Patterns and Meanings of Intensifiers in Chinese Learner Corpora

(1)

(2)

Patterns and Meanings of Intensifi ers

in Chinese Learner Corpora

Intensifi cation plays a major role in spoken and written interaction, enabling the writer or speaker to express different levels of commitment. This book explores the patterns and meanings of intensifi ers in Chinese learner English by ways of comparison with native English. The study adopts the method of contrastive inter-language analysis (CIA) and is conducted within the theoretical framework of Firthian contextual theory of meaning, the Sinclairian model of extended units of meaning (EUM) and Hunston’s pattern grammar. This book is the fi rst attempt to investigate the patterning and meaning features of intensifi ers systematically with the corpora data in Chinese learner English. Readers will obtain a relatively com-plete picture of how Chinese learners use intensifi ers to realize their attitudinal meanings.

Chunyan Wang is an associate professor at the School of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Her research interests include data-driven learn-ing, second language acquisition, language teaching and language testing.

(3)

China Perspectives series

The China Perspectives series focuses on translating and publishing works by leading Chinese scholars, writing about both global topics and China-related themes. It covers humanities and social sciences, education, media and psychol-ogy, as well as many interdisciplinary themes.

This is the fi rst time any of these books have been published in English for international readers. The series aims to put forward a Chinese perspective, give insights into cutting-edge academic thinking in China and inspire researchers globally.

For more information, please visit https://www.routledge.com/series/CPH. Forthcoming titles

The Use of L1 Cognitive Resources in L2 Reading by Chinese EFL Learners Wu Shiyu

On Aesthetic and Cultural Issues in Pragmatic Translation Feng Xiuwen

Assessing Listening for Chinese English Learners

Developing a Communicative Listening Comprehension Test Suite for CET Pan Zhixin

Complementarity between Lexis and Grammar in the System of Person A Systemic Typological Approach

Wang Pin Language Policy

A Systemic Functional Linguistic Approach Yang Bingjun &Wang Rui

A Study of Academic English Genre Lei Xiuyun

(4)

Patterns and Meanings

of Intensifi ers in Chinese

Learner Corpora

(5)

First published 2017 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

The right of Chunyan Wang to be identifi ed as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or

registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-20253-5 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-315-47373-4 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC

(6)

List of diagrams vi

List of tables vii

Acknowledgement xi

List of abbreviations xii

1 Introduction 1

2 Literature review 5

3 Research design and methodology 29

4 Data distribution 36

5 Patterning features of intensifi ers in Chinese learner corpora 51 6 Semantic preference and semantic prosody of intensifi ers 88

7 Conclusions and implications 123

Appendices 130

References 169

Index 179

(7)

2-1 Subtypes of intensifi ers (from Quirk et al., 1985: 589–590.) 6

3-1 Partial retrieved results by PowerGREP 34

4-1 Frequency distribution of INT-adj 37

4-2 Observed frequency of intensifi ers in each corpus 39 4-3 Token percentage of different frequency intensifi er groups 41 4-4 Type percentage of different frequency intensifi ers groups 41

4-5 Double intensifi ers in each corpus 42

4-6 The percentage of amplifi ers and downtoners in each corpus 43 4-7 Frequency of intensifi ers and adjectives in each corpus 46 4-8 Frequency of intensifi ed adjectives and intensifi ed

multi-adjective collocates 47

5-1 Overall percentage of typical pattern types in CLEC

and LOCNESS 54

5-2 Frequency of the pattern neg MAX adj pattern 56

5-3 The pattern VERY VERY adj in different registers of BNC 66 6-1 Frequency of the fi ve maximizers in the CL corpora

and NS corpora 89

(8)

Tables

2.1 Classifi cation of degree modifi ers (Paradis 2000) 8

2.2 Different syntactic positions of really 10

3.1 Sizes of the corpora used in this research (1) 32

3.2 Sizes of the corpora used in this research (2) 33

4.1 Frequency distribution of INT-adj collocations 37

4.2 Top-twenty, most-frequent INT-adj collocations in each corpus 38

4.3 Frequency of intensifi ers in each corpus 39

4.4 Token number and percentage of intensifi er groups 40 4.5 Type number and percentage of intensifi er groups 41 4.6 Frequency of double intensifi ers in each corpus 42

4.7 Statistics of amplifi ers and downtoners 43

4.8 Top-twenty, most-frequent intensifi ers in each corpus 45

4.9 Frequency of adjectives in each corpus 46

4.10 Frequency of intensifi ed adjectives in each corpus 46 4.11 Frequency of multi-adjective collocates in each corpus 47 4.12 Top-twenty, most-frequent intensifi ed adjectives with

standardized frequency in each corpus 49

5.1 Overall frequency and percentage of typical patterns in

CLEC and LOCNESS 53

5.2 The investigated intensifi ers in each functional category 54

5.3 Frequency of the pattern neg MAX adj 55

5.4 Concordance lines for neg MAX adj in FROWN 56

5.5 Pattern neg MAX adj in native English 57

5.6.1 Concordance lines for neg COMPLETELY adj in WECCL 57 5.6.2 Concordance lines for neg ABSOLUTELY adj in WECCL 57 5.6.3 Concordance lines for neg FULLY adj in WECCL 58

5.7 Pattern neg MAX adj in learner English 58

5.8 Frequency of quite in CL corpus and NS corpora 60

5.9 Concordance lines for QUITE adj in FROWN 61

5.10 Concordance lines for quite in CLEC 61

5.11 Patterns of QUITE adj in CL and NS corpora 62 5.12 Concordance lines for the pattern a QUITE adj n in FLOB 63 5.13 Concordance lines for the pattern QUITE a adj n in FLOB 63

(9)

viii Tables

5.14 Concordance lines for the pattern QUITE a adj n in CLEC 64 5.15 Concordance lines for the pattern a QUITE adj n in CLEC 64 5.16 Concordance lines for the pattern VERY VERY adj in CLEC 65

5.17 Collocates of so in each sub-corpus of CLEC 67

5.18 Concordance lines for improper use of SO many in CLEC 67 5.19 Concordance lines for improper use of SO much in CLEC 68

5.20 Concordance lines for SO much in the FROWN 69

5.21 Frequency of too in CL and NS corpus 69

5.22 Improper usage of TOO much in CLEC 70

5.23 Improper usage of TOO many in CLEC 70

5.24 The pattern v-link TOO much to be v-ed in CLEC 71 5.25 Concordance lines for the pattern v -link intensifi er

TOO much in NS corpora 71

5.26 Concordance lines for TOO many in CLEC 72

5.27 Concordance lines for TOO many in FROWN 73

5.28 Concordance lines for the pattern TOO adj to v in FROWN 74 5.29.1 Concordance lines for the pattern MORE AND MORE

adj in CLEC(1) 75

5.29.2 Concordance lines for the pattern MORE AND MORE adj

in CLEC(2) 76

5.30 Concordance lines for the pattern MORE AND MORE adj

in FLOB 76

5.31 Concordance lines for MORE AND MORE in CLEC 77 5.32 Concordance lines for the pattern INCREASINGLY adj in CLEC 77 5.33 Concordance lines for the pattern INCREASINGLY adj

in FROWN 78

5.34 Collocational behaviors of MORE AND MORE 78

5.35 Typical patterns of almost 79

5.36 Typical patterns of rather 80

5.37 Typical patterns of a little 80

5.38 Typical patterns of hardly 81

6.1 Frequency of the fi ve maximizers in the CL corpora and

the NS corpora 89

6.2 Concordance lines for completely in FROWN 90

6.3 Frequency and percentage of positive, negative and neutral

adjective collocates of completely in NS corpora 91

6.4 Concordance lines for totally in FROWN 92

adjective collocates of totally in NS corpora 94

6.6 Concordance lines for absolutely in FLOB 95

adjective collocates of absolutely in the NS corpora 95

6.8 Concordance lines for entirely in FLOB 96

(10)

Tables ix

6.10 Concordance lines for fully in FROWN 97

adjective collocates of fully in NS corpora 98

6.12 Semantic preference and semantic prosody of maximizers

in NS corpora 98

6.13 Frequency of the fi ve maximizers in CL corpora 99 6.14 Frequency and percentage of positive, negative and neutral

adjective collocates of completely in the CL corpora 99

6.15 Concordance lines for completely in WECCL 100

6.16 Concordance lines for totally in CLEC 101

adjective collocates of totally in CL corpora 101

6.18 Concordance lines for absolutely in WECCL 102

adjective of absolutely in CL corpora 103

6.20 Concordance lines for entirely in CLEC 103

6.21 Concordance lines for fully in WECCL 104

adjective collocates of fully in CL corpora 104

6.23 Semantic preference and semantic prosody of maximizers

in CL corpora 105

6.24 Semantic preferences of very in NS corpora 106

6.25 Frequency and percentage of positive, negative

and neutral adjective collocates of very in NS corpora 106

6.26 Semantic preferences of so in NS corpora 107

6.27 Frequency and percentage of positive, negative

and neutral adjective collocates of so in NS corpora 107 6.28 Semantic preferences of too in NS corpora

6.29 Frequency and percentage of positive, negative and

neutral adjective collocates of too in NS corpora 108 6.30 Semantic preference and prosody of very , so and too

in NS corpora 109

6.31 Semantic preferences of very in CLEC 110

adjective collocates of very in CLEC 110

6.33 Semantic preferences of so in CLEC 111

adjective collocates of so in CLEC 111

6.35 Semantic preferences of too in CLEC 112

adjective collocates of too in CLEC 112

6.37 Semantic preference and prosody of maximizers in CLEC 112 6.38 Frequency of the observed downtoners in NS and

the CL corpora 113

(11)

x Tables

6.40 Frequency and percentage of positive, negative and

the neutral adjective collocates of a little in NS corpora 114

6.41 Concordance lines for a bit in FROWN 115

adjective collocates of a bit in NS corpora 115

6.43 Concordance lines for a little bit in NS corpora 116

6.44 Concordance lines for a little in CLEC 117

adjective collocates of a little in CLEC 117

6.46 Concordance lines for a bit in CLEC 118

adjective collocates of a bit in CLEC 118

6.48 Concordance lines for a little bit in CLEC 119

(12)

I would like to thank all the people who have helped me in completing this book, which was originally my doctoral dissertation for Shanghai Jiaotong University.

I feel most deeply indebted and grateful to my supervisor, Prof. Wei Naixing, who has always been a strict but kind, skillful and patient mentor. Without his professional supervision and warm encouragement, this book would not have come to fruition.

I am also obliged to Prof. Wang Tongshun, Prof. Hu Quansheng, Prof. Qu Weiguo, Prof. Ma Qiuwu, Prof. Shao Zhihong, Prof. Chen Yongjie, Prof. Hu Kai-bao and Prof. Tian Yan for their time and energy spent on this dissertation. Their valuable criticisms and constructive suggestions have contributed greatly to the refi nement of my dissertation. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to Prof. Li Wenzhong, Prof. Liangmaocheng and Prof. Xu Jiajin, who kindly gave me suggestions for my dissertation.

My sincere thanks also go to all the other teachers in the School of Foreign Languages at Shanghai Jiao Tong University including Prof. Yang Huizhong, Prof. Wu Jiang and Prof. Zhu Zhengcai, whose enlightening lectures and instructions kindled interests in my PhD study and guided me into the research fi eld. Special thanks go to my colleague and friend Wu Yong, who was generous to share her useful material with me.

Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to all my family members: my parents, my sisters, my husband and my son. Their unreserved love and unswerv-ing support are the source of my courage in pursuunswerv-ing my doctorate study and fulfi lling this project.

(13)

Abbreviations

BNC British National Corpus CA Contrastive Analysis

CIA Contrastive interlanguage analysis CL Chinese learner

CLAWS Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-Tagging System CLEC Chinese Learner English Corpus

DDL Data-driven learning EA Error analysis

EFL English as a foreign language EUM Extend units of meaning

F Raw frequency

FLOB Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English FROWN Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English ICLE International Corpus of Learner English INT-adj Intensifi er-adjective collocations KWIC Key Word in Context

L1 The fi rst language

L2 The second language

LOCNESS Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays

MAX Maximizer

Neg Negative marker NNS Non-native speaker NS Native speaker POS Part of speech

SF Standardized frequency

SPSS Statistical Program for Social Science

(14)

1 Introduction

1.1 Research background

The knowledge of collocations is a critical element for a foreign language learner to achieve native-like accuracy and fl uency (Pawley & Syder, 1983). Profi cient native language users are intuitively aware that some words in their language tend to co-occur in relatively fi xed and recurrent combinations, and they reject viola-tions of such lexical combinaviola-tions, even when they seem to be grammatically acceptable (Bartsch, 2004). Foreign language learners may know quite a lot of individual words which they struggle to use, along with their grammatical knowl-edge, but they lack the ability to use those words in a range of collocations which pack more meaning into what they say or write (Lewis & Conzett, 2000: 14). So learners must know how to use words in appropriate combinations if they wish to acquire a native-like fl uency in English (Benson et al., 1997).

The importance of collocation acquisition has already been recognized by many researchers, including Channell (1981), Bahns and Eldaw (1993), Lewis (1993) and Taeko (2005), etc. A wide range of empirical research has been carried out from different perspectives to uncover patterns of collocations and to reveal peda-gogical implications. Studies of collocation in the fi rst language (L1) and the sec-ond language (L2) in China have been carried out by many researchers (Pu, 1999, 2003; Wei, 2002a; Wang, 2005; Sun, 2006). However, the collocational study of intensifi ers in Chinese learners’ English has not yet been conducted systematically based on a large-scale corpus.

Intensifi ers express an interpersonal message, which signals personal commit-ment and their judgcommit-ments of truth and value (Lorenz, 1999: 24). Linguistically, the use of intensifi ers is the most typical way of realizing intensifi cation to show the attitudinal meaning. From the systemic functional perspective, intensifi ers serve a modal function, and they convey an interpersonal meaning and provide informa-tion about the social and emoinforma-tional stance of the speaker (Labov, 1985; Partington, 1993; Halliday, 1994; Peters, 1994; Klerk, 2006).

Intensifi cation plays a major role in spoken and written interaction, enabling the writer or speaker to express different levels of commitment ranging from caution and doubt (e.g. fairly certain ) to certainty and emphasis (e.g. absolutely vital ). It is pervasive in all uses of language (Stubbs, 1986).

