Chapter published in:
Voices Past and Present - Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts: In honor of Merja Kytö
Edited by Ewa Jonsson and Tove Larsson
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 97] 2020
► pp. 302–316

Intensification in dialogue vs. narrative in a corpus of present-day English fiction

| University of Oslo
| University of Oslo
This chapter examines adverbial intensification of adjectives in present-day English fiction, with the aim of establishing whether dialogic and narrative passages differ in this regard. Although the corpus is relatively small, the study indicates that the frequency of intensification differs across these two subregisters of fiction. Findings of a more qualitative nature include slight differences in preferred choice of intensifiers in dialogue (very > so > too) vs. narrative (so > too > very). Moreover, dialogue has a preference for evaluative adjectives, while narrative shows more variation. A comparison with authentic speech uncovered few clear patterns except the predominance of some high-frequency adverb-adjective combinations. Nevertheless, the differences between fictional dialogue and narrative demonstrate that linguistic phenomena may vary both within and across registers.
Keywords: intensifiers, adverb-adjective combinations, amplifiers, fictional dialogue vs. narrative, attributive vs. predicative
Published online: 05 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.97.18ebe
References

References

Aijmer, K.
2018 Intensification with very, really and so in selected varieties of English. In Corpora and Lexis, S. Hoffmann, A. Sand, S. Arndt-Lappe & L. M. Dillmann (eds), 106–139. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B.
1991 Amplifier collocations in spoken English. In English Computer Corpora: Selected Papers and Research Guide, S. Johansson & A. Stenström (eds), 127–147. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L.
2018 AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. http://​www​.laurenceanthony​.net​/software/ (8 February 2019).Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
1972 Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C. & Kytö, M.
2014  I had lost sight of them then for a bit, but I went on pretty fast: Two degree modifiers in the Old Bailey Corpus. In Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics, I. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker & J. Tuominen (eds), 29–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
CLAWS7
1996 A Post-editor’s Guide to CLAWS7 Tagging. Written by the UCREL team, University of Lancaster. http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk​/docs​/claws7​.html (8 February 2019).Google Scholar
Ebeling, S. O. & Ebeling, J.
Forthcoming. Dialogue vs. narrative in fiction: A cross-linguistic comparison. To appear in Languages in Contrast 20(2).
Granger, S.
1998 Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, A. P. Cowie (ed.), 145–160. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hendrikx, I.
2019 The Acquisition of Intensifying Constructions in Dutch and English by French-speaking CLIL and non-CLIL Students: Cross-linguistic Influence and Exposure Effects. PhD dissertation. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Ito, R. & Tagliamonte, S.
2003  Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society 32(2): 257–279. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S.
1993 ‘Sweetly oblivious’: Some aspects of adverb-adjective combinations in present-day English. In Data, Description, Discourse: Papers on the English Language in Honour of John McH Sinclair on his Sixtieth Birthday, Michael Hoey (ed.), 39–49. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Johansson, S., Ebeling, J. & Oksefjell, S.
1999/2002 English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus: Manual. University of Oslo. https://​www​.hf​.uio​.no​/ilos​/english​/services​/knowledge​-resources​/omc​/enpc​/ENPCmanual​.pdf (13 February 2019).Google Scholar
Lorenz, G. R.
1999 Adjective Intensification – Learners Versus Native Speakers: A Corpus Study of Argumentative Writing. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Macmillan Dictionary
online. https://​www​.macmillandictionary​.com/ (17 June 2019).
Martin, J. & White, P. R. R.
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Méndez-Naya, B.
2008 Special issue on English intensifiers, Introduction. English Language and Linguistics 12(2): 213–219. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Napoli, M. & Revetto, M.
(eds) 2017 Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, Diachronic and Cross-linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, C.
1997 Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Quaglio, P.
2008 Television dialogue and natural conversation: Linguistic similarities and functional differences. In Corpora and Discourse: The Challenges of Different Settings, A. Ädel & R. Reppen (eds), 189–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2018 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://​www​.R​-project​.org/ (8 February 2019).Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.
1991 Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S.
2008  So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics 12(2): 361–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelmsen, A.
2019  Pretty complete or completely pretty? Investigating Degree Modifiers in English and Norwegian Original and Translated Text. MA thesis, Université catholique de Louvain / University of Oslo. http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/2078​.1​/thesis:18894 (15 May 2020).
Xiao, R. & Tao. H.
2007 A corpus-based sociolinguistic study of amplifiers in British English. Sociolinguistic Studies 1(2): 241–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar