Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 21:2 (2016) ► pp. 219–249

Literal versus exaggerated always and never

A cross-genre corpus study

| University of California, Los Angeles
In this cross-genre study of the literal versus exaggerated meanings of the frequency adverbs always and never, I analyze three data sets: written and spoken language (academic speech, unscripted TV/radio dialog, and casual speech); local, national, and international news articles; and humanities, science-technology, and medical articles. For each genre, I calculate what I call the ‘Exaggeration Quotient’ (instances of always and never divided by instances of often or frequently and rarely or infrequently, respectively) and the rate of negation of always. Large Exaggeration Quotients and low negation rates were associated with informality, a pattern explicable in terms of specific aspects of informal language that motivate exaggeration, including perceived accountability for accuracy. In other words, formality is a proxy for certain features, goals, and expectations which are associated with certain genres and which affect how we use and understand always and never. This analysis supports a cognitive-functional, encyclopedic view of meaning.
Keywords: cognitive, accountability, hyperbole, adverbs, frequency
Published online: 08 September 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.2.04lin
References
Always, adv
(2015) Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://​www​.oed​.com​/view​/Entry​/5941 (last accessed March 2015).Google Scholar
Anthony, L
(2011) AntConc (Version 3.3.0) [Computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://​www​.antlab​.sci​.waseda​.ac​.jp​/antconc​_index​.html (last accessed April 2016).
Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E.J., Bluck, S., De Vries, B., Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P.E
(1990) Coding manual for conceptual/integrative complexity (Unpublished manuscript). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada and University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Benz, J.K., Tompson, T.N., & Rosenstiel, T
(2014) The Personal News Cycle. Arlington, VA: American Press Institute & Chicago, IL: Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Retrieved from http://​www​.mediainsight​.org​/Pages​/the​-personal​-news​-cycle​.aspx (last accessed May 2015).Google Scholar
Biber, D
(1993) The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and the Humanities, 26(5-6), 331–345.Google Scholar
(2006) University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R
(1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E
(1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M
(2006) Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cazes, J
(1983) Lest we exaggerate. Journal of Liquid Chromatography, 6(9), 1557–1558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J
(1987) Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S.J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 83–113). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Claridge, C
(2011) Hyperbole in English: A Corpus-based Study of Exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M
(2008-) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/ (last accessed April 2016).Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W., Chafe, W.L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S.A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N
(2000) Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1-4. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Dutta-Bergman, M.J
(2004) Complementarity in consumption of news types across traditional and new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(1), 41–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M
(2006) Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C
(1995) Co-occurrence and antonymy. International Journal of Lexicography, 8(4), 281–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, J.J., Holliman, E.C., & McDaniel, J
(1992) SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (Vol. 11, pp. 517–520). San Francisco, CA.
Gries, S.T., & Otani, N
(2010) Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English Journal, 341, 121–150.Google Scholar
Hardy, J.A., & Römer, U
(2013) Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 8(2), 183–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hartung, W
(1996) Die Bearbeitung von Perspektiven-Divergenzen durch das Ausdrücken von Gereiztheit. In W. Kallmeyer (Ed.), Gesprächsrhetorik (pp. 118–189). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., Hahn, K.S., Bonfadelli, H., & Marr, M
(2009) “Dark areas of ignorance” revisited: Comparing international affairs knowledge in Switzerland and the United States. Communication Research, 36(3), 341–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Z
(2007) Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 417–443. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S
(2002) Antonymy: A Corpus-based Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) A lexico-syntactic analysis of antonym co-occurrence in spoken English. Text & Talk, 26(2), 127–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) “Opposites” in discourse: A comparison of antonym use across four domains. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1105–1119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S., & Murphy, M.L
(2005) Using corpora to investigate antonym acquisition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3), 401–422. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, S., Murphy, M.L., Paradis, C., & Willners, C
(2012) Antonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and Canonicity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Justeson, J.S., & Katz, S.M
(1991) Co-occurrences of antonymous adjectives and their contexts. Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
Kearns, K
