Content uploaded by Wafaa Al-Temeemey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Wafaa Al-Temeemey on Mar 31, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
529 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
ISSN: 1994-4217 (Print) 2518-5586(online)
Journal of College of Education
Available online at: https://eduj.uowasit.edu.iq
Lect. Wafaa Husain
Jabur Al-Temeemey
College of Education
/Misan University
Email:
Wafaaaltimimi@uomisa
nedu.iq
Keywords
:
Degree Modefiers ,
Meaning , Iraqi
Learners , EFL
A r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 9 Apr.2022
Accepted 19. May.2022
Published 1. August.2022
Correlation between Degree Modifiers and their Effect on Meaning:
Iraqi EFL Learners' Perception
A B S T R A CT
The semantics of degree modification and its effect on mutating the
meaning of structures that they appear in have held considerable appeal for
specialists in areas ranging from lexical semantics to language pedagogy.
Although the general concept of degree modifiers received a lot of
attention in the twentieth century studies in linguistics, it has been treated
only theoretically. The pedagogical side of degree modifiers seems to be
a neglected topic. This paper is an attempt at addressing this gap in the
literature. The main aim of this research is to examine students'
knowledge in the functions of the degree modifiers and their semantic
effect. The paper investigates whether the effect of degree modifiers on
meaning is distinguished to the same extent by fourth year students
majoring in English. To this end, the researcher designed a multiple choice
question test to determine whether students are able to find the correlation
between the type of degree modifier used and the meaning of the given
sentences. Data analysis was performed using a number of descriptive
measures in addition to a T-test and a Chi-square test. The results show
that the Iraqi English major students face severe difficulty in distinguishing
differences in meaning resulting from using degree modifiers in different
contexts. The results also show a gradation in difficulty across the different
types of modifiers.
© 2022 EDUJ, College of Education for Human Science, Wasit University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31185/eduj.Vol48.Iss1.2946
530 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
T
1.Introduction
Since the early twentieth century, when prominent works like Stoffel (1901) and Borst
(1902) were published, the study of degree modifiers has been a major topic in English
Historical Linguistics. This is owing to the fact that intensification is regarded as one of the
most prolific grammar areas in terms of lexical and semantic change (e.g. Pyles & Algeo 1993:
250; Quirk et al. 1985: 590). Intensity is a linguistic characteristic that reflects how much a
speaker's attitude toward an idea deviates from neutrality (Bradac et al., 1979: 258). As the
speaker conveys an attitude toward a topic, intensity, as one of the basic human cognitive
categories, plays an important role in the communicative context (Lovrović& Pintarić,
2019:106). Leech, (2006:57) clarifies that intensification is a common term for the use of
degree modifiers to intensify the meaning or strength of some part of a sentence. This can apply
to the intensification of adjectives and adverbs. As a result, it is frequently claimed that
intensity is the degree modifiers' markedly emotional function that causes such frequent
renewal' for expressivity reasons, and that degree modifiers are thus constantly changing due
to the diachronic and the synchronic processes of grammaticalisation and the speaker's need to
emphasize what is being said.
In everyday English, degree modifiers are common, and their emphatic effect can be
amplified when paired with international focus on the modifier. As a result, degree modifiers
are valuable, adaptable expression tools that appear to be quite simple in nature (Ringwood,
2006:7). The fastest and most fascinating semantic advancements in language change are
thought to occur with degree modifiers (Quirk et al., 1985:590; Peters, 1994:269). This section
of the grammar is constantly causing change in meaning (Stoffel, 1901:2), in part due to
"speakers' drive to be 'unique,' to display their linguistic abilities, and to grab the attention of
their audience" (Peters, 1994:271).
2. The Nature of Degree Modefiers
Elements that are utilized to modify other elements in terms of degree are referred to in
a variety of ways across the literature. For example, Bolinger (1972), Quirk et al. (1985),
Partington (1993), and more recently Méndez-Naya (2003, 2006, 2007, 2008) opt for the term
531 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
'intensifiers,' whereas Allerton (1987) uses the slightly different term 'degree intensifier,' Peters
(1992, 1994) uses 'degree adverb,' whereas Paradis (1997) prefers 'degree modifier'. This lack
of agreement on the labeling of these linguistic components, according to Paradis (1997: 12),
is due to their "complexity and fuzziness." Indeed, not only the terminology itself, but even
the definitions offered differ in this regard. Degree modifiers, according to Greenbaum
(1996:151), are adverbs that indicate a position on a scale of intensity, either upward or
downward. Degree modifiers were defined previously by Quirk et al. (1985: 445) as adverbs
that change other components and serve as a "scaling device" by their ability to modify
elements of a diversity of word classes, namely adjectives, as in she is a really clever girl, other
adverbs, as in he is coming really soon, verbs as in they really hate each other, and so on. The
most typical use of such adverbs is to alter gradable adjectives.