(15)

2 Introduction

Partington (1993: 178) emphasizes the importance of intensifi cation. He argues, Intensifi cation is a direct indication of a speaker’s desire to use and exploit an expression of hyperbole. . . . The importance of intensifi cation in the com-municative process is that it is a vehicle for impressing, praising, persuading, insulting and generally infl uencing the listener’s reception of the message. Labov (1985) stresses strongly the importance and necessity of the description of language that recognizes social and emotional elements in the central compo-nents of linguistic structure. He argues for the importance of intensity by the fol-lowing statements: “At the heart of social and emotional expression is the linguistic feature of intensity.” (Labov, 1985: 43)

The study of intensifi ers from a collocational point of view has attracted great attention from researchers (Alternberg, 1991; Granger, 1998a; Kennedy, 2003). Their research fi ndings indicate that the use of intensifi ers is subject to a number of syntactic, semantic, lexical and stylistic restrictions.

Intensifi ers actually remain a rather diffi cult area for language learners, even for those at more advanced levels of profi ciency (Lorenz, 1999). Chinese learners of English display their weakness in using intensifi er collocations (Chen, 2003; Liang, 2003; Zhang, 2008). Yang and Gui (2003) fi nd that learner errors of the intensifi er-adjective collocations account for rather low percentage among all the collocational errors in learner English. They point out that the low percentage of intensifi er-adjective collocations refl ects learners’ limited skill of using intensifi ers rather than their competence of using intensifi ers properly. It is of vital importance of investigating how learners use intensifi ers to realize their attitudinal meaning.

1.2 Aims and objectives

This research sets out to conduct a systematic study of the use of intensifi ers in learner English, with a view to characterizing their salient patterning and meaning features and functions. Specially, the following objectives are expected to be achieved.

First, this research attempts to explore the overall tendency of intensifi er distribu-tion in learner English and the reladistribu-tionship between the learners’ use of intensifi ers and their English profi ciency level. Therefore, the data distribution of intensifi ers in learner corpora in comparison with that in the native corpora will be described.

Second, patterning features of the intensifi ers in learner English with reference to native English will be uncovered in terms of their collocation, colligation, semantic meaning and function.

Third, this research seeks to characterize the semantic and pragmatic features of intensifi ers in learner English in comparison with those in native English. To meet this objective, the semantic preference and semantic prosody of intensifi ers will be examined.

Fourth, this study endeavors to fi nd out the underlying factors for the existing problems of using intensifi ers by Chinese learners of English. Pedagogical

(16)

Introduction 3 implications of teaching and learning of intensifi ers will be made based on the research fi ndings.

1.3 Signifi cance of the present study

Compared with previous studies, the present study has its signifi cance in the fol-lowing aspects.

Methodologically, retrieving data from the pos-tagged corpora and checking the retrieved data by manual work guarantee the representativeness and reli-ability of the research data. Different from most previous studies in which only a limited number of intensifi ers are analyzed, this study aims to derive a rela-tively comprehensive picture of how Chinese learners use intensifi ers in the written language production. Both the native corpus and the learner corpus employed in this research are pos-tagged, which can yield valuable linguistic insights about the differences and similarities among the investigated entities (Granger, 1998a; Borin & Prütz, 2004). All the intensifi er-adjective collocations in the employed corpora are retrieved. The retrieved results are manually checked in order to remove the inaccurate intensifi er collocations. By this method, the overall picture of the data distribution of intensifi ers in the studied corpora and the detailed frequency information of intensifi ers in each sub-corpus can be worked out. The most frequently used intensifi ers by learners will be studied in depth with regard to their patterning and meaning features. In conse-quence, this research is believed to result in more comprehensive and convinc-ing conclusions than by the previous studies.

Theoretically, this study is carried out within the framework of Sinclair’s extended units of meaning (EUM). In traditional linguistic studies, a word is regarded as the carrier of meaning or a meaning unit. The EUM model regards the multi-word units as the normal carrier of meaning. The meaning of a word stretches out into its context through different levels of co-selections in terms of collocation, colligation, semantic preference and semantic prosody. The EUM model has been increasingly used in descriptive linguistic studies (Sinclair, 1996; Tognini-Bonelli, 2001; Li, 2010). However, in most cases, it mostly focuses on native English and is rarely used for the study of learner English. Therefore, it is of signifi cant value to investigate intensifi ers in learner English within the four categories of colloca-tion, colligacolloca-tion, semantic preference and semantic prosody in the framework of EUM. By doing so, we expect to bring more insights into the descriptive system of units of meaning and thus gain a more comprehensive picture of the intensifi er use in learner English.

Pedagogically, the description of intensifi er collocations in native English and learner English offers insights into English teaching in China. The traditional teach-ing of English in China treats lexis and grammar as separate entities. Accordteach-ing to this teaching paradigm, learners are taught to create sentences by connecting indi-vidual words based on grammatical rules. An inevitable problem is that many gen-erated sentences are grammatically acceptable but lack idiomaticity and nativeness (Pawley & Syder, 1983; Howarth, 1998). This study will describe collocational

(17)

4 Introduction

patterns of intensifi ers in native English and the existing problems of intensifi er use in learner English. By doing this, the collocational patterns of intensifi ers are sug-gested to be included in the teaching materials including teaching syllabus, learner dictionaries and textbooks. Therefore, this will contribute to raising learners’ aware-ness of collocations and guaranteeing learners’ fl uency and accuracy in English expression.

1.4 Organization of the book

This book is composed of seven chapters.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the research background by briefl y introduc-ing the importance of collocation study and the nature and signifi cance of intensi-fi er collocation study. Research objectives and an organization of the book are also included in this part.

Chapter 2 reviews the literature of related theories and previous studies on learner collocation as well as research on intensifi er collocation in western aca-demia and inside China. Defi nitions and classifi cation of intensifi ers in previous studies and this research are also introduced.

Chapter 3 deals with the research design and research methods through defi ning the analytical framework, intensifi ers to be explored in-depth, research instruments and research procedures.

Chapter 4 covers the quantitative description of intensifi er collocations in Chi-nese learner English corpora and native corpora. Overall data distribution of inten-sifi ers is described. The developing features of inteninten-sifi er collocations of Chinese learner English are spelt out in terms of the frequency information.

Chapters 5 and 6 explore the patterns and meanings of intensifi er collocations in Chinese learner corpora in terms of their collocation, colligation, semantic pref-erence and semantic prosody. In-depth study is carried out for the intensifi ers in learner corpora in comparison with native corpora.

Chapter 7 summarizes the major research fi ndings, pedagogical implications and limitations of this research. Suggestions for future studies of intensifi er col-locations are offered in the fi nal chapter.

(18)

This chapter briefl y reviews the relevant theories and previous research related to this study. Defi nitions and classifi cations of intensifi ers and the intensifi ed adjectives in previous studies and for the present study are discussed and delim-ited at the beginning of this section.

2.1 Defi ning schemes

The defi ning schemes of intensifi ers and adjectives vary in different studies depending on their different linguistic stands and research purposes. They will be explained in this section.

