Even though degree adverbs (e.g., swiþe) represent the most common intensification strategy in Old English, morphological devices are also very frequent, as expected in a predominantly synthetic language. This article studies synthetic intensification strategies in Old English with a focus on degree modification of adjectives and adverbs by means of spatial formatives (e.g., þurh- in þurhbitter ‘very bitter’ and for- in foreaþe ‘very easily’), paying attention both to the features of the intensifying formative and to the characteristics of the intensified base. Using the cognitive construct of the “Image Schema,” I show that the original spatial meaning of the formatives can help explain their combinatorial preferences in terms of boundedness. Of all the items studied, for- stands out as the most grammaticalized Old English spatial intensifying formative: it is semantically opaque, is very productive with both adjectives and adverbs, and has a very wide collocational profile.
BurridgeKateBergsAlexander. 2017. Understanding language change. London: Routledge.
6.
CacchianiSilvia. 2017. Cognitive motivation in English complex intensifying adjectives. Lexis10. 1-21.
7.
ChapmanDonChristensenRyan. 2007. Noun-adjective compounds as a poetic type in Old English. English Studies88(4). 447-464.
8.
CienkiAlan J.1997. Some properties and groupings of image schemas. In VerspoorMarjolijnLeeKee DongSweetserEve (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 3-15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9.
Clark-HallJ. R.1960. A concise Anglo-Saxon dictionary. 4th edn.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
10.
CrystalDavid. 2008. A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
11.
de la CruzJuan. 1975. Old English pure prefixes: Structure and function. Linguistics13(145). 47-82.
12.
DietzKlaus. 2004. Die Altenglischen Präfixbildungen und ihre Charakteristik. Anglia122(4). 561-613.
13.
DixonRobert M. W.2004. Adjective classes in typological perspective. In DixonRobert M. W.AikhenvaldAlexandra Y. (eds.), Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology, 1-49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
DOE = Dictionary of Old English: A to I online. 2018. AngusCameronAmosAshley CrandellHealeyAntonette di Paolo, et al. (eds.). Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project. https://tapor.library.utoronto.ca/doe/ (February, 2019).
15.
DOEC = Dictionary of Old English corpus. [1981] 2009. AngusCameronAmosAshley CrandellButlerSharonHealeyAntonette di Paolo (eds). Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project 1981; 2009 release compiled by Antonette di Paolo Healey, Joan Holland, Ian McDougall & David McDougall, with TEI-P5 conformant-version by Xin Xiang. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project 2009.
16.
EitelmannMathiasHauglandKari E.HaumannDagmar. 2020. From engl-isc to whatever-ish: A corpus-based investigation of -ish derivation in the history of English. English Language and Linguistics24(4). 801-831.
17.
FortuinEgbert. 2013. The construction of excess and sufficiency from a crosslinguistic perspective. Linguistic Typology17(1). 31-88.
18.
GüntherChristineKotowskiSvenPlagIngo. 2020. Phrasal compounds can have adjectival heads. Evidence from English. English Language and Linguistics24(1). 75-95.
19.
HaselowAlexander. 2011. Typological changes in the lexicon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
20.
HeineBerndClaudiUlrikeHünnemeyerFriederike. 1991. Grammaticalization. A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
HiltunenRisto. 1983. The decline of prefixes and the beginnings of the English phrasal verbs. Turku: University of Turku.
22.
HoeksemaJack. 2012. Elative compounds in Dutch. Properties and developments. In OebelGuido (ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachvergleich/Cross-linguistic comparison of intensified adjectives and adverbs, 97-142. Hamburg: Verlag dr Kovac.
23.
HoffmannSebastian. 2009. Lexical change. In CulpeperJonathanKatambaFrancisKerswillPaulWodakRuthMcEneryTony (eds.), English language. Description, variation and context, 286-300. London: Palgrave.
24.
HopperPaul J.TraugottElizabeth C.2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
HuddlestonRodneyPullumGeoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
IngersollSheila M. 1978. Intensive and restrictive modification in Old English. Heidelberg: Winter.
27.
