You are on page 1of 6

# #

) ) )

(, 200240)
: S inc la ir / 0



, , ,


: ; ; ;

: H0 : A : 1004- 6038( 2010) 04- 0025- 06

2.
1. 2. 1
S incla ir & C arter( 2004)S inc la ir( 2004 ) ,
( ex tended un its o f m ean ing) ( M in-
i
, ( lex ica l item ),

m a l approach),

5 , Sinc lair ,
5 ,

, ( S in-
25 , c la ir, 2004): ( am biguity ) ( va riation ) ( term -
i
no log y ) ( incom pleteness)
S inc la ir & C arter( 2004)Sinc lair( 2004)

( F ir th, 1957; P aw ley & ,
Syder, 1983; , 2001, 2002a, 2002b; K ennedy, 2003; S incla ir( 2004: 280)
, 2003) ( S tubbs, 2001; , 2002a; , ,
i Bo ne ll,i 2002; Hun ston, 2007) S incla ir ,
T o gnin - ,
,
,
, ( intensifier) , ,
( m ax im izer)
, ,
; EFL , , ;
, , ( G rang- , ;
er, 1998; L o renz, 1998; L o renz & V ih la, 1999; , 2008) , ;
S inc la ir / 0 ,
, to tallyabso lute lycom p le telytho r- ;
oug hlyex trem e lyfullyperfec tlytho ro ugh ly , , ( S incla ir & C arter,
, 2004) ,
, ,
, FLO B
, , S inc la ir & C arter( 2004: 34)
, :
( 1) x; ( 2)

: , , : ,

x y; ( 3) ,
; ( 4) ; ( 2008)
, ,


, ( L o renz, 1998; L o renz & V ih la, 1999;
S incla ir( 2003: 178) , K ennedy, 2003; , 2001, 2002a, 2002b; , 2003;
, , 2004; , 2004; , 2006;
, H unston , 2005; , 2007; , 2005;
( 2007), , , 2009; , 2009) S inc la ir
, C heng
, ( 2006) ,
, ,
( S inc la ir &C arter, 2004: 34- 35): ( 1)
; ( 2) , ; ( 3)
, ; ( 4) 3.
, ; ( 5) com plete lyfullyutterlyab so lute ly
, tho ro ugh lyto ta llyex trem e lyperfectly ,
: , S inc la ir( 2004: 34 -
, 35) , , ,
, , ,
, :
: , ( 1) , 8 ; ( 2)
, , ; ( 3) ; ( 4)
, ,
( 2007) , ; ( 5)


, - B iber e t a.l ( 1999)
- , ,
( B iber e t a.l , 1999: 358- 364):
2. 2
/
, , , ,
, ( C ry sta ,l 2003) ( B ibe r
, e t a.l , 1999: 508- 509): ( descr iptive adjectiv es)
( classif ier ad jective s) :
, com p le telyfully / / /
utter lyabso lute lytho ro ugh lyto ta llyex trem elype rfectly 8 ,
, / /
, ; ,
EFL , , ( B iber et a.l , 1999: 552 -
, 563), /
G rang er( 1998),
, , com p le te ly to ta-
l , L ouw ( 1993 )S tubbs
ly, h igh ly; L o renz ( 1998; 1999) EFL ( 1996) ( 2002b), :
,
, , , ab so- ,
lute ly sillyex trem e ly diffe rent; K ennedy ( 2003) ,
, , ,
; , ( 2007) , ,
/ 0 sove ry , ,
m uch, ,

26
, , ( 38% ) ( 31% ),
, , , ADV + ADV ,
, ,
100 FLO B ( Fre iburg-LOB 4. 2 / to ta lly0
C orpus o f B r itish Eng lish) FLO B to tally 50, 3
LO B BROW N , : ADV + A D J( 38 )AD V + V ( 7 )ADV +
90 PREP( 5 ) 10:
1 as the press is co ncerned) and for the to tally arbitrary
4. reasons tha t p
4. 1 / abso lute ly0 2 jo ined them. H is apo log ies w ere to ta lly unnecessary,
W o rd sm ith, / abso lute ly0 FLO B C aro line no ticed,
39, 4 : ADV + A D J( 25 ) A DV + 3dered. W a snpt A ndy behav ing in a to ta lly irre sponsib le
V ( 5 ) AD V + A DV ( 5 )ADV + PRON ( 3 ) , w ay?
( 1 ) 10 : 4 frivo lous conversa tion w ith som eone w ho to ta lly under-
1 icky in stead o f the lo ca l hun ,t w ho w ere abso lute ly R 09 46 stood her re ference
furio us, w h ich at lea 5lly uncom plicated k ind o f pe rso n, to tally w ithout guile o r
2e taries. O f course th is is den ied ab so lute ly w hen the In- fron.t She w on
land R evenue quer 6dec ided probably no t good. H e w a s to ta lly pre sent and fu-
3done. Y o u actually leave yo ur abso lute ly a lone because he ture o riented. He
ha s h is hea 7think he w a s, the) the usurpe r! She w as to tally unused to
4w ly pulled her hand aw ay. She had abso lute ly no intention being so arro g
o f a llow ing the 8ad ca lled he r and shepd w oken up. T o ta lly confusing, and
57 / I shou ld have tho ugh t y our m o the r w a s abso lute ly sure obv io usly a resu
27 o f success. 0 9h im cry. I w as lo st w itho ut h im, to ta lly be ref.t Char le s had
6 ing ab le to ta lk to som eone about abso lute ly any thing) or bee
be silent w ith 10ng lish kingps instruction s, but rem a ined to ta lly comm itted
7v ely a ltered and, in he r op in ion, abso lutely ruined! P 13 35 to the cause
/ O h, no! 0 she 38 AD V + A D J ,
8 N 07 165 / Y o u serious? A bso lute ly. I 've nev er been to ( 27 ), ( 10 )
B irm ingh ( 1 ) 38 , 28
9 indow, and Ca sta lia stiffened and becam e abso lute ly stil.l , 16 , , com fo rtlessim properirrelevant
B ut Jane t cou unknow nunrea listic ; 10 , , fam i-
l
10ark head com e up sharp ly. / A bso lute ly no .t T o o naff! 0 ia r, per sona ,l pre sen t ADV + AD J, 11
T h is / BE0, BE + A DV + AD J ; 6 / a0
25 ADV + AD J , , A + AD V + A D J+ N ,
( 11 ), 7 ADV + V , ( 5 )
( 3 ) co instantaneous , 24 ( 2 ) 3 ( ) : ru-
, 10 , indeva statege t abo ve onese lf; , un-
, appa llingev ilm adr id iculous; 14 de rstandrevam pa ssim ilate 5 AD V + PREP. ,
, de lic iousd iv ineex ce llentw onderfu l AD V + w itho uto ut ag ainst ; 2 , in
ADV , no ( 3 ) harm ony w ith , (
no t( 2 ), / , , 0 5 1), to tally in harm ony w ith no t,
ADV + V , f ly ru in,
deny trus,t m ust A DV + PRON. 1. comm ents throw no light on these issue s: comm ents
, no thing any th ing ( 1 ) from the var io us Serv ice pre ss de sks bo il dow n to / tho se w ho
2, 1 , 1 deserve aw ards ge t rew arded appropr ia te ly0 ) a v iew no t to ta lly
no t, in harm ony w ith tha t o f M a jo r G enera l P erk ins no r w ith the
, / abso lute ly0 know ledg e ga ined from h isto rica l reco rd s by re sea rche rs in this
, ( 31% ) , field.

, / to ta lly0, ,
( 35, 70% ) , 1
; ( 16, 28% ) 2 8,
, / 0 ,
to tally ; ,
4. 3
, / ab so lute ly0 / to ta lly0
utterly to tal ly com p letely abso lutely extrem ely fu lly tho rough ly perf ectly
/ 0% / 2% / 7% / 38% / 44% / 3% / 10% / 53% /
/ 5% / 28% / 41% / 31% / 27% / 97% / 83% / 44% /
95% 70% 52% 31% 29% 0% 7% 3%

