aime bien: bien can be interpreted as a moderator, even a
diminisher (for the English equivalent, scale is infused in the lexis itself: love/like). This perhaps depends on the
complement: when the complement is the 3rd person or an object, the scale may be reversed, with bien (returning
to its role as?) a booster: j’aime cette presentation; j’aime bien cette présentation (also je t’adore; *je t’adore
bien/un peu).
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
(30) It’s stainless steel, it’s really really durable, it’s beautiful. (iPod 2001)
(31) Now these are aluminum and they’re anodized aluminum, so the photography doesn’t really do it
justice, you go out and see these in the booth, they are gorgeous. (iPod 2004)
It can be posited that it is the contextual cues (simple predication; short clause; final position; sentence
stress, with or without lengthening of the stressed vowel) that induce a “maximum” degree reading of
these (otherwise) “naked” adjectives.
4.3. Repetition and variation (e.g. really slow, very slow, very very slow)
The notion of “stretching” of the signifier can also be applied to the examples of repetition: “Saying
something twice not only doubles it semantically but also doubles the noise with which we say it, and
noisiness is certainly one form of intensification” (Bolinger 1972: 288).26 The corpus does not boast
any examples of repetition of a verb, which is the most common word category repeated (see also
Gournay 2005), particularly in speech (Lapaire 2014), but there is one example of the repetition of an
adjective, which can be glossed by a degree modifier (doomed, doomed = completely/utterly doomed):
(32) And the peculiar thing is that I recently wrote this book, this memoir called "Eat, Pray, Love" which,
decidedly unlike any of my previous books, went out in the world for some reason, and became this
big, mega-sensation, international bestseller thing. The result of which is that everywhere I go
now, people treat me like I'm doomed. Seriously - doomed, doomed! (Ted talk, Gilbert)
A similar intensifying effect can be identified when repetition involves a whole unit, either a noun
phrase (which here contains the totality modifier “entire”), or a whole clause:
(33) You can download an entire CD into iPod in 5 to 10 seconds. An entire CD. (iPod 2001)
(34) So, we looked at this and studied all these, and that’s where we want to be, that is where we want to be.
(iPod 2001)
(35) Now, we had a challenge, we had a challenge, because we didn’t have room for four separate buttons
on the mini, and so we came up with something really great. (iPod 2004)
Such repetitions could be regarded as “fillers” in the context of relatively spontaneous speech.
However, they do point to a higher degree of speaker investment: through repetition, the speaker
labours the point. Repetition of the noun phrase an entire CD, outside the context of a finite clause,
creates a particularly marked effect.
Returning to the degree modifiers themselves, the oral corpus contains repetitions of the same
modifier within the same phrase, notably very/really:
(36) And here’s what one looks like right here. This is one, they’re really really beautiful. (iPod, 2004)
(37) And for the 16 gig model, we also have something special, we have a white one, it’s also very beautiful,
very very nice. (iPhone 3G, 2008)
In view of what has been advanced regarding the modifier/zero modifier paradigm above, the effect of
such repetition can be queried: when meaning is re-elaborated in such way, in which direction does it
tip the scales? Is meaning upgraded or, on the other hand, downgraded? The question is difficult to
answer: really and very are commonplace adverbs and their repetition may indeed diminish the
26
Also: “Adding more words, whether they are actual intensifiers or not, of course, opens the way to repeating
the prosodic intensification” (Bolinger, p. 289).
