beyond the adolescent peak of toykeyksuhyun/kwon_cls48_intensifier_slides.pdf · beyond the...
TRANSCRIPT
+
Beyond the adolescent peak of toykey
Chicago Linguistics Society 48, April 20, 2012University of Pennsylvania
Soohyun Kwon
+ Intensifiers Adverbial modifiers used as
scaling devices (Quirk et al.1985).
Degree adverbs1) Intensives ‘maximize orboost meaning’ or ‘scale a qualityup’ (Bolinger 1972:17) as veryand really.e.g. They are very nice. She is really kind.
2) Downtoners, on the otherhand, ‘scale downwards from anassumed norm’ as a little in (1c).e.g. She is a little cute.
+A number of labels for intensives
‘intensive adverbs’ (Stoffel 1901), ‘degree words’ (Bolinger1972: 18), ‘amplifiers’ (Quirk et al. 1985:567), etc. > Intensifiers (Maucaulay 2006; Rickford et al. 2007; Tagliamonte 2003, 2005, 2008)
+A broad range ofsyntactic heads
The scope of intensification inthis study
: The effect of prototypical function ofintensifying grading adjectives
Other contexts such as noun or verbintensification are ruled out.
This is partly because intensifiersmost commonly occur withadjectives (Bäcklund, 1973).
Adjective e.g. Linguistics is really
interesting.
Verb e.g. I really like
Linguistics.
Another Adverb e.g. I used to go there
very frequently.
Entire sentence e.g. Really, I went there.
+ Motivation of the study:Intensifiers as an ideal choice for the study oflinguistic change
One of the grammatical areas most susceptible to rapid change andrecycling as forms are replaced by newly coined expressions (Brinton& Arnovik 2006; Hopper and Traugott 1993; Lorenz 2002; Macaulay2007; Peters 1994; Quirk et al. 1985)
The intensifier system has been extensively studied in many varieties(Bauer & Bauer 2002, Bolinger 1972:18, Labov 1985, Lorenz 2002,Levalainen & Rissanen 2002, Partington 1993, Peters 1994, Quirk etal. 1985:590, Tagliamonte & Robert 2005, Tagliamonte 2008,Tagliamonte & D’Arcy 2007, etc.)
Few studies on Korean intensifiers No variationist studies on Korean intensifiers
No studies of intensifiers on spoken Korean
+Present study
A synchronic quantitative investigation of intensifiers in thespoken Korean by native Seoul speakers.
Sociolinguistic interviews with 42 native speakers of Korean
(Total N=1849)
Social & Linguistic constraints (Tagliamonte 2005, Rickford etal. 2008, inter alia)
Social factors
1) Speaker age
2) Speaker sex
Linguistic factors 1) The functional types of adjectival heads
2) The semantic types of their adjectival heads
+ Subjects & Data collection
Sex/Age Pre-adolescents(8-12)
Teens(13-19)
Collegestudents(20-28)
Adults(30-49)
Total
Female 8 6 7 5 26
Male 3 4 4 5 16
Total 11 10 11 10 42
Sociolinguistic interviews with 42 native speakers of Korean born andraised in Seoul
16 male & 26 female speakers ranging in age from 8 to 49
Initial interviews with the elementary school and high school studentsto whom I taught English as volunteer works
Friend-of-a-friend method
+
Attributive adjectives are part of the noun phrase headed by the nounthey modify.
a. They have a very unique culture.b. I drank very cold water.
Predicative adjectives are linked via a copula or other linking mechanismto the noun or pronoun they modify.
a. I was very happy.b. I was very proud of myself.
(Mustanoja 1960:326–27; Tagliamonte 2008:373)
Linguistic factor 1
Functional types of Adjectival head
+ Linguistic factor 2
Semantic types of Adjectival head
8 semantic types of adjectives proposed in Dixon (1982)& modified in Rickford et al. (2007)
The sound was very loud.[physical property]
The witch was really old. [age]
Strangely, the sky was really red! [color]
The flight was really fast. [speed]
I was very excited. [human propensity]
The chocolate bar was very delicious. [value]
Willy Wonka is very tall. [dimension]
The weather there is really exaggerated. [other]- different, mixed
+Data coding and analysis
Data Coding
: All intensifiable (gradable) adjectives were coded for twolinguistic factors (functional & semantic type of the adjectivalhead) and two social factors (speaker age & sex).