(2000) Semantics. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, E.L
(2006) Quantifiers: Semantics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp. 302–308). Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W
(1984) Intensity. In D. Schiffren (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984: Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 43–70). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1988) An overview of cognitive grammar. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 3–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1990) The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Legitt, J.S., & Gibbs, R.W
(2000) Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, P
(2005) The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Link, K.E., & Kreuz, R.J
(2005) Do men and women differ in their use of nonliteral language when they talk about emotions? In H.L. Colston & A.N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension. Social and Cultural Influences (pp. 153–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M., & Carter, R
(2004) “There’s millions of them”: Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 149–184. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGlone, M.S., & Reed, A.B
(1998) Anchoring in the interpretation of probability expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 723–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mettinger, A
(1994) Aspects of Semantic Opposition in English. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Muehleisen, V
(1997) Antonymy and Semantic Range in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
Murphy, M.L
(1994) In Opposition to an Organized Lexicon: Pragmatic Principles and Lexical Semantic Relations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
(2003) Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonyms, Synonyms and Other Semantic Paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nakao, M.A., & Axelrod, S
(1983) Numbers are better than words: Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. The American Journal of Medicine, 74(6), 1061–1065. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C., & Willners, C
(2006) Antonymy and negation: The boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1051–1080. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C., Willners, C., & Jones, S
(2009) Good and bad opposites: Using textual and experimental techniques to measure antonym canonicity. The Mental Lexicon, 4(3), 380–429. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pepper, S., & Prytulak, L.S
(1974) Sometimes frequently means seldom: Context effects in the interpretation of quantitative expressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 8(1), 95–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center
(2007) What Americans know: 1989-2007. Public knowledge of current affairs little changed by news and information revolutions. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://​www​.people​-press​.org​/2007​/04​/15​/public​-knowledge​-of​-current​-affairs​-little​-changed​-by​-news​-and​-information​-revolutions/ (last accessed April 2015).Google Scholar
(2012) Trends in news consumption: 1991-2012. In changing news landscape, even television is vulnerable. Retrieved from http://​www​.people​-press​.org​/2012​/09​/27​/section​-3​-news​-attitudes​-and​-habits​-2/ (last accessed April 2015).Google Scholar
Rockwell, P
(2005) Sarcasm on television talk shows: Determining speaker intent through verbal and non-verbal cues. In A. Clark (Ed.), Psychology of Moods (pp. 109–140). New York, NY: Nova.Google Scholar
Simpson, R.C., Briggs, S.L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J.M
(2002) The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P.E., & Streufert, S
(1992) Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C.P. Smith, J.W. Atkinson, D.C. McClelland, & J. Veroff (Eds.), Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis (pp. 393–400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D
(1982) Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 58(1), 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P.E
(1985) Integrative complexity of American and Soviet foreign policy rhetoric: A time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1565–1585. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P.E., Hannum, K.A., & Micheletti, P.M
(1984) Stability and change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cognitive versus rhetorical style hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 979–990. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tuckman, B.W
(1966) Integrative complexity: Its measurement and relation to creativity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 26(2), 369–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Von Fintel, K
(1995) A minimal theory of adverbial quantification (Unpublished manuscript). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Wallsten, T.S., Fillenbaum, S., & Cox, J.A
(1986) Base rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(5), 571–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willners, C
(2001) Antonyms in context: A corpus-based semantic analysis of Swedish descriptive adjectives. In Travaux de l’Institut de Linguistique de Lund 40. Lund: Department of Linguistics, Lund University.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad
2019.  In Register, Genre, and Style, Crossref logo
Lindley, Jori
2018. Discourse functions of always progressives: Beyond complaining. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 Crossref logo
Salas-Zárate, María del Pilar, Mario Andrés Paredes-Valverde, Miguel Ángel Rodriguez-García, Rafael Valencia-García & Giner Alor-Hernández
2017. Automatic detection of satire in Twitter: A psycholinguistic-based approach. Knowledge-Based Systems 128 ► pp. 20 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.