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
mechanism of intensification which their use should, in theory, set in motion. 27 The same may not be
valid when major and great are repeated in the pre-modification of nouns:
(38) So, iPod: 1000 songs in your pocket. We think this is a major, major breakthrough, our first major
breakthrough: it is ultra-portable. (iPod 2001)
(39) We are going to the new generation of IO, 12 megabit universal serial busts, two ports, we’re leaving
the old Apple IO behind, stereo surround sound built into every product, and a great great keyboard
and mouse. (iMac 1998)
As regards cases of repetition with variation involving degree modifiers, they can be classified into
two types. The first is characterized by a movement of reduction, for example a (full) noun phrase
containing a modifier is repeated but condensed (the second part of the compound noun is not
repeated):
(40) And that hard drive is 5 gigabytes in capacity. 5 gigabytes, which holds 1000 songs at 160 kilobit rate,
which is a very high quality rate of MP3 compression, very high quality. (iPod 2001)
Or an adverbial phrase is repeated minus the prepositional complement:
(41) … I happen to have one right here in my pocket in fact. There it is, right there. (iPad 2001)
In condensed form, the repetition acts to punctuate the end of a development and it can be posited that
meaning (even if simply at the level of speaker investment) is intensified. The second type involves a
movement of expansion, from the first mention of an item to a second mention, when it undergoes premodification:
(42) We’ve designed something wonderful for your hand, just wonderful. (iPhone, 2007)
(43) The coolest thing about iPod is that the whole, your whole music library fits in your pocket, ok, you can
take your whole music library with you, right in your pocket. (iPod 2001)
Here, the hypothesis can be formulated whereby just is implicit in the first instance of wonderful, and
that the latter is repeated in order to make it explicit. Similarly, right can be considered implicit in the
first instance of in your pocket. Again, meaning is upgraded, this time by first holding back and then
making explicit one of its components.
V.
On the theoretical issue of the frontier of degree
In the preliminary process of identifying the degree expressions in the corpus to study, I was
confronted with the problem of where to draw the line. This last section addresses four fields which
cannot be dissociated from the notion of scaling, and which therefore enrich our understanding of the
latter.
5.1. Totality/Quantification:
27
Space prevents me here from discussing interesting examples (echoing or amplifying ungrammatical usage by
children?) found in the series of Charlie and Lola books (by Lauren Child). Direct speech pronounced by the
child characters include combinations of modifiers, e.g. something very extremely important to tell; we are
extremely very good recyclers, aren’t we! ; a massive, huge pile of rubbish; our real, actual school tree.
Multiplying modifiers, whether it is the same modifier (e.g. very very; really really), or modifiers belonging to
the same semantic field, reveals the necessity felt by language users (and children’s language is very telling in
this respect) to resort to amplifying the signifier when they feel the signified/signifier equation with respect to
what they want to say proves inadequate. (Note too in French interdit/ strictement interdit).
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Reference to totality is omnipresent in the sales-pitch genre, and works in tandem with upscaling to
create a specific rhetorical effect. Martin and White (2005) point out that quantification often provides
a cognate form (grammatical metaphor) for a modified process or quality, for example, a little concern
= slightly concerned. If the authors recognize “a subtle difference of meaning”, they assert that
“[w]hat this means is that formulations such as a huge disappointment/a slight concern involve
quantification when viewed from the perspective of the lexicogrammar (reckonings of the size of
‘entities’) but intensification from the perspective of the discourse semantic meanings being made”
(Martin & White 2005: 150). Similarly, Biber et al (1999: 780) discuss reference to amount (e.g. She’s
getting on a bit now) and intensity within a general category of extent/degree circumstance adverbials.