Ringwood (2006:7) declares that the term ‘degree modifiers’ is at odds with the ordinary,
conventional way in which they are utilized. Many people would have no idea what the
expression implies in the first place. Degree modifiers such as really, very, and fairly blend in
well with the natural flow of sentences and do a great job of serving the purpose behind using
them. Degree modifiers, as their name indicates, are used to affect the perceived strength of the
language form on which they function (known as the head). Several decades ago, Jacobson
(1964:14) highlighted the extent of syntactic dependency between modifiers and the head,
whereby the head can pick and decide the modifiers in the first place. The adjective 'cold' (the
head), for example, picks degree modifiers such as fairly, very, bitterly, and so on, but not
much. As a result, the nature of the head plays pivotal role in defining which degree modifiers
are available for us to use.
Degree modifiers are defined by Sassoon & Zevakhina (2015:1) as a set of scalar alternatives
spanning from weak modifiers (e.g slightly, a bit, somewhat) to strong modifiers (e.g.
completely, totally, perfectly). They operate as modifying components in many sorts of
discourse "to reinforce or attenuate a variable aspect in the element it applies to," (Paradis,
1997: 41). The same concepts are expressed by Tagliamonte & Roberts in terms of scaling the
quality of an adjective or adverb up or down" since they prefer to portray intensity using a
scale with two spheres: intensity above and below the norm, while the standard is culturally
established (2005: 281).
The collocates of degree modifiers are varied. They can be adjectives, adverbs, verbs,
or nouns. The degree of intensity, the dimension they relate to, syntactic restrictions, and
specific lexical restrictions of collocation determine which element will be intensified. But
they typically modify adjectives, which is not unexpected given that adjectives are a category
highly adaptable to gradation. Adjectives are also the paradigmatic substrate for comparative
and superlative comparisons, and may be seen as the foundation for the intensification process
(Dressler & Barbaresi, 1994: 417).
3. The Classification of Degree Modifiers
To study degree modifiers, a classification system is required to establish which linguistic
components can be categorized as degree modifiers.Degree modifiers are classified
linguistically into various categories. (Quirk et al., 1985). Various categories have been
532 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
proposed to account for the classification of these modifiers. Adverbs and adjectives are the
simplest to recognize, which may explain why some degree modifier research relies only on
adverbs and adjectives (Zutphen, 2017:5). Degree modifiers are classified as a group due to
their common function of adding a degree of specification for the particular object they are
used to modify. However, differences exist among the individual members of the category most
notably in terms of the precise value that they assign to components. Furthermore, there are
conspicuous groups of items that designate nearly the same degree, for instance items such as,
extremely, very and highly, which all show a very high degree, and words like pretty, fairly,
and rather, which all express a moderate degree. Given the wide range of linguistic items used
to refer to degree modifiers, it is somewhat unsurprising that there are several techniques for
distinguishing distinct kinds within this broad category (McManus, 2012:6-7). As a result, the
primary goal of this section is to examine some of the available degree modifier categorization
models.
Prior to a more in-depth treatment (in sections 3.2-3.4) of three major modern models, namely
those developed by Quirk et al. (1985), Allerton (1987) and Paradis (1997). In the first sub-
section, preparatory attention is given to a quick survey of some of the early categories that
have affected them.
3.1 Initial Classifications
Stoffel (1901:129) created the first division of degree modifiers for English adverbs of
degree. He distinguished between INTENSIVERS, which denote an extreme or high degree
of a characteristic, and DOWNTONERS which denote a moderate, minor, or hardly discernible
degree of a quality. Borst (1902), who was also concerned with English adverbs, maintains the
binary categorization, but adds adverbs like almost and all to the DOWNTONERS group.
Bolinger (1972: 17) categorizes degree words into four groups based on the position
they occupy on the scale. BOSTERS (such as very) refer to the scale's highest point, whereas
COPROMISERS (such as rather) refer to the scale's midway point. DIMINISHERS ( such as
as little) occupy the lower part on the scale whereas MINIMIZERS(such as a bit) occupy the
lowest point on the scale. Continuing the idea of a more comprehensive review of the many
forms of degree modifiers, Bäcklund's (1973) categorization is even more thorough, with the
following eight sub-categories named by the degree exhibited by their members.Words like
nearly,almost, virtually , practically are called complete or partial absence degree, minimum
degree include words like hardly, barely ,scarcely, just low degree refers to words like
slightly,mildly, somewhat low degree of a positive idea includes words such as little, moderate
degree e.g. fairly, pretty, rather, quite, increasing degree like the word increasingly, high
degree e.g. extremely, terribly, tremendously, very and highest degree such as completely,
absolutely, completely, totally, entirely Bäcklund (1973:19-194).
