浅析爱尔兰英语扩音系统的历史变迁

IF 0.3 4区 文学 0 LITERATURE
M. Schweinberger
{"title":"浅析爱尔兰英语扩音系统的历史变迁","authors":"M. Schweinberger","doi":"10.33675/ANGL/2021/1/11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"From a language variation and change perspective, adjective amplification is particularly interesting, as this domain is prone to change (Brinton and Arnovik 2006, 441; Ito and Tagliamonte 2003, 257; Quirk et al. 1985, 590). The waxing and waning of forms, alongside invention and renewal (D'Arcy 2015, 450) in the domain of adjective amplification thus represents an area of grammar that undergoes \"fevered invention\" (Bolinger 1972, 18). The continuous change that is observable in the domain of adjective amplification is particularly intriguing because their changing nature predestines amplifier systems to be an ideal opportunity for testing assumptions about the underpinnings of language change. From the point of view of pragmatics, adjective amplifiers are intriguing because they play a crucial part in how speakers express themselves socially and emotionally (Labov 1985, 43; Ito and Tagliamonte 2003, 258). Thus, adjective amplifiers form part of an inventory on which speakers rely to create, index, and mark their social identity (Tagliamonte 2011, 30). Adjective amplification is a subtype of intensification and is related to the semantic category of degree. Accordingly, intensifying adverbs are also referred to as degree adverbs or adverbs of degree (Quirk et al. 1985, 589-590). Intensification ranges between very low intensity (downtoning) and very high intensity (amplification) (Quirk et al. 1985, 589-590). According to Quirk et al., amplifiers \"scale upwards from an assumed norm [while] downtoners have a lowering effect, usually scaling downwards from an assumed norm\" (1985, 590). The current paper focuses exclusively on adjective amplification (see (1) and (2)) while leaving aside downtoning (which encompasses approximators such as almost, compromisers such as more or less, diminishers such as partly, and minimizers such as hardly). Within the category of adjective amplifiers, Quirk et al. (1985, 589-590) differentiate between maximizers such as completely, which denote the upper extreme of the scale (Quirk et al. 1985, 590) and boosters such as very, which denote a high degree or a high point on the scale. Boosters, in particular, form an open class, which adopts new members to replace forms which have lost their expressiveness due to frequent use (Quirk et al. 1985, 590). In the present study, boosters and maximizers in both predicative and attributive contexts are considered. Differentiating between these two syntactic contexts is crucial because certain amplifier variants, for example so, are substantially less likely to occur in attributive contexts (although this tendency is quantitative rather than qualitative as can be seen from example 2c).","PeriodicalId":42547,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing Historical Changes in the Irish English Amplifier System\",\"authors\":\"M. Schweinberger\",\"doi\":\"10.33675/ANGL/2021/1/11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"From a language variation and change perspective, adjective amplification is particularly interesting, as this domain is prone to change (Brinton and Arnovik 2006, 441; Ito and Tagliamonte 2003, 257; Quirk et al. 1985, 590). The waxing and waning of forms, alongside invention and renewal (D'Arcy 2015, 450) in the domain of adjective amplification thus represents an area of grammar that undergoes \\\"fevered invention\\\" (Bolinger 1972, 18). The continuous change that is observable in the domain of adjective amplification is particularly intriguing because their changing nature predestines amplifier systems to be an ideal opportunity for testing assumptions about the underpinnings of language change. From the point of view of pragmatics, adjective amplifiers are intriguing because they play a crucial part in how speakers express themselves socially and emotionally (Labov 1985, 43; Ito and Tagliamonte 2003, 258). Thus, adjective amplifiers form part of an inventory on which speakers rely to create, index, and mark their social identity (Tagliamonte 2011, 30). Adjective amplification is a subtype of intensification and is related to the semantic category of degree. Accordingly, intensifying adverbs are also referred to as degree adverbs or adverbs of degree (Quirk et al. 1985, 589-590). Intensification ranges between very low intensity (downtoning) and very high intensity (amplification) (Quirk et al. 1985, 589-590). According to Quirk et al., amplifiers \\\"scale upwards from an assumed norm [while] downtoners have a lowering effect, usually scaling downwards from an assumed norm\\\" (1985, 590). The current paper focuses exclusively on adjective amplification (see (1) and (2)) while leaving aside downtoning (which encompasses approximators such as almost, compromisers such as more or less, diminishers such as partly, and minimizers such as hardly). Within the