The keynotes exploit a wide range of the spectrum of quantifiers and adjectives relating to totality (all;
every; entire; whole; full):
(44) Well, every application wants a slightly different user interface, a slightly optimized set of buttons, just
for it. (iPhone 2007)
(45) Full color postscript on every system. Everything you’ve seen today has been drawn by Color
PostScript. (Next 1990)
(46) Macintosh comes with 192 Kbytes of memory. 64 K bytes of ROM contains the entire operating system,
the whole graphics foundation and the entire user interface, all contained in ROM. (Mac 1984)
(47) And all of this power fits in a box which is one third the weight of an IBM PC. (Mac 1984)
These examples give a feel of the all-inclusive common theme of Jobs’ rhetoric; the aim is to
underscore the fact that all our needs have been catered for, that nothing has been neglected, no effort
has been spared. Reference to totality, with the idea that a maximum boundary has been reached,
notably provides the key selling point for the iPod (cf. “one thousand songs in your pocket”):
(48) But the biggest thing about iPod is it holds 1000 songs. Now this is a quantum leap, because it’s your,
for most people, it is their entire music library. This is huge. How many times have you gone on the
road with a CD player and said oh God, the CD, I didn’t bring the CD I wanted to listen to. To have
your whole music library with you at all times is a quantum leap in listening to music. The coolest thing
about iPod is that the whole, your whole music library fits in your pocket, ok, you can take your whole
music library with you, right in your pocket. Never before possible. So that’s iPod. (iPod 2001)
Within the lexis referring to quantity, all can apply at different levels. It can be analysed as a degree
modifier in front of the adjective new (all-new design; all-new applications).28 In combination with of,
it compounds the notion of suddenness, as an equivalent to “very/extremely suddenly”:
(49) And he's speeding along, and all of a sudden he hears this little fragment of melody, that comes into his
head as inspiration often comes, elusive and tantalizing (Ted talk, Gilbert)
Below, all in all of a sudden finds an echo at the end of the segment, as the modifier of a past
participle (all lit up…). The addition of the modifier in final position creates a crescendo effect after
the use of the same past participle devoid of a modifier twice before (lit from within, lit from below):
(50) And all of a sudden, he would no longer appear to be merely human. He would be lit from within, and
lit from below and all lit up on fire with divinity.(Ted talk, Gilbert)
5.2. Degree of assertion (epistemic modality)
28
Brand new offers a variant, in which brand can be analysed as a degree modifier
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
In the example below, the quantifier every determines way, within a segment (in every way) whose
status is difficult to determine:
(51) It starts of course with the display. iPhone is a retina display, the same 9.5 pixels per inch. Stunning
display in every way. (iPhone 5, 2012)
In every way could qualify as an disjunct (e.g. = It is, in every way, a stunning display), or as postmodifier within the noun phrase, providing a cognate form for a totally stunning picture. Highlighted
here is the fine line between modification within a phrase and modification at a higher level
(adjunct/disjunct). Indeed, Bolinger (1972: 93) explains the relationship between the two,
documenting the syntactic shift from truth identifier (expressing “some relationship between what is
said and the declarativeness of saying it, or the certainty or emphasis or truth attached to it”) to
intensifier within a phrase. Moreover, to differentiate between them, he posits (in relation to verbal
modifiers) that when the adverb is adjacent to the verb, it is closer to intensifier status.
Martin and White (2005) recognize graduation with respect to speaker engagement, therefore opening
the (flood?) gates of scaling within epistemic modality (truly, possible, actually, basically) and
equivalents (e.g. pretty much; more or less):
(52) I didn’t actually do anything (Ted talk, Fried)
(53) And managers are basically people whose Job it is to interrupt people. That’s pretty much what
managers are for. (Ted talk, Fried)
(54) managers are people whose job is more or less to interrupt people (Ted talk, Fried)
For the underlined adverbs, it is difficult to determine their precise scope. For example, in the example
below, it would appear that great, or even the entire phrase great honor, enters into the direct scope of
truly (compare with It’s truly an honor):
(55) It’s truly a great honor to have the opportunity to come to this stage twice. (Ted talk, Al Gore)
5.3. Sort of/kind of: modifiers or discourse markers?
If adverbs such as truly, honestly and actually shifted from disjunct status (truth identifier) to that of
intensifier, Bolinger suggests a move in the opposite direction for sort of and kind of. He places them
in his list of relatively grammaticised intensifiers (compromisers), and notes that “they have become
the most unvarying intensifiers in the language, synonyms with rather (though less formal) but
without the restrictions and morphological changes that afflict rather and the other intensifiers” (p.
112).29 Noun modification is said to have preceded that of verbs: “Sort of has been generalized from its
use with nouns […] and comes over to verbs” (220). While he hesitates in talking about absolute
sentence adverbial status - “It might be better to say that it moves in the direction of a sentence adverb
rather than that it becomes one” (p. 113) - close observation of the way they are used, particularly in
the Ted talks, suggests a status close to that of a discourse marker (e.g. like, you know, I mean), in
view of the fact that they are syntactically independent and sometimes border on the status of filler, or
verbal tic. 30 This comes through in the following passage, where like, sort of and kind of appear in
close proximity:
29
Bolinger also discusses differences in position in the context of nominal modification (sort of a hurry vs. a
sort of hurry), affirming that “the intensifiers are like sentence adverbials that were arrested in their gravitation
toward the noun” (pg.143).