JohnsonMark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
KastovskyDieter. 1992. Semantics and vocabulary. In HoggRichard M. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 1, The beginnings to 1066, 290-407. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KastovskyDieter. 2006. Vocabulary. In HoggRichard M.DenisonDavid (eds.), A history of the English language, 199-270. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
KingKevin. 2016. Intensifiers and image schemas: Schema type determines intensifier type. In FarrellPatrick (ed.), Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America, Vol. 1, Article 5. 1-9.
31.
KlugeFriedrich. 2012. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 25th edn.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
32.
LangackerRonald W.2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
LassRoger. 1994. Old English. A historical linguistic companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
LenkerUrsula. 2008. Booster prefixes in Old English—An alternative view of the roots of MEforsooth. English Language and Linguistics12(2). 245-265.
35.
LorenzGunter. 2002. Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the lexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In WischerIlseDiewaldGabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 143-161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
36.
MarchandHans. 1969. The categories and types of Present-day English word-formation. 2nd edn.Munich: C. H. Beck.
37.
MED = Middle English dictionary. LewisRobert E., et al. (eds.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1952-2001. Online edition in Middle English Compendium. FrancesMcSparran, et al. (eds.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Library, 2000-2018. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-english-dictionary/dictionary (February, 2019).
38.
Méndez-NayaBelén. 2003. On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case ofswiþe. English Studies84(4). 372-391.
39.
Méndez-NayaBelén.2008. “The which is most and right harde to answere”: Intensifying right and most in earlier English. In DuryRichardGottiMaurizioDossenaMarina (eds.), English historical linguistics 2006, vol. 2, Lexical and semantic change, 31-51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
40.
Méndez-NayaBelén. 2014. Out of the spatial domain: “Out”-intensifiers in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica35. 241-274.
41.
MitchellBruce. 1976. The expression of extent and degree in Old English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen77(1). 25-31.
42.
NapoliMariaRavettoMiriam. 2017. Ways to intensify. Types of intensified meanings in Italian and German. In NapoliMariaRavettoMiriam (eds.), Exploring intensification. Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives, 327-352. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43.
OakleyTodd. 2010. Image schemas. In GeeraertsDirkCuyckensHubert (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 214-235. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
ParadisCarita. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics12(1). 47-65.
47.
ParadisCarita. 2008. Configurations, construals and change: Expressions of degree. English Language and Linguistics12(2). 317-343.
48.
PetersHans. 1994. Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. In KastovskyDieter (ed.), Studies in Early Modern English, 269-288. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
49.
QuirkRandolphGreenbaumSydneyLeechGeoffreySvartvikJan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
50.
RainerFranz. 2015. Intensification. In MüllerPeter O.OhnheiserIngeborgOlsenSusanRainerFranz (eds.), Word-formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe, 1339-1351. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
51.
SauerHans. 2006. Old English frae- and frea-: Prefix or word or both? In EitelmannMatthiasStritzkeNadyne (eds.), Ex praeteritis praesentia, 3-20. Heidelberg: Winter.
52.
SauerHans. 2010. Old English word-formation: Constant features and changes. In ImahayashiOsamuNakaoYoshiyukiOguraMichiko (eds.), Aspects of the history of English language and literature: Selected papers read at SHELL 2009, Hiroshima, 19-37. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
53.
ScottMike. 2012. WordSmith Tools. Version 6. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.
54.
SmithJeremy J.1996. An historical study of English: Function, form, and change. London: Routledge.
55.
SmithK. AaronNordquistDawn. 2012. A critical and historical investigation into semantic prosody. Journal of Historical Pragmatics13(2). 291-312.
56.
StewartDominic. 2010. Semantic prosody. A critical evaluation. New York: Routledge.
57.
StrattonJames M.2020. Adjective intensifiers in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics32(2). 183-215.
58.
TraugottElizabeth C.2007. The concepts of constructional mismatch and type-shifting from the perspective of grammaticalization. Cognitive Linguistics18(4). 523-525.
59.
TraugottElizabeth C.TrousdaleGraeme. 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
TrousdaleGraeme. 2011. Ish. Paper presented at the Second International Society for the Linguistics of English Conference (ISLE2), Boston, June 17-21.
61.
TylerAndreaEvansVyvyan. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions. Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
VartiainenTuro. 2019. From twig-skinny to Kate Moss skinny: Expressing degree with common and proper nouns. English Language and Linguistics23(4). 901-927.
