This thesis will analyze the usage of intensification in three varieties of English, namely British English, Indian English and Sri Lankan English. These varieties were chosen due to their shared colonial past. It will be exciting to see similarities and differences between them, and to ascertain if their colonial past has left a linguistic imprint on them. After this introduction, the theory section will explain the most important topics concerning this thesis, namely Sri Lankan English, Indian English and British English and, naturally, intensifiers. The Schneider Dynamic Model and Kachru’s Three Circle Model will also be explained briefly, since both are vital for research connected to colonialism. The methodology and data section will explain the process of data extraction and the methods used for data analysis along with research questions and hypotheses. The results will be explained in the results section. After that, the discussion of results will talk about the results and their meaning more thoroughly, and research questions as well as hypotheses will be revisited.
Intensifiers have been used ever since language has been documented, and yet, with the amount of research done on the subject, are hardly taken seriously as an insight into language. Why is that? Do intensifiers really mean little, change little? Are they actually worth investigating, or are they just filler words, just meant to underline the importance of other words? Why research something that holds no meaning of its own? And, lastly, the most important question of all: What are intensifiers, and why do we use them?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theory
2.1 Sri Lankan English
2.2 Indian English
2.3 British English
2.4 Schneider Dynamic Model
2.5 Kachru Three Circle Model
2.6 Intensifiers
3. Methodology, Data
3.1 Research questions
3.2 Hypotheses
4. Results, Discussion of Results
4.1 Answering the research questions
4.2 Revisiting the hypotheses
4.3 Future outlook
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This master's thesis investigates the use of adjective intensification in three varieties of English—British English, Indian English, and Sri Lankan English—to determine whether their shared colonial history has left a lasting linguistic imprint on how intensifiers are employed across different genres.
- Comparative linguistic analysis of three varieties of English.
- Examination of the role of intensifiers as stylistic and identity-marking devices.
- Evaluation of genre-specific usage patterns (scripted vs. non-scripted, dialogues vs. monologues).
- Application of the Schneider Dynamic Model and Kachru’s Three Circle Model to corpus data.
- Identification of evolutionary linguistic trends in post-colonial English varieties.
Excerpt from the Book
1. Introduction
Language is fascinating. Words, their meaning often arbitrarily agreed upon by the speakers of a community, make up our whole existence. It is difficult, impossible even, not to communicate: Body language, a mere smile or frown or even a weak handshake, speak volumes about a person. Language also creates identity. It can be used to become someone: The distinguished lawyer, the sympathetic doctor, the quirky student. One tool to create this identity is the use - or the non-use - of intensifiers. Intensifiers, while rather small words with seemingly no meaning to themselves, occur in our daily lives wherever we are. The exam was quite difficult - an essay was handed in too late - a lecturer seemed really strict.
Intensifiers have been used ever since language has been documented, and yet, with the amount of research done on the subject, are hardly taken seriously as an insight into language. Why is that? Do intensifiers really mean little, change little? Are they actually worth investigating, or are they just filler words, just meant to underline the importance of other words? Why research something that holds no meaning of its own? And, lastly, the most important question of all: What are intensifiers, and why do we use them?
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Introduces the linguistic relevance of intensifiers and outlines the research objective of comparing British, Indian, and Sri Lankan English.
2. Theory: Provides background on the selected varieties of English, the Schneider Dynamic Model, Kachru’s Three Circle Model, and previous research on intensifiers.
3. Methodology, Data: Details the corpus-based methodology, data extraction using AntConc, and the formulation of specific research questions and hypotheses.
4. Results, Discussion of Results: Presents the findings of the corpus analysis, providing tables and examples while discussing usage frequencies and genre differences.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the key findings, confirming the impact of genre on intensifier usage and noting the divergent development of the three English varieties.
Keywords
Intensifiers, Adjectives, Corpus Linguistics, British English, Indian English, Sri Lankan English, Schneider Dynamic Model, Kachru’s Three Circle Model, Adverbial Modifiers, Genre Analysis, Delexicalization, Language Evolution, Post-colonial Englishes, Sociolinguistics, Linguistic Identity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work focuses on the usage of adjective-intensifiers in three specific varieties of English—British, Indian, and Sri Lankan—analyzing their frequency and type across various textual genres.
Which theoretical frameworks are applied?
The research utilizes the Schneider Dynamic Model to understand linguistic evolution in post-colonial contexts and Kachru’s Three Circle Model to categorize the status of English in the investigated nations.
What is the primary objective or research question?
The study aims to determine how the three varieties differ in the use, frequency, and types of intensifiers, questioning whether their shared colonial history results in similar patterns of usage.
What methodology is employed?
The author uses a corpus-based approach, analyzing 13,973 datasets from the International Corpus of English (ICE) sub-corpora with the software AntConc 3.3.2.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main part covers the theoretical background of the English varieties, the systematic classification of intensifiers, and a detailed results discussion comparing the datasets through normalized values.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Intensifiers, Adjectives, Corpus Linguistics, Post-colonial Englishes, Schneider Dynamic Model, and Genre Analysis.
Do intensifiers function differently in legal versus non-scripted genres?
Yes, the study finds that while no genre completely avoids intensifiers, scripted and formal genres like legal cross-examinations show different usage patterns compared to informal, non-scripted dialogues.
How do the South-Asian varieties compare to British English?
While British English shows a higher diversity of intensifier types, Indian and Sri Lankan English exhibit their own distinct evolutionary paths, occasionally using intensifiers in ways that deviate from the British standard.
What is the significance of the findings regarding "taboo" intensifiers?
The study notes that "taboo" intensifiers, such as 'dead' or 'damn', are often used to enhance linguistic creativity and signal group membership in informal face-to-face interactions.
What does the author conclude about the future of English in these regions?
The author suggests that Indian and Sri Lankan English are increasingly developing as independent varieties, potentially reducing their dependence on British norms over time.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Michelle Blum (Autor:in), 2020, Adjective Intensification in South-Asian Varieties of English, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/541416