2 / /
/ perfec tly0 / utte rly0 8 / com p le tely0 / 0
: , / perfec tly0 ( 53% ) , / utter ly0 / perfec tly0 ,
( 44% ) , ; 3 ,
, / utter ly0 ( 19, 95% ) / to ta lly0 / com p le tely0 ,
8 , / per fectly0 / utter ly0 ,
; ,
/ com p le tely0 ( 6, 6% ) / abso lutely0 / ex trem ely0,
; ( 92% ), ( 52% ) / fully0 / tho ro ugh ly0 ,
( 41% ) / to ta lly0, / com p lete ly0 ,

/ fully0 ( 97% ) L orenz( 1998; 1999) K ennedy ( 2003)
, , ,
, 79 ADV + V , 51 , ,
A DV + V ( p t), / , , 0 / , , 0
, ,
/ fully0, / tho ro ugh ly0 ( 79% )
( S inc la ir, 2004)
, ;
( 10% ) ( 7% ) ,
, ,
/ abso lutely0, / ex trem e ly0 H unston( 2007) ,
, ( 44% ) ( 27% ) , ,
, ( 29% )
, ,
5.
, : A B C
,
, D
,
, ,
, , / to tally0 , 42% ,
,
, / to ta lly0/ utter ly0/ tho rough ly0/ com p le te ly0 / fu l-
l ,
y0 ADV + ADV
, ,
, , FLOB , 8 ,
24, / abso lute ly0 / ex trem e ly0 , S in-
83% , , / abso lute ly0 / ex trem ely0 c la ir & C ar te r( 2004: 34)
; , / thoroughly0

28
S incla ir( 1966) C orpu s Lingu istics, 2007( 12 ).
, S incla ir [ 7 ] K ennedy, G. A m p lifier co llocation s in the B rit ish nationa l corpu s:

( 2004) im p lication s for Eng lish language teach ing [ J] . TESO L Q uarterly,
2003( 37) .
( canon ica l form )
[ 8 ] Loren z, G. O verstatem ent in advanced learners. w rit ing: stylistic aspects
( v ariatio n)
of ad jective in ten sification [ J]. Learner English on C om pu ter, 1998( 6) .
( sho rt fo rm ), ( fu ll cano nical
[ 9 ] L orenz, G. &M . V ih la. Ad jective Inten sificat ion, Learn ers V ersu s N-
fo rm ) ,
at ive Speakers: A C orpu s Study of A rgum en tativeW riting [ M ] . Am-
/ a to ta lly0, sterdam: R odop ,i 1999.
, / a to ta lly separa te area0, [ 10] Louw, B. Iron y in the tex t o r in sincerity in the w riter? The d iag-
/ separate0 / d iffe rent0/ irre sponsib le0/ com fo r tless0 nost ic po ten tial of sem an tic p rosod ies[ A ] . In Baker, M . , G. Fran cis
, & E. Togn in -
i B onell.i Text and Techno logy: In Honou r o f John S in-
, cla ir [ C ] . Am sterdam: John B en jam ins, 1993.

, , [ 11 ] Paw ley, A. &F. Syder. Tw o puzz les for linguistic theory: nativelike selec-
tion and nat ivelike f luency[ J]. Language and Commun ication, 1983( 7).
S inc la ir
[ 12 ] Q u irk, A. A Com prehen sive G ramma r o f th e En glish Langua ge
, ,
[ M ] . London: L on gm an, 1985.
,
[ 13 ] S inclair, J. B eginn ing th e study o f lexis [ A ] . In B az el,l C. In m em-

ory of JR F irth [ C ] . London: L on gm an, 1966.
[ 14] S incla ir, J. Read in g C onco rdances: A n In troduction [ M ] . London:
6. Longm an, 2003.
S incla ir [ 15] S inclair, J. N ew ev idence, new p riorit ies, new attitudes[ A ] . In S in-
, com plete lyfullyutter lyab- clair, J. H ow to U se C orpora in Language Teach in g [ C ] . Am ster-
so lute lytho rough lyto ta llyex trem elyperfectly , dam: John B en jam ins, 2004.
, 8 [ 16] S inclair, J. &R. C arter. Trust the Text: Language, C orpu s and D is-

29 course [ M ]. London: R ou tledge, 2004.