The principle of accountability (Labov, 1972)
Percentage intensification
= intensified adjectives/ all intensifiable adjectives
+ Circumscribing the variable context Following the variationist practice, the contexts in which they could have occurred but did not are only taken into account (Guy, 1993; Labov, 1972).
Only affirmatives were included. ce inhyeng–un cengmal kwiyep–Ø–ta. that doll–TOP really cute–PRS–DECL ‘That doll is really cute.’
Exclusions 1) Superlatives
ce inhyeng–un choykolo kwiyep–Ø–ta. that doll–TOP best cute–PRS–DECL‘That doll is the cutest doll.’
2) ComparativesCe inhyeng–un i inhyeng pota te kwiyep–Ø–ta.that doll– TOP this doll than more cute–PRS–DECL‘That doll is cuter than this doll.’
3) Negative contexts Ce inhyeng–un cengmal an kwiyep–Ø–ta. that doll– TOP really not cute–PRS–DECL ‘That doll is not really cute.’
+Mixed-effect model for MultipleRegression
Rbrul for Multivariate analyses (Johnson 2008a)
: Using Mixed-effects techniques which model the effects of fixedand random variables in the same analysis.
(http://www.daniealezrajohnson.com/Rbrul.R)
+Results Distributional analysis Multivariate analysis
+
Two most robustly occuringnemu and toykey account for56 percent of all theintensifiers used in the data:Out of 621 intensifiedadjectives, 349 adjectivesoccur with either nemu andtoykey.
Distributional analysis
1. Overalldistribution
Intensifiers Percent(%)
Number ofTokens
nemu 11 203toykey 7.9 146
koyngcanghi 3.1 62cincca 2.7 55
cengmal 2.4 51manhi 1.3 35
acu 1.1 21wancen 1.0 18
All other items 1.6 30Overall intensif
ication33.6 621
No intensification
66.4 1228
Total 100 1849
Frequency of intensifiers by lexical item (N >10)
+ Distributional analysis -
2.Distribution of nemu by Age
% Intensifica,o
n
+ Distributional analysis -
2.Distribution of nemu by Age
% Nem
u / All intensified
adjec,ves
+Distributional analysis
2.Distribution of toykey by Age
% Inten
sifica,
on
+Distributional analysis
2.Distribution of toykey by Age
% toykey / All intensified
adjec,ves
+ Distributional analysis
3.Distribution of nemuby speaker sex and age
nemu female
nemu male
+ Distributional analysis
3. Distribution of toykeyby speaker sex and age
toykey male
toykey female
+ Distributional analysis
4. Distribution of nemuby Adjectival functions
% Intensifica,o
n
+ Distributional analysis
4. Distribution of toykeyby Adjectival functions
Toykey/All adjec,ves
+ Distributional analysis
5.Distribution of nemuby Adjectival features
% Intensifica,o
n
+ Distributional analysis
5.Distribution of toykey byAdjectival features
% Intensifica,o
n
+Multivariate analysis
6. Mixed-model for nemu with random speaker effectsCorrected mean 0.11
Total N 1849
Intercept -4.08
Speaker STD 0.353
Factor groups Factors Log-odds FW N total % nemu
Age(p= .0018)
8-13 -0.75 0.32 454 0.06
14-19 0.21 0.55 424 0.13
20-28 0.11 0.53 562 0.12
30-49 0.44 0.61 409 0.14
Sex(p=.051)
Female 0.21 [0.55] 1235 0.12
Male -0.21 [0.45] 614 0.09
Adjective function
(p=0.0005)
Predicative 0.53 0.63 1553 0.12
Attributive -0.53 0.37 296 0.05
Adjective types(p=0.575)
Value 2.93 [0.95] 759 0.08
Human propensity 3.24 [0.96] 571 0.13
Physical trait -10.94 [<0.001] 7 0
Dimension 3.41 [0.968] 202 0.14
Age 2.96 [0.95] 30 0
Color -10.84 [<0.001] 17 .10
Position -10.94 [<0.001] 7 0
Speed 3.459 [0.97] 29 0.14
Other 2.913 [0.95] 252 0.08
+Corrected mean 0.08
Total N 1849
Intercept -6.09
Speaker STD 0.49
Factor groups Factors Log-odds FW N total % toykey