In recent years, as interest in this specific linguistic issue has grown, researchers have looked
into the nature of various individual degree modifiers in order to learn more about the category
as a whole and the diverse types it covers. Such findings led to the suggested classifications
of Quirk et al. (1985), Allerton (1987), and Paradis (1997), which are widely regarded as the
most important models of recent years. Because of the importance of these three models, sub-
sections 3.2-3.4 are devoted to exploring them individually.
533 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
3.2) Classification of Quirk et al. (1985)
Quirk et al. (1985: 589-590) employ the term INTENESIFIERS to refer to all adverbial
degree modifiers, including both strengthening and softening modifiers. In their taxonomy,
AMPLIFICATION and DOWNTONERS are the two subgroups of degree modifiers with the
main distinction being that amplifiers "scale upwards from an assumed norm," but
DOWNTONERS "have a lowering effect, usually scaling downwards from an assumed norm"
AMPLIFIERS are further divided into two groups, MAXIMIZERS and BOOSTERS.
BOOSTERS e.g. very, highly and severely suggest a high point on the scale, while
MAXIMIZERS e.g. totally ,entirely and fully denote an upper extreme point,
DOWNTONERS are classified into four subtypes: APPROXIMATORS, COMPROMISERS,
DIMINISHERS, and MINIMIZERS. APPROXIMATORS such as almost, nearly, and
virtually are unique in that they "imply a denial of the truth value" of whatever the modified
item denotes (Quirk et al. 1999: 598) "She was almost dead," for example, implies that she was
not actually dead. COMPROMISERS e.g., sort of, kind of, rather, and more or less "have just
a small lowering effect" and serve to call the changed item's appropriateness into question.
DIMINISHERS, and MINIMIZERS are similar to the two kinds of amplifiers(MAXIMIZERS
and BOOSTER) in that the MINIMIZERS are negative maximizers like at all, in the least, as
well as hardly and scarcely when used to signify ‘not to any extent'. But DIMINISHERS scale
downwards and basically mean 'to a little extent', commonly realized by adverbs such as
slightly, somewhat and partially. Words like only, merely and simply are included in the group
of DIMINISHERS because they indicate attitude by "implying that the force of the thing
concerned is limited" (Quirk et al. 1999: 598). Figure(1) summarizes the above mentioned
classification:
MAXIMIZERS
e.g. absolutely,
AMPLIFIERS
completely
BOOSTERS
e.g. greatly, highly
INTENSIFIERS
APPROXIMATORS
e.g. almost, nearly
COMPROMISERS
e.g rather,
DOWNTONERS
sufficiently
DIMINISHERS
e.g. slightly,
merely
MINIMIZERS
e.g. barely, hardly
Figure(1) – Quirk et al.’s (1985) classification of degree modifiers
534 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
3.3 Classification of Allerton (1987)
Degree modifiers are classified differently by Allerton (1987). His classification is based
on adjective degree modifiers. There is no attempt to evaluate the relationships between the
various groups of degree modifiers using a scale or a branching hierarchy. Instead, his
contribution to the understanding of degree modifiers is a classification system that divides
them into four groupings based on the gradable property in question. The following is a
synopsis of his classification.
1. Scalar Modifiers denote different elements of a mental scale of degree that extends from
infinitely high to zero, e.g. extremely, very, pretty, rather, somewhat, fairly, slightly, not at
all.
2. Telic Modifiers link the actual degree of the modified item to the extent needed for some
purpose and place it above or below that mark, e.g. easily, only, just, barely hardly, nearly,
virtually.
3. Absolutive Modifiers demonstrate that the degree of the modified item is 'superlative',
e.g. absolutely, totally, entirely, and utterly these combined with adjectives of the
superlative type.
4. Differential Modifiers show the degree of difference between the item being mentioned
and a reference point. They include a lot, far, slightly, much, marginally, and a bit when
used in conjunction with comparatives.
The properties of the collocating adjectives are taken into account by Allerton's model. He
dismisses Quirk et al’s model precisely because it fails to account for the fact that the
collocating items are gradable in a variety of ways. According to Allerton, the semantic
complexity of adjectives limits the choice of degree modifiers. He criticizes previous scholars
for their treatment of the concept of gradability, which he claims is applied too broadly when
they suggest that some adjectives are gradable and can thus take degree modifiers and have a
comparative form, while others are not. Allerton notes that this viewpoint is clearly
oversimplified "because, for example, both very and absolutely express degree, and yet we find
very surprising, absolutely amazing, but hardly absolutely surprising or very amazing." There
is obviously a need for a more nuanced classification (Paradis 1997:25).