30
Similarly, Biber et al (1999:858) point out the potential ambiguity between the status of stance adverbial and
discourse marker – the latter defined as signaling transitions, and an interactive relationship between speaker,
hearer and message (p. 1086): in She like said that they would, it is difficult to decide whether like has no
particular lexical meaning (a discourse marker) or behaves like a stance adverbial, akin to a hedge. This said,
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
(56) It was like time would stop, and the dancer would sort of step through some kind of portal and he wasn't
doing anything different than he had ever done, 1,000 nights before, but everything would align. (Ted
talk, Gilbert)
In the quantitative study presented in section 2, these were classified as modifiers, either of qualities
(e.g. It’s sort of the baby Internet, into one device) or of processes (e.g. We writers, we kind of do have
that reputation.) They provide the most frequent means of expression of moderate or low degree,
realising a meaning similar to that of quite (and pretty in some instances). There are fewer examples in
the keynote presentations (where high degree is privileged) compared to the Ted talks, where they are
used mainly in the modification of processes. Moreover, they appear in high frequency in two of the
Ted talks, which would confirm the verbal tic hypothesis.
Bolinger identifies two roles for these modifiers, an original “identifying” function to refer “to sets and
varieties” and “to the appropriateness of the particular verb [or noun or adjective]”, in front of nondegree verbs. Most of the examples in the Ted talks are of this kind:
(57) But, when it comes to writing, the thing that I've been sort of thinking about lately, and wondering
about lately, is why? You know, is it rational? (Ted talk, Gilbert)
(58) We writers, we kind of do have that reputation, and not just writers, but creative people across all
genres, it seems, have this reputation for being enormously mentally unstable. (Ted talk, Gilbert)31
(59) So I’m going to talk about work, specifically why people can’t seem to get work done at work, which is
a problem we all kind of have. But let’s, sort of, start at the beginning. (Ted talk, Fried)
Cases that Bolinger would classify as genuine intensification, when the modified verb is a degree verb,
are less frequent in the talks:
(60) But the question that I kind of want to pose is, you know, why not? (Ted talk, Gilbert)
The first type of use corresponds in appraisal theory to the domain of “focus”, whereby grading is
realized according to the appropriateness of membership within a notional category. It relates to
speaker investment and reflects hedging by the speaker. However, it can be argued that the overall
effect produced is not that different from degree modifiers that would qualify as cases of
intensification for Bolinger, or of “Force” within appraisal theory. To take one of the above examples,
a problem we all kind of have can be glossed by a problem we all have to a certain degree, or even, by
a transfer of category, by a slight problem. When kind of precedes a noun (e.g. Everyone knew your
genius was kind of lame - Ted talk, Gilbert), kind of lame, even if construed differently, remains close
in meaning to quite/rather/a little lame. Kind of reflects a choice of modulation within a paradigm that
potentially includes for instance really (it’s really lame) or particularly (it’s really lame) and it can
hence be objected that it is no less linked to the expression of degree. Moreover, the effect produced in
terms of speaker investment is very close in each instance. Martin and White (2005: 139) note that, in
the context of Focus, sharpening results in higher investment, while softening “offer[s] a conciliatory
gesture directed towards maintaining solidarity with those who hold contrary views”, which they
degree and stance make up separate categories in their semantic classification of adverbs, and they analyse kind
of as a hedge, which they consider distinct from the expression of degree: “we make a distinction between the
items that primarily modify intensity (degree adverbs) and items that primarily mark imprecision or estimation
(hedges such as kind of)” (555-6).
31
Space prevents analyzing in detail the combination of kind of with emphatic do: We kind of do have that
reputation.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
observe in an extract from a 2003 New York Film Academy review of Meryl Streep’s performance in
Adaptation. Streep plays a still living celebrity Susan Orlean, quoted in the extract:
Maybe the language isn’t precise, but her [Streep’s] faux Susan Orlean is flawless – a smartly assayed
embodiment of yearning (intellectual, artistic, spiritual) that’s very funny and even kind of sexy. And what’s
the real-life Orlean’s view? ‘It’s the funniest concept you can imagine: Meryl Streep, greatest actress in the
world, is me,’ says the author. ‘It’s kind of marvelous.’
Martin and White (2005: 140) note that the modification of sexy by kind of “indicates reserve towards
the positively evaluative ‘sexy’ so as to maintain solidarity with those for whom such positivity […]
would be untoward”, while kind of marvelous “seems […] to act as a display of modesty on the part of
Orlean”. They conclude that “softening or positive values occurs when the positive assessment is
being construed as potentially problematic for writer-reader solidarity”. This can explain the
distribution of kind of and sort of in the corpus: they are particularly high in two speeches, one by a
writer who describes the creative process and clearly wants to appear on net with her audience rather
than too high brow, and two, at the beginning of Fried’s speech, where he works to establish a
connection with the audience, compared to later in his speech when, once this connection is
established, low modifiers disappear in favour of high degree modifiers (e.g. most of the interruptions
and distractions that really cause people not to get work done…).32
5.4. “Infused” in Lexis
The keynote presentations contain highly positively connoted, and therefore hype-inducing lexis, e.g.
incredible, amazing, awesome, which in itself expresses high degree. These constitute, for Martin and
White (2005: 143), instances of “infused” graduation, as the scaling is part of the lexis itself. For
example, in a gorgeous display, gorgeous is equivalent to a less positively connoted head adjective
preceded by a high degree modifier, e.g. really beautiful. Degree is also infused into nouns, for
example:
(61) We think we’ve got a breakthrough in user interfaces (iPod 2001) (= a major discovery)
(62) the shakeout is in full swing (Mac 1984) (= a complete re-organisation)
(63) Second one, this is a biggy, something we call the retina display. (iPhone 4, 2010) (= really advanced)
(64) a milestone product (Mac 1984) (= very important/original)
Here are further examples of adjectives:
(65) Now, a thousand songs is mind-blowing… (iPad 2001); we’ve managed to get 5 hours of 3G talk time,
which is really an industry-leading amount of time, we’re very pleased with this (3G, 55); And, you
know, 90% customer satisfaction. That’s off the charts. (3G, 9); We took two other state-of-the –art 3G
phones... (iPhone 3G, 2008) (= completely unbelievable/ quite inconceivable)
Degree is inscribed in two expressions worth mentioning - run like hell and want it all:
(66) And she said it was like a thunderous train of air. And it would come barreling down at her over the
landscape. And she felt it coming, because it would shake the earth under her feet. She knew that she
had only one thing to do at that point, and that was to, in her words, "run like hell." And she would run
like hell to the house and she would be getting chased by this poem, and the whole deal was that she
had to get to a piece of paper and a pencil fast enough so that when it thundered through her, she could
collect it and grab it on the page. (Ted talk, Gilbert)
32
Cockroft and Cockroft (2005) identify the pragmatic effect of stance as the modern take on ethos, and
therefore a key factor of modern-day rhetoric and persuasion.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
(67) It is now 1984. It appears IBM wants it all. (Mac 1984)
Run like hell can be glossed by run without limit, and want it all by want absolutely everything. In the
second example, the pronoun it, spurred along here in combination with the notion of totality in all,
can be likened to other uses found in slogans (e.g. Coke is it; I’m enjoying it) as well as in the recently
coined phrase it-bag (i.e. the bag that everyone absolutely must have). Both expressions construe the
highest possible degree: the paraphrase without limit/ the sky is the limit comes to mind.
The flow over between grammatical modification and the domains of lexis, speaker stance/epistemic
modality, and quantification (all areas discussed by Bolinger) attest to the permeable nature of degree,
which represents a cognitive zone that bleeds into all levels of the lexico-grammar. Indeed, the very
process of grammaticalisation typifies the recycling of the meaning-making potential of the grammar,
highlighting the resources that the grammar draws on in order to renew itself, and to continue to
produce new meanings. Moreover, when we ask what speakers are actually doing when they choose to
modulate via a degree expression, the choice is part of a wider set of choices directly linked to the
paradigm of speaker involvement, reserve and endorsement. The expression of degree cannot and
should not be artificially sectioned off.