Age(p= 0.000246)
8-13 -0.44 0.39 454 0.04
14-19 0.83 0.70 424 0.14
20-28 0.35 0.59 562 0.09
30-49 -0.74 0.32 409 0.03
Sex(p=.00165)
Female 0.32 0.42 1235 0.06
Male -0.32 0.58 614 0.12
Adjectivefunction
(p=0.0164)
Predicative 0.37 0.59 1553 0.09
Attributive -0.37 0.41 296 0.04
Adjectivefeature
(p=0.719)
Value 3.12 [0.96] 759 0.07
Human propensity 3.22 [0.96] 571 0.09
Physical trait 3.04 [0.95] 7 0.07
Dimension 3.23 [0.97] 202 0.09
Age -10.35 [<0.001] 30 0
Color 3.28 [0.96] 17 0.06
Position -10.98 [<0.001] 7 0
Speed 2.18 [0.90] 29 0.03
Other 3.17 [0.96] 252 0.09
Multivariate analysis
6. Mixed-model for toykey with random speaker effects
+ Summary of significant factorsfound in mixed-model for nemu & toykey
with random speaker effects
Statistically significant factors (p<0.05)
nemu toykey
1. Adjective function (p=0.000277)• Predicative (.62)• Attributive (.39)
2. Age (p=0.0025)• Kids (.34)• Teens (.53)• College students (.53)• Adults (.61)
1. Age (p=0.0000075)• Kids (.40)• Teens (.69)• College students (.60)• Adults (.32)
2. Adjective function (p=0.012)• Predicative (.59)• Attributive (.41)
3. Sex (p=0.411)• Female (.55)• Male (.45)
+Discussion andConclusion
+Waning nemu & Rising toykey
nemu toykey
% Intensifica,o
n
% Intensifica,o
n
+Gradually waning nemu
The original meaning of nemu: ‘exceedingly’, ‘too’ Its use as an intensifier can be found as early as the fifteenth
century It originally collocated with words with negative connotations onlye.g. kukes-un nemu muke-wess-ta it-TOP too heavy-PST-DECL ‘It was too heavy.’
Grammaticalization of nemuAs it increased in frequency, however, its original meaning had faded
away and its width of collocation had expanded so that it came tocollocate with words having positive and neutral connotations.
e.g. kunye-nun nemu yeyppu-ta. she-TOP too pretty-PRS-DECL ‘She is too pretty.’ kukes-un nemu mucakwi-ta.
it-TOP too random-PRS-DECL ‘It is too random.’
(Lim 2004)
+Gradually waning nemu
(Tagliamonte & D’Arcy 2009)
+ Degree of delexicalization: Correlation with predicative adjectives
At the last stage in the development of intensifier very, a fully delexicalized
intensifier in English, it comes to collocate with predicative adjectives.
Attributive:a. They have a very unique culture.b. I drank very cold water.
Predicative:a. I was very happy.b. I was very proud of myself.
(Mustanoja 1960:326–27; Tagliamonte 2008:373)
+Multivariate analysis
6. Mixed-model for nemu with random speaker effectsCorrected mean 0.11
Total N 1948
Intercept -4.08
Speaker STD 0.353
Factor groups Factors Log-odds FW N total % nemu
Age(p= .0018)
8-13 -0.75 0.32 454 0.06
14-19 0.21 0.55 424 0.13
20-28 0.11 0.53 562 0.12
30-49 0.44 0.61 409 0.14
Sex(p=.051)
Female 0.21 [0.55] 1235 0.12
Male -0.21 [0.45] 614 0.09
Adjective function
(p=0.0005)
Predicative 0.53 0.63 1553 0.12
Attributive -0.53 0.37 296 0.05
Adjective types(p=0.269)
Value 2.93 [0.95] 759 0.08
Human propensity 3.24 [0.96] 571 0.13
Physical trait -10.94 [<0.001] 7 0
Dimension 3.41 [0.968] 202 0.14
Age 2.96 [0.95] 30 0
Color -10.84 [<0.001] 17 .10
Position -10.94 [<0.001] 7 0
Speed 3.459 [0.97] 29 0.14
Other 2.913 [0.95] 252 0.08
+Rising toykey
% Inten
sifica,
on
+Rising toykey
Etymology of toykey (Ahn 2003)
The inception : the 15th century
The original meaning: the combination of the adjective toyta (‘thickwithout moisture’) and the adverb suffix key (‘-ly’)
Gained the abstract meaning of ‘challengingly’ or ‘excessively’.