3.4 Classification of Paradis (1997)
The model proposed by Paradis (1997) is influenced by both of the earlier models discussed
above, but shares the most with Allerton's (1987). Paradis' model, like Allerton's, is specifically
concerned with elements that modify adjectives with particular regard to degree and
emphasizes the significance of the relationship between degree modifiers and their adjectival
collocates with the intention to distinguish types of each of these elements (Paradis 1997:26).
However, using Allerton's classifications of degree modifiers and adjectives as a starting point,
Paradis seeks to supply a more refined description of the former by delving into the reasons
behind the typical degree modifier-adjective pairings that motivated her distinctions. To that
end, she employs a cognitive approach inspired by scholars such as Langacker (1987), Lakoff
535 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
(1987), Taylor (1989), Cruse (1995), and Cruse & Togia (1996), assuming that the emergence
of the meaning of linguistic expressions takes place when certain conceptual patterns in the
cognitive system are activated (Paradise 1997:48). Degree modifiers are classified according
to their degree force, i.e. reinforcing or attenuating, and according to their type of grading, i.e.
totality or scalar.
The classification encompasses five paradigms, with members of each paradigm exhibiting
similar behaviors to varying degrees. See Figure (2). The first distinction to be made between
REINFORCERS and ATTENUATORS that REINFORCERS increase the degree denoted by
the adjective, while attenuators decrease the degree (Ibid.: 27-28). Thus degree modifiers are
divided into two categories. One subset is concerned with TOTALITY grading, while the other
is concerned with SCALAR grading.
SCALAR MODIFIER
TOTALITY MODIFIER
DEGREE
BOOSTER, e.g. very
MODERATOR, e.g. rather
DIMINSHER, e.g. slightly
MAXIMIZER, e.g. completely
APPROIMATOR, e.g. almost
REINFORCER
ATTENUATOR
Figure ( 2) Paradis’ classification of degree modifiers (adapted from Paradis 1997: 28).
By definition, TOTALITY modifiers are classified into MAXIMISERS, which indicate a
perfect match with a maximum (e.g. completely full), and APPROXIATORS, which
demonstrate that a tradable property falls short of the maximum (e.g. almost full). SCALAR
modifiers are divided into BOOSTERS, which convey a reinforcing effect on the modified
property (e.g. extremely full), MODERATORS, which assume the middle range (e.g., fairly
full) and DIMINSHERS, which significantly reduce the properties they refer to (e.g., a bit
full). Table (3) illustrates these classifications(Ibid.: 28).
TOTALITY MODIFIERS
REINFORCERS MAXIMIZER quite, absolutely, completely, perfectly, totally, entirely, utterly
ATTENUATORS APPROXIMATOR almost
SCALAR MODIFIERS .
REINFORCERS BOOSTER very,terribly,extremely,most,awfully, jolly, highly,frightfully
ATTENUATORS MODERATOR quite, rather, pretty, fairly
DIMINSHER a (little) bit, slightly, a little, somewhat
Figure (3) The different members of the five paradigms
536 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
4. Gradability and Degree
Words are considered gradable when they can be perceived as being on a range of degree
of intensity. Adjectives and adverbs are usually gradable. This credibility is expressed in three
ways. They may be changed by degree modifiers, e.g. extremely hot, very badly. They can be
compared to other adjectives and adverbs (happier, more important) (Greenbaum & Nelson,
2002: 278). And they can be arranged on a scale of comparison.So we can say that something
is a bit cold , somewhat cold, quite cold , very cold , or extremely cold. We may also compare
things and claim that one item is colder than another or that one thing is the coldest among
several (ibid. 2009:43). But that doesn't mean that other parts of speech are not gradable, Paridis
(2003 :8). In some combinations, verbs can be graded. If we take the reinforcer really as an
example, it comes very close to being a degree as in ‘I really hate her’ or ‘He really enjoyed
the party’. However, unlike adjectives, verbs can only be graded in an extreme way. The scalar
modifier very cannot be used with verbs, e.g. *‘He very admires you’. 'He very much admires
you' is conceivable only by combining the words very and much. 'Much' is an essential attribute
of a scalar adjective, but it must be explicitly expressed using gradable verbs, as in 'How good
was the book?' vs. 'How much did you say you liked it? When we add a degree element, the
modifier really is essentially remains the same when used with verbs, e.g. 'I really love her
very much' and 'They really enjoyed the party very much'.
To indicate the point on the scale, we basically use degree modifiers. The adverb very is the
most common intensifier of adjectives. Other examples of degree modifiers include:
fairly warm entirely different
pretty difficult incredibly dull
rather dark too old
Adverbs, like adjectives, are usually gradable and can be adjusted with degree modifiers and
comparisons: very calmly, quite calmly, less calmly, most calmly. The pre-modifiers more and
most are required with most adverbs that take comparison. The inflections -er and -est are used
on adverbs that have the same form as adjectives (e.g. late – later – latest). The inflections of
the following adverbs are irregular; the first three are the same as those of adjectives
(Greenbaum & Nelson 2002:98).