Conclusion
This study draws on several theoretical approaches to the expression of degree (Bolinger; Paradis;
Martin and White), applied to a specific corpus of contemporary oral English (monologue in the form
of speeches).
Modification, chiefly within adjectival and nominal phrases, has been placed within the broader
picture of other forms of expression of high degree (superlatives, comparatives, reference to totality,
lexis, speaker investment/epistemic modality) which all inform marketing discourse. The keynotes can
be contrasted with the Ted talks: the former contain relatively little low/moderate degree and are
dominated by high degree, which construes maximum speaker investment. Moreover, the
multiplication of high degree modifiers reflects linguistic choices which can be traced to a certain
cockiness, or even pushiness, by the speaker. On the other hand, degree modifiers in the Ted talks
point to an effort to create empathy and solidarity with the audience.
The attempt to classify the different ungrammaticised modifiers found in the corpus provided the
opportunity to explore the different semantic fields, as well as Paradis’ bounded/unbounded
distinction. A different distribution of the semantic categories was posited for modification depending
on the context (adjectival or nominal). Moreover, in the keynotes, the rate of construal of
bounded/totality reference is higher for nominal modifiers than in other contexts: indeed, modifiers
such as incredibly, awesome or remarkable prove valuable to construe a sense of exclusiveness and a
sense of the exceptional in pitching a product, and they are able to ‘spice up” quite run-of-the-mill
referents.
The lexical/ungrammaticised end of the spectrum has also been explored as regards novel and
unconventional usage. Not as much novel usage was found as expected in the keynotes; the most
interesting examples (those that provide theoretical food for thought) are from the Ted Talks, more
specifically two Ted talks, those delivered by two writers. Despite the role of oral language as a vector
for language change (as underlined for example by Paradis 2008), literary savyness plays an important
part in the coining of expressions and therefore language change.
Finally, the fact that the expression of degree is very often manifested lexically begs the question as to
whether it is primarily a grammatical or a lexical notion. In itself, degree corresponds to a domain of
linguistic enquiry which is unbounded.
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Appendix
Semantic classification of ungrammaticised adjectival modifiers (based on Bolinger 1972) (Cf.
Table 1)
Jobs
Impact
Amazingly (e.g. amazingly zippy)
Incredibly (e.g. incredibly sharp)
Ravishingly (ravishingly beautiful)
Tangibility
Dramatically (e.g. dramatically better)
Singularity
Particularly (e.g. particularly clever)
Evaluation
Awfully (e.g. awfully good)
Insanely (insanely great)
Perfectly (e.g. perfectly reasonable)
Super (e.g. super excited)
Wonderfully (e.g. wonderfully passionate)
Purity
Simply (e.g. simply amazing)
Completely (e.g. completely backwards
compatible)
Spatial
Far (e.g. far safer)
Limit/boundary
Exceedingly (e.g. exceedingly likely)
Extremely (e.g. extremely grateful)
Ultra (e.g. ultra thin)
Misc.
