Degree modifiers in the present study

Having considered the degree modifier classifications of Quirk et al. (1985), Allerton (1987) and Paradis (1997), the model adopted for the present study is presented in figure 2.3, below.

Figure 2.3 – Classification of degree modifiers (model based on Quirk et al. 1985 and Paradis 1997)

In terms of the hierarchical element, the levels of distinctions, and the terminology, it is basically a hybrid of the models of Quirk et al. (1985) and Paradis (1997). However, in the ensuing analysis, it will be clear that the more detailed aspects of both Allerton (1987) and Paradis (1997) with regard to the focus on the nature of the specific collocations of degree modifiers are also taken into account. In particular, the cognitive approach advocated by Paradis is implemented at various points in order to detail some of the finer aspects of analysis.

Even in selecting this model, there are still several important issues pertaining to its source classifications with which to contend. The first of these is that all three of the source models (and indeed all those prior ones mentioned above) are synchronic, being based on observations of present-day usage. Although that of Quirk et al. (1985) in

particular has been applied in some diachronic studies, most notably by Méndez-Naya (2003, 2006, 2007, 2008), it is typically only used in such cases as a preliminary means of distinguishing a particular type of degree modifier within the overall class; it offers no insight into the historical aspects of these items or, indeed, as to whether the same classification is appropriate for describing this phenomenon during previous stages of the language. Given that the research detailed in the ensuing sections focuses on only one of these categories (viz. maximizer), the former of these consequences is not of great import; however, with regard to the latter, it should be noted that the present research takes this model as it stands purely as a basis (in much the same way as in the studies by Méndez- Naya mentioned above) with the intention of providing further specificity by means of the diachronic analysis of the selected items.

The second issue concerns the scope of the existing classifications. Both that of Allerton (1987) and that of Paradis (1997) were designed on the basis of examinations of adjectival modification, and although the earlier model of Quirk et al. (1985) also makes reference to verbal constituents and, albeit more marginally, adverbial ones, any exemplification they provide tends to be limited to adjectival and verbal modification. Whilst it is not suggested that the classification of the degree modifiers would be any different had the models also considered their use with other constituent types, namely nominal and prepositional, it does mean that there is no previous direction as regards how the model may be applied to such collocations. In this respect, a certain amount of

guidance can be taken from Bolinger (1972) and Klein (1998), both of whom deal with a wide range of collocations in their studies of degree modifiers. Nonetheless, since these studies are synchronic, it is important to excise some caution when applying their insight to diachronic cases.

The amalgamated model of degree modifiers depicted in figure 2.3 is thus regarded in the analysis sections of the investigation that follows with these issues in mind.

However, prior to this, its principal preliminary purpose is to provide a uniform classification and set of terms with which to consider the previous research on degree modifiers and to detail the focus of the present study within this context. It is to these latter-mentioned issues that the subsequent section turns.

3. Previous research on degree modifiers

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the study of degree modifiers has been a popular topic in English linguistics, though much of the recent focus had been on

synchronic issues such as their precise context(s) of use in present-day English (e.g. Diehl 2005; Tao 2007; Palacios-Martínez 2009), their distribution across social groups, varieties, registers and text types (e.g. Paradis 2000; Stenström 2000; Bauer & Bauer 2002;

Tagliamonte & Roberts 2005; Pahta 2006), and their competition within a given time period (e.g. Ito &Tagliamonte 2003; Méndez-Naya 2004; Tagliamonte 2008). In taking synchronic approaches, these sources provide focused descriptions of specific issues concerning selected degree modifiers within particular time-frames. Nevertheless, they fail to account for issues such as the developments beyond that of the degree modifier functions (e.g. response particles) and the way in which the various functions of the members of the maximizer class are (inter)related, all of which may be observed through historical analysis.

Among the more limited diachronic studies, typical concerns are the competition of different degree modifiers across time (e.g. Peters 1992) and elucidating the development of the degree modifying function of individual items (e.g. Nevalainen & Rissanen 2002; Méndez-Naya 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008; Adamson & González-Díaz 2004; Buchstaller & Traugott 2006; Rissanen 2008). In focusing on degree modifiers as a class, or on a particular sub-type, the former type of study is unable to go into detail with regard to individual items. Conversely, the latter type is able to provide specific details of the development of individual degree modifiers, yet does not consider the way in which these relate to the particular sub-category to which they belong. In this respect, it is not possible for such investigations to consider issues pertaining to a particular sub-category which may arise from the comparison of the development of its members.

In view of the above-noted imbalance with regard to the relative proportions of synchronic and diachronic studies among the previous investigations of degree modifiers, the present research seeks to contribute to the less abundant diachronic consortium. Its contribution achieves somewhat of a balance between the concerns of the limited previous diachronic studies (detailed briefly, above) in that it provides detailed accounts of the development of a selection of individual degree modifiers, but also extrapolates from these analyses in order to gain a comprehensive insight into an entire sub-class.