Well better best
Badly worse worst
Far farther/further farthest/furthest
Little less least
Much more most
537 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
Comparison is a grammatical category that may be represented by inflections in numerous
gradable adjectives and a few gradable adverbs. Inflectional forms generally endes in -er or -
est (Greenbaum 1996:85).The are three types of comparison that are possible with gradable
adjectives and adverbs, they are comparison in relation:
(1) To a higher degree
(2) To the same degree
(3) To a lower degree
The following means are used to express the three types of comparisons:
(1) Comparison to a higher degree is conveyed by the inflected forms in -er and -est, or their
periphrastic counterparts more and most:
Adam is cleverer/more clever than Jack. (comparative)
Adam is the cleverest/most clever student in the class. (superlative)
English has a three-term inflectional contrast for higher degree comparisons:
Absolute polite, high
Comparative politer/more polite, higher
Superlative politest/most polite, highest
(2) Comparison to the same degree is represented by as:
Adam is as tall as John.
Adam is not as tall as John.
(3) Comparison to a lower degree is conveyed by less and least:
This exam is less difficult than the previous one.
This is the least difficult exam of all.
5. The Semantics of Degree Modifiers
According to Kennedy and McNally (2005:345) the distribution and interpretation of degree
modifiers are affected by the scalar structure of the adjectives they modify as well as the type
of the "standard values" used to determine the truth of sentences incorporating adjectival
predications. The distinction between expensive and extremely expensive, for example, is that
the latter signifies a quality with the same meaning as the former, but with the standard value
boosted to a certain amount.
Athanasiadou (2007: 561) affirms that an intensifier can assume various meanings and, so,
belong to distinct categories depending on the adjective it premodifies and the degree to which
it has been semantically bleached or delexicalised. Paradis (2008: 325) agrees with
Athanasiadou, by saying that most degree modifiers are employed primarily as either scalar or
totality modifiers, e.g. pretty and absolutely respectively, once they are used in connection with
the element they modify, they decide the interpretation of the whole.
538 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
Despite the fact that Paradis correctly refers to the intensifier beautiful as a degree modifier
that is almost typically employed as a scalar modifier, Wittouck (2011:16) claims that this
intensifier may be found in a variety of subcategories. Pretty has a connotation that is
comparable to that of the intensifier quite, but it may also communicate a degree of
intensification that is close to that of the word very, as the following examples demonstrate.
- They huddled together in twos and threes, with the pretty little church standing back about
halfway down the village.
- I’m afraid I got very annoyed and left; it was pretty obvious to me that there wasn’t going to
be a proper discussion.
In (1), pretty little
characterizes the church as little rather than large, but in (2), pretty obvious
has a stronger undertone. It was undoubtedly evident that "there wasn't going to be a proper
discussion" since the speaker "left" and was "very annoyed." As a result, rather or quite might
be a synonym for pretty in the first example, though this intensifier would not indicate the
necessary degree of modification in the second (ibid.).
6. Methodology
6.1 Participants
Eighty six fourth year students majoring in English at the University of Misan, College of
Education, for the academic year 2021/2022 participated in the present
study.
6.2 The Test
The researcher constructed a test based on Parides' (1997) model of degree modifiers
classification. A multiple choice question test was constructed to determine whether
participants are able to discriminate meaning according to the type of degree modifiers and the
adjectives they combined with. The test consists of twenty two items divided into four groups
to test learners in each type of degree modifiers. Points 1-7 concern the TOTAL
MAXIMIZERS modifiers (absolutely, completely, perfectly, totally, entirely, utterly) in
addition to the TOTAL APPROXINMATOR (almost). Points 8-15 deal with the SCALAR
BOOSTERS (very, terribly, extremely, most, awfully jolly, highly, frightfully). Points 16-19
relate to SCALAR MODERATORS (quite, rather, pretty, fairly). And finally, points 20-22
pertain to SCALAR DIMINSHERS (slightly, a little, somewhat). Each point presents a
sentence which contains a degree modifier attached to an adjective followed by four choices,
suggesting four different interpretations for the sentence's meaning. The participants were
asked to infer the correct meaning and identify the option that reflects it. To ensure the face
and content validity of the test, the researcher presented it to a jury of experts to judge the
appropriateness of the test items for the intended purpose. The jurors were asked to read the
test, add, delete or change the items. The jurors agreed upon the appropriateness of the test
items since none of the included items were deleted.