2.1.1 Intensifi ers in the previous studies

Terms referring to realizing devices of intensifi cation are not uniform among scholars. Bolinger (1972: 18) refers to them as “degree words” without separating them from downtoners. In the terminology of Quirk et al. (1985: 567), they are “amplifi ers”; Stöffel (1901) calls them “intensive adverbs.” Primus (1992) refers to “degree words” as not only intensifi ers but also focus modifi ers. Ito (2003: 258) uses “intensifi er” to refer to adverbs that maximize or boost meaning.

Classifi cation of intensifi ers is various, based on different criteria and research philosophy. Bolinger (1972), Quirk et al. (1985), Allerton (1987), Johansson (1993), Paradis (1997, 2000), Klein (1998), Lorenz (1999) and Biber et al. (2000) have grouped intensifi ers differently in their studies.

Bolinger (1972: 17) explores the usage of intensifi ers and defi nes the term “intensifi er” as “any device that scales a quality, whether up or down or somewhere between the two.” The devices are multifarious, and even syntactic forms and fi gures of speech have been stereotyped for the purpose. Thus he presents consider-ably wide categories, though he holds that most of the devices are lexical. He distinguishes between four types of intensifi ers according to the region of the scale that they occupy:

Boosters: upper part of a scale, looking up – for example, “He is a perfect idiot.” “She is terribly selfi sh.”

Literature review

2

(19)

6 Literature review

Compromisers: middle of the scale, often trying to look both ways at once – for example, “He is rather an idiot.” “She is fairly happy.”

Diminishers: lower part of the scale, looking down – for example, “It was an indifferent success.” “They were little disposed to argue.”

Minimizers: lower end of the scale – for example, “He is a bit of an idiot.” “I do not care an iota for that.”

Bolinger’s defi nition of intensifi er has a wide coverage, and the four functional categories are generally rough. For example, “compromiser” refers to intensifi ers on a middle of the scale and is explained as “trying to look both ways at once.” However, it is not a clear delimitation of the degree of intensifi cation.

Quirk et al. (1985: 589) point out that intensifi ers “indicate a point on an abstractly conceived intensity scale, and the point indicated may be relatively low or relatively high.” The relatively high point on the abstract scale is amplifi er and the relatively low point on the other scale is downtoner by defi nition. Or amplifi ers scale upwards from an assumed norm and downtoners scale downwards from an assumed norm (Quirk et al., 1985: 445). Amplifi er and downtoner can be further divided into sub-categories as shown in Diagram 2-1 . In Diagram 2-1 , amplifi ers are divided into maximizers and boosters. Maximizers occupy the upper extreme of the degree scale, and boosters display a high degree but without reaching the extreme end of the scale. Downtoners are subdivided into four categories: approxi-mators, compromisers, diminishers and minimizers.

Quirk’s defi nition and classifi cation have enjoyed a wide acceptance among the subsequent studies for its detailed specifi cations for each of the functional groups. However, the boundary between categories also remained blurred. For example, the line between an approximator and a compromiser is not clear-cut. Phrasal intensifi er “more or less” is regarded as a compromiser as is shown in Diagram 2-1 . However, why can it not serve the function of approximating? Also, intensifi er “generally” is grouped as an approximator, but why is it not a compromiser? COMP: In all diagrams, “en dashes” should replace “hyphens” in the titles and page ranges.

Allerton (1987: 17) uses the word “intensifi er” to indicate “a particular semantic type of adjective modifi er, one which corresponds to adverbs of degree .” He lists three types of adjective modifi ers: degree ( rather/very resentful ); aspect ( psycho-logically harmful ) and manner ( openly hostile ), in which degree modifi ers are adjective intensifi ers . However, Allerton also gives examples to show “the one between manner and degree intensifi ers therefore has an uncertain border area.”

Diagram 2-1 Subtypes of intensifi ers (from Quirk et al., 1985: 589–590.) Intensifiers

Amplifiers

Downtoners

Maximizers (e.g. completely) Boosters (e.g. very much) Approximators (e.g. almost) Compromisers (e.g. more or less) Diminishers (e.g. partly)

(20)

Literature review 7 He distinguishes three sub-varieties of degree intensifi ers: scalar, telic and absolu-tive intensifi ers, and later he adds an additional type differential intensifi er. The four categories of intensifi ers are defi ned and illustrated as follows (Allerton, 1987: 19). Scalar intensifi ers indicate mental scales of assessment of degree, which ranges from immeasurably high down to zero. They represent prototypical gradability and include infi nitely, extremely, very, pretty, rather, reasonably, fairly, somewhat, slightly, not specially, not very and not at all , which are in a rough order of ranks with the possibility of an unintensifi ed adjective appearing between very and pretty. In this way, boosters, moderators, diminishers and zeroizers are distin-guished. In addition, the comparatives and superlatives more (or -er), most (or-est), less and least belong to this category. These intensifi es co-occur with adjectives such as big, small, bright and surprising .

Telic intensifi ers relate the actual degree of the adjectival quality to the degree required for a particular purpose and are placed above or below that mark, either by a wide margin or by a narrow margin. They include easily, barely, only just, hardly, virtually, nearly, not quite and nowhere , which occur with adjectives such as suffi cient, cooked, afl oat and fully grown.

Absolutive intensifi ers emphasize that the degree of the adjectival quality is genuinely within the range required by the superlative adjectives with which they occur. The principal intensifi ers in this subclass are absolutely and utterly , with totally and entirely as marginal members. Typical superlative adjectives are ridicu-lous, huge, scorching (hot) and freezing ( cold ).

Differential intensifi ers indicate the difference of degree between the item being described and some reference point, including far, much, a lot, marginally , which are limited to differential adjective complex (with more/-er, less or too ), slightly and a bit , which also occur with scalar adjectives, although they suggest a differ-ential kind of meaning (cf. a bit big and “a bit too big” ).

Allerton’s defi nition and differentiation of adjective intensifi ers (intensifi ers in his term) is not clear, especially for the defi nition of “telic intensifi ers” – the actual degree of the adjectival quality to the degree required for a particular pur-pose, placed above or below that mark, either by a wide margin or by a narrow margin – because when it comes to “the actual degree of adjectival quality,” it is hard to measure.

Johansson (1993: 40–45) explores the adverb-adjective collocations in the tagged LOB corpus. He lists ten semantic patterns based on the semantic roles of adverbials. The ten patterns are degree and extent ( largely, attractively , etc.), emphasis ( clearly, defi nitely , etc.), manner ( accidentally , agreeably , etc.), time ( formerly , frequently , etc.), space ( internationally , locally , etc.), viewpoint and respect ( politically , functionally , etc.), evaluation of truth ( obviously , perhaps , etc.), basic and typical qualities ( basically , essentially , etc.), value judgment ( sadly , frighteningly , etc.) and quality and state ( gravely , harmlessly , etc.). But for his classifi cation of the ten semantic patterns, the distinction between categories is not clear, as Johansson has admitted (Johansson, 1993: 40), “The classifi cation certainly cannot be exhaustive. There is a great deal of overlap, and there are examples which do not fi t neatly into any one pattern.”