Functioned more frequently as an intensifier without originaldenotational meanings.
Its use as an intensifier has been much more recent than that ofnemu.
Possible interpretation 1: A change in progress
Toykey going through a grammaticalization & a change in progress?
+Adolescent peak of toykey
There appears a peak in theapparent time trajectory of toykey.
Adolescent peak is the pattern weusually find in change in progress,which indicates that adolescents usethe innovative forms morefrequently than their immediateyoungers (Labov 2001;Tagliamonte & D’Arcy 2009)
-> a change in progress?
+Leaders of the Change for toykey
• Women usually lead thediffusion of innovativeforms.
• An adolescent peak appearsin the apparent timetrajectory of femalespeakers (Labov 2001)
By contrast, the rise oftoykey appears to be led byteenage boys in this study
+Age-grading interpretation
The use of toykey is most frequent in one’s teens andits use decreases across one’s lifespan.
The social perception towards toykey
Toykey has been regarded as ‘informal’, ‘vernacular’, ‘tough’, etc. oreven slangy rather than as formal or standard language.
Burnouts or groups of speakers that have anti-institutional feelingsexpress those feelings by using strong vernacular (Eckert 2000)
The pressures of a nationwide university entrance examinationconsume Korean adolescents' energies and limit their free time,resulting in passive leisure that is associated with depression andaggressive behavior (Lee 2003)
+Conclusion & Future research
The two most frequently occurring intensifiers in Seoul Korean Nemu is robust across all age groups but appears to be waning gradually
Toykey is most frequently used among teenagers and its use decreases toolder generations
• A change in progress
• Age-grading
Plans for future research• Real time study using the Korean Telephone Conversation corpora (provided
by Linguistic Data Consortium) which 100 telephone conversations betweennative speakers of Korean recorded before 1996.
• Addition of speakers’ socioeconomic class and style as conditioningconstraints
• Follow-up qualitative studies on individuals
• Perception test on toykey - Social meaning of toykey
+
Thank you!
a special thanks to Penny Eckert,Josef Fruehwald, Daniel Ezra Johnson,
Yoonjung Kang, Bill Labov, Constantine Lignos,Laurel MacKenzie, Gillian Sankoff,
Sali A. Tagliamonte, Meredith Tamminga andLSA & PLC participantsfor helpful comments.
to my participants and…
+References
Ahn, Joo-Hoh. 2003. A Study on the Degree Adverb Ôtoykey (very)Õ in Korean Spoken Language. The Journal of Linguistic Science 24, 149-66.
Ash, Sharon. 2004. Social class. In: Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (Ed.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 402D422.Blackwell, Oxford.
BScklund, Ulf. 1973. The Collocations of Adverbs of Degree in English. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell. Bauer, Laurie & Winifred Bauer. 2002. Adjective boosters in the English of young New Zealanders. Journal of
English Linguistics, 30, 244D57. Becker, Judith A. 1990. Processes in the Acquisition of Pragmatic competence. In: Conti-Ramsden, Gina., Snow,
Catherine E. (Ed.), ChildrenÕs language, 7D22. Lawrence, New Jersey. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague and Paris: Mouton. Brinton, Laurel J & Leslie K. Arno vik. 2006 . The English langua ge. A Linguistic History. Oxf ord: Oxfo rd
University Press. Buchstaller, I . 2001 . He goes and IÕm like: The new quotatives re-visited. Paper presented at NWAV 30,
Raleigh, N.C., 11 -14 Oct. Chang, Young H. 200 1. Choi, Hong R. 1996 . Cengtopusa Yuuyruy Thon gsa Uymiloncek Yenku (ÔSyntactic and Semantic Studies of
Degree AdverbsÕ). Un published Dissertation. Chung-Ang University. [Written in Korean] Coulmas, Florian. 1992. Language and the Economy. Oxford: Blackwell. Dixon, R. M. W. 1977 . Whe re have all the adjectives gone? Studies in Langua ge, 1, 19D80. Eckert, Penelope. 1997. Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In F. Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistic,
151-67. Oxford: Blackwell. Eckert, Penelope. 2003. Language and adolescent peer groups. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22,
112-8
+References
Fries, Charles Carpenter. 1940 . American English Grammar. New York: Appleton, Century, Crofts. Guy, Gregory. 1993. The quantitative analysis of linguistic variation. In Dennis R. Preston (Ed.), American
Dialect Research. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 200 4. Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opp osite or orthogo nal. In Walter
Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann, & Björn Wiener (E ds.), What Makes Grammaticalization?: A Look from its Fringes and its Compo nents. Berlin: Mouton de Gru yter.