539 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
6.3 Data Analysis
In an attempt to accomplish the aim of the study, which is determining whether the students
are able to distinguish the difference in meaning according to the type of degree modefiers
used, a number of descriptive measures, including mean, standard deviation and person
correlation in addition to a T-test and a Chi-square test were employed.
According to Tavakoli (2013: 59), the Chi-square test compares actual or observed frequencies
with expected frequencies in a sample data to decide if the two frequencies differ statistically.
It is also employed to investigate the relationship between the variables, which provides the
researcher with information on how the variables may influence each other (Paltridge &
Phakiti, 2015:155). This may propose that Chi-square is the suitable data analysis instrument
in the present study since it aims to investigate whether the effect of degree modifiers on
meaning are distinguished to the same extent by the subjects.
7. Results and Discussion
In an attempt to examine students' knowledge in the function of the degree modifiers and the
semantic effect of these modifiers, the statistically treated data of students’ test showed the
following result as it illustrated in the below tables:
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error Mean
Total Maximizers
Total Approximator
86
6.5
3.160024498
3.40754205
Scalar Boosters
86
1.3
2.076125260
2.23874344
Scalar Moderators
86
3.4
3.034083369
3.27173624
Scalar Diminishers
86
1.4
2.121907845
2.28811207
age
86
22.12
3.62604
3.9101
Total
86
12.6
5.12917
5.5309
Table (1) Descriptive Measures
Table (1) shows the descriptive measures: mean, standard deviation and standard errors
mean of the participants' responses, in addition to the mean age of the subjects. A quick
inspection on the values of the total mean which equals (12.6) reveals that Iraqi students find
it extremely difficult to discriminate the different meanings resulting from using all the types
of degree modefiers that appeared in the test. The results shows a variation in the level of
difficulty in distinguishing between the different types of degree modefiers. As the table
shows, the subjects find the SCALAR BOOSTERS the most difficult type to distinguish in
terms of meaning with a mean of (1.3). TOTAL MAXIMIZERS and TOTAL
APPROXIMATOR represent the easiest types to identify with an estimated mean of about
(6.5). The calculated mean of the SCALAR MODERATORES is (3.4) and that of the SCALAR
DIMINSHERS is (1.4)
540 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
Test Value = 0
t
df
Sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean Difference
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower
Upper
Total Maximizers
Total Approximator
19.078
85
.000
6.501057082
5.82354643
7.17856773
Scalar Boosters
5.902
85
.000
1.321353065
.87623089
1.76647524
Scalar Moderators
10.501
85
.000
3.435517970
2.78500915
4.08602679
Scalar Diminishers
6.237
85
.000
1.427061311
.97212333
1.88199929
Age
56.592
85
.000
22.12791
21.3505
22.9053
Total
22.935
85
.000
12.68499
11.5853
13.7847
Table (2) T-test
Table (2) shows the T-test for each type of the degree modefiers tested, degree of freedom,
significance level, upper and lower limits of the mean under confide level -95% .By comparing
the P-value with the significance level α=0.05, it was noted that the P-value is less than α,
which means that the mean of the students' answers that test each type of degree modefiers in
addition to the mean of the total test answers ≠ 0
Gender
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Female
77
89.5
89.5
89.5
Male
9
10.5
10.5
100.0
Total
86
100.0
100.0
Table (3) Gender
Table (3) and its digram show the number and percent of male and female participants of this test.
The males represent 10.5% of the subjects while females represent 89.5% .
541 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
Gender * Total Crosstabulation
Count
Total
Total
.00
4.55
9.09
13.64
18.18
22.73
27.27
Gende
r
Male
1
3
30
25
12
5
1
77
Female
1
1
3
0
4
0
0
9
Total
2
4
33
25
16
5
1
86
Table (4) Gender * Total Crosstabulation
Table (4) is a concordance table that shows the intersection between gender and students' scores in the
test. The existence of a relationship between the gender of the student and the total mean can be tested
through the chi-square test shown in the table below.
Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
11.535a
6
.073
Likelihood Ratio
12.280
6
.056
Linear-by-Linear Association
.436
1
.509
N of Valid Cases
86
a. 11 cells (78.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 10
Table (5) Chi-Square Test
The above table shows the Chi - square test of the assumption of the relation between gender
and participant's scores. Through comparing the standard test with the P-value, we notice that
it equals 0.073, which means that the P-value > α =0.05, indicating that there is no relation
between learners’ gender and their ability to distinguish the difference in meaning resulting
from the effect of using different types of degree modefiers (Table 5 Chi-Square Test)
Pearson Correlations
542 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
Total
age
Total
Pearson Correlation
1
-.166
Sig. (2-tailed)
.127
N
86
86
age
Pearson Correlation
-.166
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.127
N
86
86
Table (6) Pearson Correlations
Table (6) shows the value of the Pearson correlation coefficient between age and the
participants' scores. It is clear that the value of the correlation coefficient equals -0.166, which
means there is a weak inverse relationship between participants' score and age.