[ 17] S in clair, J. , S. Jones, R. D aley, W. T eubert & R. K rishnam urthy.
, ,
En glish Co llocat ion Stud ies: The O STI R eport [ M ] . L ondon: C on-
,
,
tinuum In tl Pub G roup, 2004.
,
[ 18] Stubbs, M. Text and Corpus Analysis: Com pu ter-assisted Stud ies of Lan-
, guage and Cu lture[M ] . M assachusetts: B lackw ell C ambridge, 1996.
, [ 19] S tubbs, M . W ords and Ph ra ses: C orpu s Stud ies o f Lexica l Sem an-
, t ics [ M ] . B lackw ell Pub, 2001.
, [ 20] Togn in -
i B onell,i E. C orpu s Lin gu istics at W ork [ M ] . Am sterd am:
John B en jam in s, 2002.
: [ 21] . [ J].
, , 2005 ( 7) .
[ 22] . EFFEC T [ J] .
, 2005 ( 6) .
: [ 23] . [ J] .
[ 1] B iber, D. , S. Johan sson, G. L eech, S. Con rad & E. Fin egan. Long- , 2003 ( 6) .
m an G ramm a r of Spoken andW ritten Eng lish [ M ]. C am bridge: The [ 24] . [ J ].
M IT Press, 1999. , 2004 ( 4) .
[ 2] Ch eng, W . D escrib ing the ex tended m ean in gs o f lex ical coh es ion in [ 25] . ) ))
a corpus o f SAR S spoken d iscou rse [ J ]. In ternational Jou rna l o f [ J] . , 2006 ( 4) .
C orpu s Lin gu istics, 2006( 11) . [ 26] . [ J] .
[ 3] C ry sta,l D. A D ictiona ry of L in gu istics & Phonetics [ Z ] . H obok en: , 2009 ( 6) .
B lackw ell Pub, 2003. [ 27] . CAU SE [ J]. , 2005( 3) .
[ 4] F irth, J. Papers in L ingu istics ( 1934 - 1951) [ M ] . O xfo rd: O xfo rd [ 28 ] .
U n iv ersity Press, 1957. [ J] . , 2007( 1) .
[ 5] G ranger, S. Prefab ricated pattern s in advan ced EFL w ritin g: co lloca- [ 29] . [ M ] . :
tions and form ulae[ A ] . In C ow ie, A P. Phraseo logy: Th eory, Ana ly- , 2001.
sis, and A ppl ica tion s [ C ] . O xfo rd: O x ford U n iv ersity Press, 1998. [ 30] . [ J] .
[ 6] H unston, S. S em an tic pro sody rev isited[ J] . Internat iona l Journal of , 2002 a( 2) .

[ 31] . [ J]. , 2002b ( 4) . m ode l o f ex tended un its o f m eaning ( EUM ), and app lies the
[ 32] . John S inc lair ) ) ) m ode l to diffe rentia te the sy nonym o us m ax im izers in Eng lish.
[ J] . , 2007( 4 ) .
T he f ind ing s show tha t there a re diffe rence s betw een the 8 m ax -
i
[ 33] . :
m izer s in te rm s o f co llo cation, co llig ation, sem antic prefe rence
[ J] . , 2009 ( 3) .
and sem antic pro sody. T he EUM study is charac terized by w o rk-
[ 34] . EFL ) ) )
ability, com prehen sivene ss, o bjectiv ity and accuracy o f de scrip-
CO LSEC [ J]. , 2008( 4) .
tion.

A bstrac :t T he study repo rted in this paper probes into the con- K ey W o rds: ex tended un its of m ean ing; m ax im a l approach; m ax-

cep,t structure and research m etho d o f Sinc lair. s desc riptive im izer; sy nonym y

1:
ADV + A DV +
N. A DV + V ADV + AD J
ADV

/
/

/
1 ab so lutely 39 2 2 11 11 3 5 3+ 2
2 perfectly 38 9 1 22 3 3
3 totally 50 2 5 27 10 1 5
4 u tterly 20 1 1 1 13 2 2
5 thorough ly 29 7 14 1 2 1 3 1
6 comp letely 94 9 16 6 1 7 3 21 1 3 19 1 1 6
7 ful ly 98 20 27 6 14 6 5 15 3 2
8 extrem ely 66 1 1 43 9 6 2 4

2010 # 6 4 - 6 ,


50

30