Heine, Bernd & K uteva, Tania. 200 2. On the evolution of gramm atical forms. In Alison Wray (Ed .), The Transition to L angua ge, 376 –397. Oxfor d: Oxf ord University Press.
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ito, Rika & Tagliamonte, Sali. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool. Language in Society, 32,
257D279. Jespersen, Otto H. 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd. Kang, Beom-Mo & Kim, Hung-gyu. 2009. Hankukeuy sayongpinto (ÔFrequency of KoreanÕ). Seoul: Korean
Culture Publishing. Key, Mary R. 197 5. Male/female Langua ge. Metuchen, NJ: T he Scarecrow Press. Kim, Hye Y. 2009. The Usage of Degree adverbs in Spoken Language. Unpublished MA thesis. Korea
University. Labov, William. 1984. Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In John Baugh & Joel
Sherzer (Eds.), Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics, 28-53. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Labov, William. 1985. Intensity. In Deborah Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: Linguistic
applications, 43D70.Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Lako ff, Robin. 197 3. Langua ge and wom anÕs place. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lim, Gyu-hong. 2004. On the characteristic of the word formation and co-occurrence of Korean degree adverb
Ônemu Õ. URIMALGEU L : The Korean Language and Literature 32, 76-100. Lorenz, Gunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the
delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (Eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 143D61. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
+References
Macaulay, Ronald K. S. 2006. Pure grammaticalization: The development of a teenage intensifier. Language Variation and Change 18, 267D83.
Mair, Christian. 2004. Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory. Statistics, frequencies and beyond. In Lindquist & Mair, 121D50.
Meyerhoff, Miriam. 2002. Communities of practice. In J.K. Chambers, Natalie Schilling-Estes and Peter Trudgill (Eds.) Handbook of Language Variation and Change, 526-48. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English Syntax. Helsinki: Soci«et«e N«eophilologique. Paradis, Carita. 2000. ItÕs well weird. Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. In Kirk (Ed.), 147D
60. Partington, Alan. 1993. Corpus evidence of language change: The case of intensifiers. In Mona Baker, Gill
Francis & Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 177D92. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Peters, Hans. 1994. Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. In Dieter Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 269D88. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rickford, John R., Buchstaller, Isabelle., Wasow, Tom. & Zwicky, Arnold. 2007b. Intensive and quotative ALL: Something old, something new. American Speech 82 (1), 3-31.
Roh, Dae K. 1996. Hankukeuy Ipmalkwa Kulmal (ÔKorean AdverbsÕ). Seoul:Korean Studies Publishing
+References
Sinclair, John. 1992. Trust the text: The implications are daunting. In Martin Davies & Louise Ravelli (Eds.), Advances in Systemic Linguistics, 5D19. London: Pinter.
Stenstroã m, An na-Brita. 199 9. He was really gormless D SheÕs Bloody Crap: Girls, boys and intensifiers. In Hilde Hasselgard & Signe Okesfjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora: Studies in Hono ur of Stig Joha nsson, 69D78. Amsterdam and Atlant a: Rodopi.
Stenstroã m, An na-Brita. 200 0. ItÕs Enough Fun ny, Man : Intensifiers in teenage talk. In Kirk (Ed.), 177 D90. Stoffel, Cornelis. 1901. Intensives and Downtoners. (Anglistische Forchungen 1). Heidelberg: Winter. Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006a. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006b. ÔSo cool, right?Õ: Canadian English entering the 21st century. Canadian English in a
Global Context. Special issue of Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51(2/3), 309D31. Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2008. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English
Language and Linguistics 12(2), 361D394. Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Chris Roberts. 2005. So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the
television series Friends. American Speech 80 (3), 280D300. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2006 . The semantic development of scalar focus modifiers. In Ansvan Kemenade
& Bettelou Los (Eds.), The Handbo ok of the History of En glish, 335 D59. Oxf ord: Blackwell. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. & Dasher, Richard B. 200 2. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge Studies in
Linguistics 96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woolard, Kathryn A. 1985. Language variation and cultural hegemony towards an integration of sociolinguistic
and social theory. American Ethnologist 12 (4), 738-48.