8. Conclusions
This study has examined the correlation between the use of different types of degree
modefiers and their effect on meaning through testing students’ ability to identify the correct
interpretation of the intended meaning. Based on the data analysis, it is concluded that Iraqi
English major students face severe difficulty in distinguishing differences in meaning resulting
from using degree modefiers in different contexts. Furthermore, the outcome showed a
gradation in difficulty among different types of modefiers. The SCALAR BOOSTERS
represent the most difficult type to distinguish in terms of their effect on meaning. They were
followed by the SCALAR DIMINISHERS as the second most difficult type to distinguish.
The SCALAR MODERATORS appeared to be less challenging to students. While TOTAL
MAXIMIZERS and TOTAL APPROXIMATES represent the easiest type to identify
regarding meaning diversity resulting from their use.
Based on these results, the researcher recommends more focus on the area of intesificaion, and
specially degree modefiers usages, through incorporating them in all the curriculums whether
they were literary or linguistic contexts and trying to shed more light on them in different
courses since this can affect the delivered meaning and lead to conveying a completely different
message.
543 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
References
• Allerton, D. J. (1987). “English Intensifiers and their Idiosyncrasies”. In Steele, R. &Threadgold, T. (Eds).
Language Topics.Essays in honor of Michael Halliday. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.15-31.
• Athanasiadou, A. (2007). “On the subjectivity of intensifiers”. Language Sciences. Vol.29, No.4, pp.554-
565. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000107000198
• Bäcklund, U. (1973). The collocation of adverbs of degree in English. PhD. Dissertation, Sweden: Uppsala
University.
• Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton.
• Borst, E. (1902). Die Gradadverbien im Englischen. Heidelberg: C. Winters
Universitätsbuchhandlung.
• Bradac, J.J., Bowers, J.W., & Courtright, J.A. (1979). Three language variables in communication research:
intensity, immediacy, and diversity. Human Communication Research. Vol.5, No.3, pp.257-269.
• Cruse, D. A. & Togia, P. 1996. ‘Towards a Cognitive Model of Antonymy.’In Journal of Lexicology 1,
113-141.
• Cruse, D. A. (1995). ‘Polysemy and Related Phenomena from a Cognitive Linguistic Viewpoint.’In St.
Dizier, P. & Viegas, E. (eds.) Computational Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 33-49.
• Dressler, W. U., & Barbaresi, L. M. (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in
Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (2002). An Introduction to English grammar, 2nd ed. Londres:
Routledge.
• Greenbaum, S., & Nelson, G. (2009). An Introduction to English grammar, 3rd ed. Londres: Routledge.
• Jacobson, S. (1964). Adverbial Positions in English. University of Stockholm, Stockholm.
• Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics of Gradabl
Predicates. Language Vol.81, No.2, pp.345-381.
• Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundation of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Leech, G. N. (2006). A glossary of English grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
• McManus, J. (2012). English Degree Modifiers: a Diachronic Corpus-based Study of the Maximizer Class.
PhD. Dissertation, University of Liverpool.
• Paltridge, B., & Phakiti, A. (2015). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Resource.
London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
• Paradis, C. (1997). Degree Modifiers of Adjectives in Spoken British English. Lund: Lund University
Press.
• Paradis, C. (2003). Between epistemic modality and degree: the case of really1. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug,
& F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Mouton de Gruyter.pp1-18.
Paradis, C. (2008). “Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree”. English Language
and Linguistics, Vol.12, No.2, pp.317–343, Cambridge: Cambridge University.
• Partington, A. (1993). ‘Corpus Evidence of Language Change: The Case of the Intensifier.’ In Baker, M.,
Francis, G. &Tognini-Bonelli, E. (Eds.) Text and Technology in Honor of John Sinclair. Philadelphia &
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 177.
• Peters, H. (1994). ‘Degree Adverbs in Early Modern English.’ In Kastovsky, D. (ed.) Studies in Early
Modern English. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.269-271.
• Peters, H. (1992). English boosters: Some synchronic and diachronic aspects.
In Kellermann, G. & Morrissey, M. D. (eds.), Diachrony within synchrony: Language history and
cognition, pp529–45. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
• Pyles, T., Algeo, J. (1993). The Origins and Development of the English Language, 4th ed. Fort Worth:
Harcourt.
• Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. London: Longman.
544 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
• Ringwood, D.C. (2006). A Cognitive Linguistic Study of Categorisation and Uncertain Reasoning in the
Representation of Degree Modifiers. PhD. Dissertation, Lancaster University: Lancaster Eprints.