category of adjective amplifiers, Quirk et al. (1985, 589-590) differentiate between maximizers such as completely, which denote the upper extreme of the scale (Quirk et al. 1985, 590) and boosters such as very, which denote a high degree or a high point on the scale. Boosters, in particular, form an open class, which adopts new members to replace forms which have lost their expressiveness due to frequent use (Quirk et al. 1985, 590). In the present study, boosters and maximizers in both predicative and attributive contexts are considered. Differentiating between these two syntactic contexts is crucial because certain amplifier variants, for example so, are substantially less likely to occur in attributive contexts (although this tendency is quantitative rather than qualitative as can be seen from example 2c).\",\"PeriodicalId\":42547,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2021/1/11\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LITERATURE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ANGLISTIK UND AMERIKANISTIK","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2021/1/11","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERATURE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从语言变异和变化的角度来看,形容词放大特别有趣,因为这个领域容易发生变化(Brinton and Arnovik 2006, 441;Ito and Tagliamonte 2003, 257;Quirk et al. 1985, 590)。因此,在形容词放大领域,形式的盛衰以及发明和更新(D'Arcy 2015, 450)代表了一个经历“狂热发明”的语法领域(Bolinger 1972, 18)。在形容词放大领域中观察到的持续变化特别有趣,因为它们不断变化的性质决定了放大系统是测试关于语言变化基础的假设的理想机会。从语用学的角度来看,形容词放大器很有趣,因为它们在说话者如何在社交和情感上表达自己方面起着至关重要的作用(Labov 1985,43;Ito and Tagliamonte 2003, 258)。因此,形容词放大器构成了说话者创建、索引和标记其社会身份的清单的一部分(Tagliamonte 2011,30)。形容词放大是强化的一个子类,与程度的语义范畴有关。因此,强化副词也被称为程度副词或程度副词(Quirk et al. 1985,589 -590)。强度范围在非常低的强度(减弱)和非常高的强度(放大)之间(Quirk et al. 1985, 589-590)。根据Quirk等人的说法,放大器“从假设的范数向上缩放[而]降音器具有降低效果,通常从假设的范数向下缩放”(1985,590)。目前的论文只关注形容词放大(见(1)和(2)),而忽略了降调(包括近似器,如almost,折衷器,如more or less,减少器,如partly,和最小化器,如hardly)。在形容词放大器的范畴内,Quirk等人(1985,589-590)区分了最大化者,如完全,这表示量表的上极值(Quirk等人,1985,590)和促进者,如非常,这表示量表上的高度或高点。特别是,助推器形成了一个开放的类,它采用新成员来取代由于频繁使用而失去表现力的形式(Quirk et al. 1985,590)。本研究考虑了谓语和定语语境中的助推器和最大化器。区分这两种句法语境至关重要,因为某些放大器变体,例如so,基本上不太可能出现在定语语境中(尽管这种趋势是定量的,而不是定性的,从例子2c中可以看出)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Analyzing Historical Changes in the Irish English Amplifier System
From a language variation and change perspective, adjective amplification is particularly interesting, as this domain is prone to change (Brinton and Arnovik 2006, 441; Ito and Tagliamonte 2003, 257; Quirk et al. 1985, 590). The waxing and waning of forms, alongside invention and renewal (D'Arcy 2015, 450) in the domain of adjective amplification thus represents an area of grammar that undergoes "fevered invention" (Bolinger 1972, 18). The continuous change that is observable in the domain of adjective amplification is particularly intriguing because their changing nature predestines amplifier systems to be an ideal opportunity for testing assumptions about the underpinnings of language change. From the point of view of pragmatics, adjective amplifiers are intriguing because they play a crucial part in how speakers express themselves socially and emotionally (Labov 1985, 43; Ito and Tagliamonte 2003, 258). Thus, adjective amplifiers form part of an inventory on which speakers rely to create, index, and mark their social identity (Tagliamonte 2011, 30). Adjective amplification is a subtype of intensification and is related to the semantic category of degree. Accordingly, intensifying adverbs are also referred to as degree adverbs or adverbs of degree (Quirk et al. 1985, 589-590). Intensification ranges between very low intensity (downtoning) and very high intensity (amplification) (Quirk et al. 1985, 589-590). According to Quirk et al., amplifiers "scale upwards from an assumed norm [while] downtoners have a lowering effect, usually scaling downwards from an assumed norm" (1985, 590). The current paper focuses exclusively on adjective amplification (see (1) and (2)) while leaving aside downtoning (which encompasses approximators such as almost, compromisers such as more or less, diminishers such as partly, and minimizers such as hardly). Within the category of adjective amplifiers, Quirk et al. (1985, 589-590) differentiate between maximizers such as completely, which denote the upper extreme of the scale (Quirk et al. 1985, 590) and boosters such as very, which denote a high degree or a high point on the scale. Boosters, in particular, form an open class, which adopts new members to replace forms which have lost their expressiveness due to frequent use (Quirk et al. 1985, 590). In the present study, boosters and maximizers in both predicative and attributive contexts are considered. Differentiating between these two syntactic contexts is crucial because certain amplifier variants, for example so, are substantially less likely to occur in attributive contexts (although this tendency is quantitative rather than qualitative as can be seen from example 2c).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信