(21)

Paradis (1997, 2000) investigates a set of degree modifi ers and the adjectives they combine with in spoken British English – e.g. absolutely marvelous, very nice, rather small, and a bit funny , etc . Her main focus is on semantic and intonational features, but she also pays attention to their use in terms of frequency and col-locability in authentic speech. The methodological approach to analyze degree modifi ers and their adjectives is cognitive. She holds that concepts are built up by domains that are of two kinds: content domain and schematic domain (or mode of construal). The interpretation of degree modifi ers is dominated by schematic domain, and the content domain is backgrounded. Schematically, degree modifi ers map onto two different modes of construal, totality (an either-or conception) – e.g. completely and almost – and scalarity (a “more-or-less” conception) – e.g. very and fairly . Based on the totality/scalarity confi gurative modes of conceptualiza-tion, degree modifi ers fall into two main categories: totality modifi ers and scalar modifi ers. As is shown in Table 2.1 , degree modifi ers form fi ve types based on their reinforcing and attenuating functions (maximizers, boosters, approximators, mod-erators and diminishers, respectively).

Paradis argues that maximizers and approximators are both associated with totality and combine with adjectives, which are associated with a boundary. Maxi-mizers have a reinforcing function, while approximators are attenuators. Approxi-mators indicate that the denoted adjective falls short of the expected limit.

Boosters, moderators and diminishers are scalar modifi ers, conceptualized against a mode of “more or less,” and they modify an unboundedly gradable prop-erty of the adjective they apply to. Boosters reinforce the gradable propprop-erty denoted by the adjective. Moderators approximate an average range on a scale. They are classifi ed as attenuators with a hedging function (Paradis, 1997: 69). Diminishers indicate the lowest possible degree of a certain property and a bit up from that point. Thus the function of diminishers is to indicate not only a certain degree of a scalar adjectival property but also a degree of tiredness and a bit up from there. As listed in Table 2.1 , the defi nition and classifi cation of intensifi ers by Paradis are mainly based on a cognitive conceptualization rather than on their functional properties.

Klein (1998: 37) classifi es degree adverbs into eight groups: “absolute” – e.g. completely, absolutely, really ; “approximative” – e.g. almost , virtually ; “extremely high” – e.g. extremely , awfully ; “high” – e.g. very ; “moderate” – e.g. rather , pretty ; “minimal” – e.g. somewhat ; “quasinegative” – e.g. little , hardly ; and “negative” – e.g. not, not at all . Klein’s classifi cation of degree modifi ers is similar to that of Van Os (1988) which classifi es them into “absolute,” “extremely high,” “high,”

Table 2.1 Classifi cation of degree modifi ers (Paradis, 2000)

Degree Totality Modifi ers Scalar Modifi ers

reinforcers attenuators

maximizers: completely (full) approximator: almost (full)

booster: very (tired) moderator: quite (tired) diminisher: a bit (tired)

(22)

Literature review 9 “moderate,” “diminishing,” “approximate” and “minimal.” This classifi cation is based supposedly on the degree expressed by adverbs and on their distributional properties, which may cause confusion because it is diffi cult to distinguish between “absolute” and “extremely high.”

Lorenz (1999) categorizes intensifi ers into two general grammatical groups: closed-class intensifi ers and open-class intensifi ers. The closed-class intensifi ers are all , almost , little , rather , so , indeed , most , somewhat , too , just , much , very , well , enough and quite . The open-class intensifi ers are adverb intensifi ers ending with the suffi x - ly . They are classifi ed into fi ve sub-groups in terms of semantic function: scalar, modal, evaluative, comparative and semantic copying groups. Phrasal inten-sifi ers specifi ed by Lorenz are a bit , a little bit , a little , to a certain degree , to a certain extent , to an extent , to some extent , as good as , more and more , more or less and more than . One special category of intensifi ers is called “open-class items used as closed-class intensifi ers,” which include stone , wide , dead , pretty , real and whole . The six functional groups of intensifi ers proposed by Lorenz (1999) are a great contribution to the classifi cation of intensifi ers. However, he fails to categorize the closed-class intensifi ers by criteria, which leaves a vague fi eld in his research. Biber et al. (2000: 554–555) classify adverbs of degree into two groups: ampli-fi er (or intensiampli-fi er) and diminishers (or downtowner). In his deampli-fi nition, ampliampli-fi ers (or intensifi ers) are degree adverbs that increase the intensity. Some of intensifi ers modify gradable adjectives indicating the degree on a scale, such as very in “ Our dentist was very good.” Other intensifi ers indicate an end point on a scale, such as totally in “But snow and ice accumulate in a totally different way from sedimen.” Biber et al. (2000) defi ne diminishers (downtoners) as the degree adverbs that scale down the effect of the modifi ed items, which include less , slightly , somewhat , rather and quite (in the sense “to some extent”). Biber et al. give a clear defi nition and differentiation between amplifi ers (or intensifi ers) and diminishers (or down-towners), and it has a great practicality in empirical research. However, it seems true that classifying intensifi ers into two categories is too rough to show the accu-rate information of the attitudinal meaning of the speakers.

2.1.2 Intensifi ers in this study

As stated previously, manifestations of intensity are commonly associated with adjectives and adverbs. Bäcklund (1973: 79) states that adjectives, comprising 79% of all intensifi ed items, being by far the most frequent focus of intensifi cation. Thus it can be argued that adjectival qualities are the most important aspect of intensifi cation. That is why this research only takes intensifi ers for adjectives into the study focus. Intensifi ers for adverbs, verbs and for prepositional phrases are excluded from consideration.

To be more specifi c, the term “intensifi er” in this research refers to adverbial devices that scale a quality, whether up or down, or somewhere between the two. For practical reasons, adjacency principle is adopted to determine whether the adverb is an intensifi er or plays other roles in the whole sentence structure. As observed by Stenström et al. (1986), when really is placed next to the adjective as

(23)

in (1) and (2) in Table 2.2 , it is a degree modifi er which serves as an intensifi er of surprising . But the further really is moved to the left, the less the emphasis is on surprising and the more it stresses the whole phrase of a surprising question . When really is placed in the initial position, as in (5), it no longer intensifi es a single clause element but serves as a comment on the whole position.

In this research, intensifi ers refer to those adverbs or phrasal adverbs which position adjacently before or after adjectives and scale the quality of adjec-tives either upwards or downwards. Intensifi ers for adverbs, verbs and preposi-tional phrases are beyond the focus of this research.

Intensifi ers are classifi ed functionally and semantically in Quirk et al. (1985). The present research employs Quirk’s classifi cation of intensifi ers. Slight modera-tions have been made, considering the special features of learner English. The reason why Quirk ’s method is adopted is threefold: a) The notion of classifying intensifi ers in Quirk et al. (1985) and the present research are the same: language is functional and social. b) The way of conducting the classifi cation is practical and can be carried out clearly and practically. c) Quirk et al. (1985) defi ne the detailed classifi cations of different-level intensifi cation in a relatively reasonable way. In addition, many studies concerning intensifi cation adopt this method. Therefore, research conclusions can be compared. However, we will also change the Quirk defi nition a little (e.g. quite ), which will make the classifi cation more reasonable and the conclusion more informative.

2.1.3 Defi nition of the intensifi ed adjectives

Since this study will focus on the use of intensifi ers in learner English by the investigation of intensifi er-adjective (INT-adj) collocation, the defi nition of the word class adjective is necessary.