• Sassoon, G. & Zevakhina, N. (2015). Degree modifiers: A new perspective on their semantics and the role
of stress in it. Donnm semanticvm, pp.272-284.
• Stoffel, C. (1901). Intensives and Down-toners: A Study in English Adverbs. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s
Universitätsbuchhandlung.
• Tagliamonte, S., Roberts, C. (2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative: the use of intensifiers in the
television series friends. American Speech, Vol.80, No.3, pp.280–300.
• Tavakoli, H. (2013). A Dictionary of Research Methodology and Statistics in Applied Linguistics.
Rahnama Press.
• Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Zutphen, M.V. (2017). English, Dutch and Dutch EFL: the use of intensifiers in evaluative blogs. Master's
Thesis, Radboud University.
Appendix (1) Degree modefiers test with correct answers.
Degree Modifires Test
Read the following sentences and try to distinguish the correct interpretation for each of
them.
1. Adam’s idea was absolutely fascinating.
a. His idea is just fascinating.
b. His idea is kind of fascinating.
c. His idea is fascinating.
d. His idea is totally fascinating.
2. He is completely bald.
a. He has some hair.
b. He has no hair at all.
c. He doesn't have hair.
d. Non of the above.
3. He was a perfectly normal person.
a. He was just a normal person.
b. He looked like a normal person.
c. He was 100% normal person.
d. Non of the above.
4. A totally new situation arose.
a. The situation is new.
b. The situation occurs for the first time.
c. It’s a new total situation.
d. Non of the above.
5.Miss Brown had told them something entirely different.
a. She told them the truth.
b. She told them something totally different.
c. She told them part of the truth.
d. Non of the above.
6. On the other side of the tower, the view is utterly changed.
a. The view has totally changed.
b. The view has slightly changed.
545 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
c. The view has new change.
d. The view hasn’t changed.
7. John has shown him his shirts, He liked almost all of them.
a. He liked a number of the shirts, but not all of them.
b. He liked the whole collection of shirts.
c. He liked most of them except a number of shirts.
d. Non of the above.
8. In his research, he used the very latest techniques.
a. He used the most modern technique.
b. He used the latest technique.
c. He used modern technique.
d. Non of the above.
9. It's terribly important for parents to be consistent.
a. It's not necessary for parents to be consistent.
b. Parents consistency is very important.
c. It's terrible when parents become consistent.
d. Non of the above.
10. Earthquirks are extremely difficult to predict.
a. It's difficult to predict earthquakes.
b. It's kind of difficult to predict earthquakes.
c. It's very difficult to predict earthquakes.
d. All of the above.
11. Most research in this field has been carried by the Russian
a. The greatest part of the research carried by the Russian.
b. All the research carried by the Russian.
c. Part of the research carried by the Russian.
d. Research about most carried by the Russian.
12. It's awfully cold in here.
a. It's just cold in here.
b. It's very cold in here.
c. Its beautifully cold in here.
d. Non of the above.
13. They provided a jolly good service.
a. Their service was bad.
b. Their service was good.
c. Their service was very good.
d. Jolly has received a good service.
14. The documentary is highly critical of these politicians.
a. The documentary critical the politicians severely.
b. The documentary critical the politicians slightly.
c. The documentary criticizes the high politicians.
d. Non of the above.
15. He said he was frightfully sorry about the delay.
a. He was very sorry about the delay.
b. He was sorry about the delay.
c. He was not sorry about the delay.
546 Journal of College of Education (48)(1)
d. He was fruitful and sorry about the delay.
16. The food was quite bad.
a. The food was very bad no one could eat it.
b. The food was bad, but they ate it.
c. The food was not bad.
d. The food was good.
17. Ali said that the novel was rather long.
a. The novel is too long for Ali to read.
b. The novel is not long.
c. The novel is long to a certain extent that Ali can read.
d. The novel is long enough so Ali can't read it.
18. After the accident, she got hurt pretty badly.
a. Her injury was serious.
b. Her injury was bad to some extent.
c. Her injury was minor.
d. Non of the above.
19. The design that he showed to us was fairly old.
a. The design was very old.
b. The design was not old.
c. The design was kind of old.
d. The design was fair.
20. January's sales were slightly better than average.
a. January's sales were the best comparing the average.
b. January's sales were better to a small degree.
c. January's sales were completely better than the average.
d. All of the above.
21. She was a little disappointed at his request.
a. His request made her disappointed.
b. His request made her very disappointed.
c. His request made her disappointed to a certain degree.
d. All of the above.
22. The price of the car is somewhat higher than He expected
a. The price is more expensive than he thought.
b. The car is cheep he can buy it easily.
c. The car is affordable.
d. Non of the above.
..…………………………………………………………………………….