Brand (e.g. brand new)
Downright (e.g. downright paranormal)
Schiller
4
1
3
Ted
Talks
3
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
4
2
2
4
2
2
1
1
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Totality and Scalar categories of adjectival modifiers (cf. Table 2)
TOTALITY (definite
boundary)
Maximisers
all
completely
brand
downright
? exceedingly
? extremely
?incredibly
just
perfectly
sheer
? so
ultra
simply
pretty
ravishingly
amazingly
insanely
Approximators
SCALAR (unbounded)
Boosters
awfully
dramatically
enormously
far
particularly
really
very
wonderfully
Moderators
kind of
quite
sort of
Diminishers
slightly
super
Jobs
Schiller
Ted Talks
34
2
6
12
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
3
2
11
4
1
1
1
1
2
10
1
1
1
0
54
1
1
0
0
3
25
1
1
38
13
3
1
1
4
1
3
1
1
1
17
5
1
8
2
1
5
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Semantic classification of nominal modifiers (cf. Table 3)
Jobs
Impact
?Awesome (e.g. awesome security)
Extraordinary (e.g. an extraordinary
battery)
Incredible (e.g.an incredible thing)
Remarkable (e.g. a remarkable job)
Revolutionary (e.g.a revolutionary
product)
Singularity
Major (e.g. major breakthrough)
The number one (e.g. the number one
use)
Radical (e.g. its radical ease of use)
Purity/Veracity
Absolute (e.g. an absolute jewel)
Gold (e.g. the gold standard)
True (e.g. true market opportunity)
Real (e.g. a real difference)
Totality
Entirely (e.g. entirely your fault)
Full (e.g. full swing)
Full-blooded (e.g. a full-blooded
Macintosh)
Total (e.g.a total decoy)
Unabashed (e.g. an unabashed success)
Misc.
Blazing (the blazing latter [way to live])
Compound adj :
Award-winning (e.g.the award-winning
iPod user interface)
Schiller
Ted
Talks
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Totality and Scalar categories of nominal modifiers (cf. Table 4)
TOTALITY (definite
boundary)
Maximisers
The number one
Radical
Absolute
Gold
True
Real
Entirely
Full
Full-blooded
Total
Unabashed
?Awesome
?Extraordinary
?Incredible
?Remarkable
?Revolutionary
Blazing
Award-winning
Approximators
SCALAR (unbounded)
Boosters
Big
Huge
Mega
Monumental
Major
Great
Moderators
Diminishers
Little
Jobs
Schiller
1
1
1
Ted Talks
1
1
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sources: Ted talks
Al Gore, “Averting the Climate Crisis” http://www.ted.com/talks/al_gore_on_averting_climate_crisis.html
Elizabeth Gilbert, “Your Elusive Creative Genius” http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html
Jason Fried, “Why Work doesn’t happen at Work”
http://www.ted.com/talks/jason_fried_why_work_doesn_t_happen_at_work.html
Nikki Gemmell, « A Letter to my Goddaughter » http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/A-Letter-to-my-God-DaughterNik;search%3Atag%3A%22tedxsouthbankwomen%22
Journée d’étude “L’expression du degré” Agrégation d’Anglais Option C, 24 janvier 2014, Université Bordeaux Montaigne
Fiona Rossette : Exploring the Expression of High Degree in a Corpus of Oral English
Selected References:
Albrespit, J. (2005) “Le suffixe –ish en anglais: comparaison par approximation”, Travaux
linguistiques du CerLiCO 18.
Biber, D. et al (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Longman.
Bolinger, D. (1972) Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cockroft, R. & Cockroft, S. (1992, 2005) Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gournay, L. (2005) « La répétition lexicale séquentielle et l’expression du haut degré : une étude
contrastive français-anglais », Travaux linguistiques du CerLiCO 18.
Guimier, C. (1988) Syntaxe de l’adverbe anglais. Presses universitaires de Lille.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Edward Arnold.
Herwig, R. (1998)‘Putting it mildly’: The Interrelation between Adverbs of Manner and Adverbs of
Degree, Erfurt Electronic Studies in English.
Huart, R. (2012) “Ajustement et recentrage: les constructions de la forme QLT A GN (such a fuss,
what a mess, rather a chore, quite a dilemma, how big a piece…) in Filippi-Deswelle, C. (ed)
L’ajustement dans la TOE d’Antoine Culioli. Epologos 3.
Lapaire, J.-R. (2014) Degré et action gestuelle. Journée d’étude « L’expression du degré « , Université
Bordeaux Montaigne, 24 janvier.
Paradis, C. (1997) Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund S.
Paradis, C. (2008) “Configurations, construals and change: expressions of degree”, English Language
and Linguistics 12.2: 317-343.
Martin, J. & Rose, D. (2008) Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, J. & White, P. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rossette, F. (2013) “And-Prefaced Utterances: From Speech to Text”, Anglophonia, 34. 105-135.
Schriffin, D. (1987) Discourse markers. Cambridge: CUP.