Adjectives constitute a major word class in English. Members of this class are undergoing disappearing, modifi cation and emerging processes (Lyons, 1968: 436). Quirk et al. (1985: 402–403) suggest four criteria for adjectives:

(a) They can freely occur in attributive function – i.e. they can premodify a noun, appearing between the determiner (including zero article) and the head of a noun phrase.

(b) They can freely occur in predicative function – i.e. they can function as subject complement or as object complement.

Table 2.2 Different syntactic positions of really (1) this question is really surprising

(2) this is a really surprising question (3) this is really a surprising question (4) this really a surprising question (5) really this is a surprising question From (Stenström, 1986: 151)

(24)

Literature review 11 (c) They can be premodifi ed by the intensifi er “ very .”

(d) They can take comparative and superlative forms.

However, Quirk and his colleagues state, “Not all words that are traditionally regarded as adjectives possess all of these four features” (Quirk et al., 1985: 402– 403). “Words that can satisfy both criterion (a) and criterion (b) are called central adjectives and those that can satisfy at least one of these fi rst two criteria (either criterion a. or b.), are called peripheral adjectives.” This research covers both central and peripheral adjectives.

One thing worth mentioning is how to decide whether a participle (- ing or - ed ) is an adjective or not. Two conditions need to be taken into account to determine whether a participle reaches the full adjective status. When a participle is used as an attributive, it can be regarded as an adjective in accordance with the criteria set by Bäcklund (1973: 250ff) and Sinclair (1990: 77) (in Lorenz, 1999: 42–46). But when it is used in the predicative position, as in the structure of “copular be/get +v ed ,” semantic factors have to be taken into consideration to decide whether it is a present particle/passive in the given context.

In this research, if a past participle in a copular structure (be/get - ed ) shows a state rather than an action or process, it will be treated as an adjective functioning as an objective in the sentence. When a present participle in a progressive tense shows the meaning of mental and emotional status, or, as Sinclair (1990: 77) put it, “describes the way someone is affected by something,” it is regarded as an adjective. The following are examples illustrating this point:

(1) The whole concept, is rather misleading (LOCNESS). (2) My mind is fully occupied by another business (CLEC).

(3) . . . if the murder is r eally scared of the death penalty . . . (LOCNESS). (4) Your attention will be very much appreciated (CLEC).

(5) . . . that you are really enjoying a happy life (CLEC).

In the previous sentences, misleading , occupied and scared in sentences one through three are regarded as adjectives in that they express a relative state, while appreciated , enjoying in examples four through fi ve are taken as participles because they rather denote the meaning of an action.

There are several aspects of factors regarding adjectives. They are gradable and ungradable adjectives (Sapir, 1944; Gnutzmann, 1975; Lyons, 1977), stative and non-stative adjectives (Dowty, 1979), open-scale and closed-scale adjectives (Kennedy & McNally, 2005) and intersective and non-intersective adjectives (Sproat & Shih, 1991; Larson, 1998, etc.). However, arguments concerning these category generalizations have continued and no consensus has been reached.

Two typical practices of categorizing adjectives are from Biber et al. (1999) and Lorenz (1999).

Lorenz (1999) functionally groups adjectives into four categories, adjectives of “relevance,” adjectives of “basic dimension,” adjectives of “feasibility” and adjec-tives of “human trait.” Adjecadjec-tives of relevance are all associated with relevance ,

(25)

with topics that are novel, unusual and hence worth noting or writing about. Adjec-tives of relevance specifi ed by Lorenz include applicable , linked , signifi cant , inter-esting , different , new , special , strange , exciting , important , necessary , needed , valuable , boring and dated , etc. Basic dimension adjectives depict rather than set basic qualities, mostly on opposing ends of a scale, such as good-bad , long-short , big-small , high-low , close-far , great-outrageous , positive-negative . Adjectives of feasibility are those with a more restricted scope of reference, conveying as it does the concept of feasibility. The very obvious examples are diffi cult , easy , hard , dangerous and impossible . Human trait adjectives have a (+human) meaning com-ponent, which ranges from basic human traits ( intelligent , lazy , nice , good-looking ) to a more temporary state of mind ( happy , pleased , sad , surprised ). Human trait adjectives are almost exclusively used with human referents.

Biber et al. (1999: 508–509) classify adjectives into two semantic groups: descriptors and classifi ers. Descriptors are prototypical adjectives denoting such features as color, size, weight, chronology, age, emotion and a wide range of other characteristics. They are typically gradable. In contrast, the primary func-tion of classifi ers is to delimit or restrict a noun’s referent, by placing it in a category in relation to other referents. They are typically non-gradable. Classi-fi ers can be grouped into subclasses, including relational, afClassi-fi liative and miscel-laneous topical class. Classifi ers can be more-or-less descriptive in meaning: relational classifi ers (such as additional , fi nal , similar ) have little descriptive content, and many topical classifi ers (such as chemical , medical , political ) pro-vide descriptive content.

Biber et al. (1999: 509) list some selected examples for each category. Descrip-tors are subdivided into the following groups: color (denoting words including color and brightness) – e.g. black , white , dark , bright ; size/quantity/extent (denot-ing size, weight, extent) – e.g. big , deep , heavy , huge , thin and wide ; time (denot(denot-ing chronology, age, frequency) – e.g. annual , late , new , old ; evaluative/emotive (denoting judgments, effect, emphasis) – e.g. bad , b good , great , lovely , poor ; miscellaneous descriptive – e.g. appropriate, cold, complex, and sudden .

Classifi ers cover the following groups: relational/classifi cation/restrictive (delimiting the referent of a noun, particularly in relation to other referents) – e.g. additional , average , chief , complete , different , various and same ( same can alter-natively be regarded as a semi-determiner); affi liative (designation of the national or religious group to which a referent belongs) – e.g. American , Chinese , Chris-tian , English , French , Irish and United ; topical/other (showing the subject area or showing a relationship with a noun) – e.g. chemical , commercial , medical , mental , offi cial , ventral , visual .

Biber et al. (1999) explain that some adjectives can serve as either classifi er or descriptor. For example, modern is a classifi er in modern algebra , but a descriptor in some modern authorities ; criminal is a classifi er in criminal law , but a descriptor in criminal and activity .

Compared with Lorenz’s classifi cations of adjectives, Biber’s method is more clear, reasonable and easy to handle. Therefore, this research adopts the classifi ca-tion method by Biber et al. (2000).

(26)

Literature review 13

2.2 Relevant theories

2.2.1 Collocation and colligation

Studies of linguistic patterns in English tend to involve two distinct concepts: col-location and colligation. The study of colcol-location mainly deals with lexical realiza-tions of a linguistic pattern, and the study of colligation focuses on syntactic elements of utterances and texts.

In collocation studies, Firth (1957) is the fi rst linguist to introduce the term “colloca-tion” and states, “You shall know a word by the company it keeps.” According to Firth, the collocation of a given word, rather than a mere juxtaposition, is an order of mutual expectancy (Firth, 1957: 181). Firth regards collocation as a mode of meaning: mean-ing by collocation is an abstraction at the syntagmatic level and is not directly con-cerned with the conceptual or idea approach to the meaning of words (Firth, 1957: 196).

