From lexicographic evidence to lexicological aspects: a cognitive linguistic perspective on phonaestemic intensifiers

Depending on source domain, pattern of intensification and extent of grammaticalization, intensifiers may differ in a number of ways: degree (Paradis 2000, 2003) and degree and polarity sensitivity (Klein 1998); semantic prosody (Bublitz 1998); genre and register restrictions (Paradis 2000, 2003, Ito and Tagliamonte 2003), type and degree of expressivity, extent to which they can take part in reinforcing, aggravating or mitigating the underlying speech act, and, of course, collocational profile (Cacchiani 2005). It the light of this, it is the purpose of this paper to show how lexicographic data can provide evidence in favour of adopting a cognitive-linguistic perspective on the process of loosening and meaning recreation which characterizes the development of intensifiers from other categories. Specifically, using data from the Oxford English Dictionary, I shall investigate the nature and use of phonaestemic intensifiers (e.g. howlingly), within the framework of Ruiz de Mendoza’s (1998ff) Combined Input Hypothesis. While acknowledging the role of contextual and encyclopaedic knowledge, this helps shed light on the pattern of intensification (Lorenz 2002, Cacchiani 2005) at play. As will be seen using the Combined Input Hypothesis offers considerable lexicological insights: While providing reasonable motivations for the polysemous nature of phonaestemic intensifiers, it accounts for the discourse-pragmatic restrictions on their use. The other way round, it appears to provide strong grounds for the inclusion and representation of non-grammaticalized, peripheral intensifiers in general, and phonaestemic intensifers in particular, in advanced learner’s dictionaries and bilingual dictionaries alike.