This paper examines the use of intensifiers on the television show Buffy the Vampire Slayer in order to establish the ways in which they can be used for characterization. We found that the male and female characters used intensifiers differently (similarly to what is found in natural speech), but also that intensifier choice was related to changes in social networks for several of the female characters on the show (so and totally). Furthermore, intensifiers were also used to distinguish the British characters on the show from the American ones (extremely, terribly, and bloody). By comparing our results to findings for other television shows (Friends) and for natural speech, we were able to establish the extent to which the show makes use of (then) innovative linguistic features for characterization. These findings underline the extent to which scriptwriters and/or actors were able to use linguistic features to index specific types of character.
AdamsMichael. 2003. Slayer slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AdamsMichael. 2013. Vignette 13b—Working with scripted data: Variations among scripts, texts, and performances. In ChristineChildsBeckyVan HerkGerard (eds.), Data collection in sociolinguistics—Methods and applications, 232-235. New York: Routledge.
3.
BäcklundUlf. 1973. The collocation of adverbs of degree in English. Uppsala: Almqvist &Wiksell.
4.
BarnfieldKateBuchstallerIsabelle. 2010. Intensifiers in Tyneside: Longitudinal developments and new trends. English World-Wide31(3). 252-287.
5.
BednarekMonika. 2010. The language of fictional television: Drama and identity. London: Continuum.
6.
BednarekMonika. 2011. Expressivity and televisual characterization. Language and Literature20(1). 3-21.
7.
BednarekMonika. 2012a. Constructing ‘nerdiness’: Characterisation in The Big Bang Theory. Multilingua31(2). 199-229.
8.
BednarekMonika. 2012b. “Get us the hell out of here”: Key words and trigrams in fictional television series. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics17(1). 35-63.
9.
BellAllanSharmaDevyani (eds.). 2014. Special issue, Journal of Sociolinguistics18(2). 185-286.
10.
BiberDouglasJohanssonStigLeechGeoffreyConradSusanFineganEdward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Pearson.
11.
BolingerDwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
12.
BubelClaudia. 2006. The linguistic construction of character relations in TV drama: Doing friendship in Sex and the City. Saarbrücken, Germany: University of Saarbrücken dissertation.
13.
BucholtzMary. 1999. “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices. Language and Society28(2). 203-223.
14.
BucholtzMaryBermudezNancyEdwardsLisaFungVictorVargasRosalva. 2007. Hella nor cal or totally so cal?: The perceptual dialectology of California. Journal of English Linguistics35(4). 325-352.
ItoRikaTagliamonteSali. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society32(2). 257-279.
21.
LabovWilliam. 1984. Intensity. In SchiffrinDeborah (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (GURT), 43-70. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
22.
LabovWilliam. 1990. The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change2(2). 205-254.
23.
LorenzGunther. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in modern English. In WischerIlseDiewaldGabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 143-161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
MacaulayRonald. 2006. Pure grammaticalization: The development of a teenage intensifier. Language Variation and Change18(3). 267-283.
26.
MacNaughtanDon. 2011. The Buffyverse catalog: A complete guide to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel in print, film, television, comics, games and other media, 1992-2010. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
27.
MandalaSusan. 2007. Solidarity and the Scoobies: An analysis of the -y suffix in the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Language and Literature16(1). 53-73.
ParadisCarita. 1997. Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.
30.
ParadisCarita. 2000. It’s well weird: Degree modifiers of adjectives revisited: The nineties. In KirkJohn (ed.), Corpora galore: analyses and techniques in describing English, 147-160. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
31.
ParadisCarita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics12(1). 47-65.
32.
QuaglioPaulo. 2009. Television dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
33.
QueenRobin. 2015. Vox popular—The surprising life of language in the media. Chichester: John Wiley.
34.
QuirkRandolphGreenbaumSidneyLeechGeoffreySvartvikJan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
35.
ReyJennifer M.1996. To boldly speak: Changes in the linguistic characterization of women in the televised Star Treks. Deseret Language and Linguistic Society Symposium22. 65-72.
36.
RichardsonKay. 2010. Television dramatic dialogue: A sociolinguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
RickfordJohn R.WasowThomasZwickyArnoldBuchstallerIsabelle. 2007. Intensive and quotative all: Something old, something new. American Speech82(1). 3-31.
StenströmAnna-Brita. 1999. He was really gormless-she’s bloody crap: Girls, boys and intensifiers. In HasselgårdHildeOksefjellSigne (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 69-78. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
40.
StenströmAnna-BritaAndersenGisleHasundIngrid Kristine. 2002. Trends in teenage talk: Corpus compilation, analysis and findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
41.
StoffelCornelis. 1901. Intensives and down-toners. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
42.
TagliamonteSali. 2008. So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics12(2). 361-394.
TagliamonteSaliRobertsChris. 2005. So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech80(3). 280-300.