The Firthian theory on collocation has had profound infl uence on his followers such as Sinclair, McIntosh, Halliday and Strevens (Wei, 2002a: 4). McIntosh puts forward the concept of “collocational range,” and Sinclair develops collocation studies into a systematic theory by giving a precise defi nition of collocational range, the node, collocate, span, semantic preference and semantic prosody.

Firth and the neo-Firthian linguists hold that collocations are syntagmatic asso-ciations of words in contexts. With the aid of computer technology, they also develop specifi c programs and techniques for extracting and computing colloca-tions, which have contributed greatly to the study of collocation.

Colligation is a grammatical pattern or framework in which particular lexical items are realized. It is “the grammatical company a word keeps and the positions it prefers” (Hoey, 2000: 234). Sinclair (1996: 85), who takes over the term from Firth, defi nes colligation as “the occurrence of grammatical choices.” In general, colligation is at a higher level of abstraction than collocation.

Collocational and colligational patterns are entwined to demonstrate the systematic-ity of linguistic patterning. One cannot study one patterning without referring to the other. In communication, syntactic generalities and lexical particularities are co-selected and collocations have to be treated with reference to colligations (Wei, 2002a).

There are various approaches to collocation and colligation studies – for exam-ple, Firthian and new-Firthian theory on phraseology study; the integrated approach by Greenbaum, Mitchell, Cowie, Kjellmer, Aisenstadt and others; collocational cohesion research by Halliday and Hasan; semantic study on collocation by Rob-ins, Katz and Fordor, Lyons and Cruse (From Wei, 2002a: 2–25), to name a few. However, the aforementioned collocational and colligational studies vary greatly in methods and notions. Each method focuses on a particular aspect of collocation. In China, Wei (1999, 2002a) is the fi rst researcher to study collocation systemati-cally. His defi nition for collocation has been widely used:

A collocation is a conventional syntagmatic association of a string of lexical items which co-occur in a grammatical construct with mutual expectancy greater than chance as realization of non-idiomatic meaning in texts.

(27)

Wei’s defi nition on collocation and collocational theories delimit the co-selection relationship between syntactic generalities and lexical particularities, indicate the relationship of collocation and colligation with discourse functions and identify the leading role of the semantic prosody within the EUM model. In view of these, the present study will adopt the defi nition of collocation and the interpretation of colligation from Wei (2002).

2.2.2 Semantic prosody and semantic preference

Semantic prosody is an essential property of collocation. Semantic prosody is a particular phenomenon of collocation, showing the associations and connotations they have and therefore the assumptions which they embody (Stubbs, 1996: 172). Semantic prosody and semantic preference are two distinct yet interdependent notions. While semantic preference identifi es the semantic fi eld within which an item operates, semantic prosody identifi es the attitude and communicative purpose (Partington, 2004).

Though he is not the fi rst to use the term “semantic prosody,” Sinclair (1971: 74; 1987: 155–156, 1991: 112) has already noticed this phenomenon and states, “Many uses of words and phrases show a tendency to occur in a certain semantic environment.” Louw terms this phenomenon as “semantic prosody” and intro-duces it in his article “Irony in the Text or Insincerity in the Writer? – The Diag-nostic Potential of Semantic Prosodies.” Louw (1993: 157) states that semantic prosody is “a consistent aura of meaning with which a form is imbued by its col-locates.” The primary function of semantic prosody is to express speaker/writer attitude or evaluation (Louw, 2000: 58).

Sinclair develops the concept of semantic prosody in his later works (Sinclair, 1996, 2004) and points out that semantic prosody is the functional choice which links meaning to purpose (Sinclair, 1996: 88). Semantic prosodies “are attitudinal and on the pragmatic side of the semantics-pragmatics continuum” (Sinclair, 1996: 88). These notions are illustrated in the following statements from Sinclair (2003).

A corpus enables us to see words grouping together to make special meanings that relate not so much to their dictionary meanings as to the reasons why they were chosen together. This kind of meaning is called semantic prosody, it has been recognized as connotation; pragmatic meaning and attitudinal meaning, but it rarely appears in reference words that do not derive their evidence from corpora. The notion of prosody is taken from phonology. A prosody is a mean-ingful event that is not necessarily located in a particular unit of expression, but may spread over several.

(Sinclair, 2003: 178) Though there are different views (Whitsitt, 2005) and studies on semantic pros-ody, the attitudinal meaning of semantic prosody is agreed on by most linguists such as Sinclair (1987, 1991, 1996, 2004), Louw (1993), Stubbs (1996, 2001, 2009), Partington (1998, 2004) and Hunston (2007). Sinclair elaborates that

(28)

Literature review 15 semantic prosody is an important concept which is the highest level of abstraction of semantic relations of the key word. Sinclair (2004) claims that the recognition that semantic prosody as a constant feature of text is one of the most important contributions of corpus work so far.

Louw (1993) holds that semantic prosodies are typically negative, with rela-tively few of them bearing an affecrela-tively positive meaning. Stubbs (1996: 176) argues that there are three types of semantic prosodies: some words tend to have a predominantly negative prosody, a few have a positive prosody and many words are neutral. Partington (1998) classifi es semantic prosody into favorable, unfavor-able or neutral corresponding to Stubbs’s positive, negative and neutral semantic prosodies. In China, Wei is the fi rst linguist who employs the corpus methodology to study semantic prosody systematically. He follows Stubbs’s way of classifying semantic prosody into three types: positive, negative and neutral. The present study adopts Wei’s (2002a, 2002c) method and roughly classifi es them into negative, positive and neutral semantic prosody.

An alternative theory concerning semantic study is the Contextual Prosodic Theory (CPT) by Louw (2000), which refl ects the extended context linguistic theory held by Firth and new-Firthian followers (Louw, 2000). The CPT theory is defi ned as follows:

A Contextual Prosodic Theory (CPT) would seek to elucidate through seman-tic prosodies the Firthian view that situational and linguisseman-tic contexts are co-extensive. The work of John Sinclair, arguably more than that of any other Neo-Firthian linguist, is demonstrably underpinned by this view.

The move towards CPT follows logically upon Sinclair’s assertion that having arrived at the semantic prosody, we have probably come close to the boundary of the lexical item (Sinclair, 1996: 88).

Tognini-Bonelli (2001: 106–110) demonstrates how semantic prosody can be described in functional terms which go beyond the general negative and positive dichotomy. Stubbs (2001: 65) renames the phenomenon “discourse prosody” in order to highlight how it plays a central role both in maintaining relations between speakers/writer and hearers/reader and in constructing discourse coherence. He states that discourse prosodies express speaker/writer attitudes, characterize units of meaning with an identifi able pragmatic function (Stubbs, 2001: 65) and con-tribute extensively to text cohesion (Stubbs, 2001: 100).

2.2.3 Pattern

Hunston and Francis (2000) have built on Sinclair’s work to propose a description of language in terms of patterns. Pattern is “a phraseology frequently associated with (a sense of) a word, particularly in terms of the prepositions, groups and clauses that follow the word” (Hunston & Francis, 2000: 3). A pattern can be identifi ed “if a combination of words occurs relatively frequently, if it is dependent on a particular word choice, and if there is a clear meaning associated with it”

(29)

(Hunston & Francis, 2000: 37). The relationship between pattern and meaning is stated as follows:

Patterns and lexis are mutually dependent, in that each pattern occurs with a restricted set of lexical items, and each lexical item occurs with a restricted set of patterns. In addition, patterns are closely associated with a meaning, fi rstly because in many cases different senses of words are distinguished by their typical occurrence in different patterns; and secondly because words which share a given pattern tend also to share an aspect of meaning.

(Hunston & Francis, 2000: 3) Sinclair focuses on the way in which different words and different senses of a word can be distinguished by different patterns in which they appear, whereas Hunston and Francis concentrate on how particular patterns select words with particular meanings. Hunston and Francis claim that patterns occur with restricted a lexis (Hunston & Francis, 2000: 96). By this they mean that patterns and mean-ings are not one-to-one relationships. Three points regarding pattern and meaning are proposed by Hunston and Francis: the weak view, the strong view and the medium view. The weak statement is that the association between pattern and meaning is not a random one, the strong statement is that a word has a particular pattern because it has a particular meaning and the medium is that given a list of words occurring with a particular pattern, the majority will be divisible by most observers into reasonably coherent meaning groups. Hunston and Francis (2000) claim that they have found no counter-examples to this medium view (Hunston & Francis, 2000: 86). There is, however, no one-to-one correspondence between pattern and meaning.

Alongside the ‘core’ words, which appear very frequently in a particular pattern, are a small number of infrequently occurring ‘non-core’ items. These are described as existing in “an area of fl ux” in which patterns may be creatively associated with non-standard lexis (Hunston & Francis, 2000: 99). Such creativity is in many cases based on a process of analogy: if a pattern is characteristically associated with a set of words belonging to a particular meaning group, other words of similar mean-ing may also come to be used in that pattern.

2.2.4 Collocation and language learning

Linguists and language teachers have long observed the conventionality features of language and the function of collocation in language production. Various attempts have been made to investigate lexical chunks in language production. Much consensus has been reached that states prefabricated chunks should be the basis for the development of creative language in fi rst language and second lan-guage acquisition, and the fi xed chunks are essential for fl uency in both spoken and written language. Different technical terms have been employed in the litera-ture, which include “prefabs,” “chunks,” “stereotyping” by Bolinger (1976); “lexi-calized sentence stems” by Pawley and Syder (1983); “composites” and “formulae”

(30)

Literature review 17 by Cowie (1998); “pre-assembled lexical phrases” by Nattinger and Decarrico (1992); “lexical chunks” by Lewis (1993); “formulaic sequence” by Wray (2002), etc. Bolinger is among the fi rst who have found the conventionality feature of lan-guage and treats collocation in lanlan-guage as “linguistic prefabrications.” As Bolinger (1975) argues, “The vocabulary is stored redundantly, not only as indi-vidual morphemes, but also as parts or phrases, or even as longer memorized chunks of speech, and that it is often times retrieved from memory as these preas-sembled chunks” (cited in Hunston & Francis, 2000: 12). He believes that “our language does not expect us to build everything starting with lumber, nails, and blueprint, but provides us with an incredibly large number of prefabs” (Bolinger, 1976: 9). Different words in a language attract with either a semantic relation or a collocational link to form multi-word units, which are learned as a whole and retrieved from memory as the pre-stored prefabricated chunks on particular occasions.

Nattinger (1986: 3) regards chunks as “conventionalized structures that occur more frequently and have more idiomatically determined meaning than language that is put together each time.” When learners have more opportunities to be exposed to the conventionalized structures and idiomatic expressions, they are more likely to internalize and utilize those structures and expressions in their lan-guage production. With chunks already memorized in mind, learners will fi nd it much easier to catch others’ words and use less effort to organize words for utter-ance. Most linguists and researchers agree that such pre-stored formulaic expres-sions are helpful for investigating and further improving language processing and use, as has been mentioned by Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992: 1): “. . . routinized formulas and other sorts of prefabricated language chunks , which are products of this ritualization, seem to play a large part in both acquiring and performing language.”

Pawley and Syder (1983) have discussed two capacities of native speakers: native-like selection and native-like fl uency. Native-like selection means the abil-ity of the native speaker to convey routinely his or her meaning by an expression that is not only grammatical but also native like, and native-like fl uency refers to the native speakers’ ability to produce fl uent stretches of spontaneous discourse. Pawley and Syder (1983) argue that fl uent and idiomatic control of a language rests to a considerable extent on knowledge of a body of “sentence stems,” which are “institutionalized” or “lexicalized.” A lexicalized sentence stem is a unit of clause length or longer whose grammatical form and lexical content is wholly or largely fi xed; its fi xed elements form a standard label for a culturally recognized concept – a term in the language (Pawley & Syder, 1983: 191). Most of such units are not true idioms but rather are regular form-meaning pairings, and the ordinary mature speaker of English knows them. Thus Pawley and Syder argue (Pawley & Syder, 1983: 192),

In the store of familiar collocations there are expressions for a wide range of familiar concepts and speech acts, and the speaker is able to retrieve these as wholes or as automatic chains from the long term memory; by doing this he

(31)

minimizes the amount of clause-internal encoding work to be done and frees himself to attend to other tasks in talk-exchange, including the planning of larger units of discourse.

For native-like fl uency, they state, “An utterance will be native like to the extent that it consists of a lexicalized sentence stem plus permissible expansions or sub-stitutions.” When language learners endeavor to gain native-like control of the language, they must possess the store of those lexicalized sentence stems in mem-ory, or have those “memorized sentences” in advance.

Another key theory concerning collocation and language study is from Sinclair (1991), who makes a distinction between the open-choice principle and the idiom principle in interpreting texts from corpora. The open-choice principle is often called a “slot-and-fi ller” model. In this model, texts are treated as a series of slots which have to be fi lled from a lexicon which satisfi es local restraints. At each slot, virtually any word can occur. All grammars are constructed on the open-choice principle (Sinclair, 1991: 109–110). However, it is clear that words do not occur at random in a text, and the possible slot choices are massively reduced. The idiom principle, or the collocational principle (Partington, 1998: 19), states that the open-ness of choices is not available to the same extent at every point along the syntag-matic progression of an utterance, but the language user has available to him a large number of preconstructed or semi-preconstructed phrases that constitute single choices, even though they appear to be analyzable into segments (Sinclair, 1991: 110). Sinclair (1991: 114) suggests that the idiom principle is the fi rst to be applied in the use of language and that the user switches to the mode of open-choice only “when there is a good reason.”

Sinclair’s view on language operation sheds some light on the phenomenon in which non-native speakers can speak or write L2 fl uently, but they are still per-ceived by native speakers to be operating a different system because of their non-standard choice of language. The learners may have acquired a good command of grammar in L2 to satisfy the needs of open-choice processing mode, but they lack the collection of prefabricated phrases, which accounts for the failure in idiomatic-ity and naturalness of their language use.

Wray (2002) regards formulaic language as

a sequence, continuous, or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated: that is, stored and retrieved whole form memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar.

He agrees with many other linguists with regard to the great power of the human mind’s processing of information by using prefabricated chunks in memory rather than by complex processes of calculation (Wray, 2002: 10).

Wray (1992) also proposes a dual-system regarding the handling of linguistic material: analytic processing and holistic processing. He holds that analytic pro-cessing entails the interaction of words and morphemes with grammatical rules to