ɯʿ±ÈÑÇÏ·¾çÖÐÇ¿µ÷ÓïµÄÓïÓ÷ÖÎö

List of TablesList of FiguresList of AbbreviationsChapter One Introduction 1.1 Prologue 1.2 Rationale and objective of the research 1.3 A working definition of intensifiers 1.4 Research questions 1.5 Research methods 1.6 Organization of this studyChapter Two Literature Review 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Terminology and characteristics of intensifiers 2.2.1 Terminology 2.2.2 Characteristics of intensifiers 2.3 Semantic studies of intensifiers 2.4 Pragmatic studies of intensifiers 2.4.1 Brown & Levinson: intensification in politeness strategies 2.4.2 Blum-Kulka et al.: downgraders and upgraders in requests and apologies 2.4.3 Bazzanella et al.: illocutionary force modification 2.5 Intensifiers and grammaticalization 2.5.1 Grammaticalization: from lexical to functional 2.5.2 Grammaticalization: from ideational to interpersonal 2.6 Previous studies of intensifiers in Shakespeare 2.7 SummaryChapter Three Theoretical Background 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Collocation theory 3.3 Speech act theory 3.3.1 Austin's speech act taxonomy 3.3.2 Searle's speech act taxonomy 3.3.3 Bach-Harnish's speech act taxonomy 3.3.4 A working speech act taxonomy 3.3.5 Reinforcement and mitigation ofillocutionary force 3.4 Politeness theory 3.4.1 An overview of the politeness theory 3.4.2 A coding scheme of politeness behaviors 3.5 SummaryChapter Four A Statistical Description of Intensifiers in Shakespeare 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Categories and types of intensifiers in Shakespeare 4.2.1 Intensifiers under discussion 4.2.2 Frequencies of categories and types of intensifiers 4.3 Distribution of intensifiers in different genres 4.3.1 A statistical description 4.3.2 Discussion 4.4 Distribution of intensifiers in terms of diachronic parameters 4.5 Closed- and open-class intensifiers 4.5.1 Distribution of closed- and open-class intensifiers 4.5.2 Emergence of the open-class intensifiers 4.6 SummaryChapter Five Collocational Behavior of Intensifiers Shakespeare 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Colligational features of intensifiers in Shakespeare 5.2.1 A general pattern 5.2.2 Colligational patterns of intensives 5.2.3 Colligational patterns of downtoners 5.3 Semantic prosodies and semantic preferences of intensifiers in Shakespeare 5.3.1 The coding of semantic prosodies 5.3.2 Intensifiers of positive semantic prosody 5.3.2.1 Maximizers: right, most 5.3.2.2 Boosters:fairly, highly, well 5.3.2.3 Compromisers: the case of enough 5.3.2.4 Diminishers: the case of in part 5.3.3 Intensifiers of negative semantic prosody 5.3.3.1 Maximizers: too, utterly, quite 5.3.3.2 Boosters: much, mightily, sore 5.3.3.3 Approximators: almost 5.3.3.4 Diminishers: something and somewhat 5.3.3.5 Minimizers: hardly, little, scarce 5.3.4 Intensifiers of mixed semantic prosody 5.3.4.1 Maximizers:full, all, horribly 5.3.4.2 Boosters: how, more, so, very, far 5.3.4.3 Diminishers: a little, partly, slightly 5.3.4.4 Minimizers: never, ever 5.3.5 Semantic prosodies and semantic preferences of different categories of intensifiers 5.4 SummaryChapter Six Speech Act Patterns of Intensifiers in Shakespeare 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Speech act patterns in various categories of intensifiers 6.2.1 Intensifiers in general 6.2.1.1 Distribution of intensifiers in major speech act categories 6.2.1.2 Distribution of intensifiers in different speech act types 6.2.2 Intensives 6.2.2.1 Maximizers and boosters in different speech act types 6.2.2.2 Speech act patterns of some major maximizers 6.2.2.3 Speech act patterns of some major boosters 6.2.3 Downtoners 6.2.3.1 General patterns 6.2.3.2 Speech act patterns of the approximator almost 6.2.3.3 Speech act patterns of the compromiser enough 6.2.3.4 Speech act patterns of some major diminishers 6.2.3.5 Speech act patterns of some major minimizers 6.2.4 A brief summary 6.3 Speech act patterns in various genres 6.4 Speech acts and semantic prosodies 6.5 SummaryChapter Seven Soeech Act Modification and Politeness Behaviors of Intensifiers 7.1 Introduction 7.2 Reinforcement and mitigation: phenomena and purposes 7.2.1 Dimensions of reinforcement and mitigation 7.2.2 Purposes of reinforcement and mitigation 7.3 Modification of illocutionary force through intensifiers 7.3.1 Intensification of propositional content 7.3.2 Intensification of expressed inner states 7.3.3 Intensification of preparatory conditions 7.3.3.1 Speaker's entitlement 7.3.3.2 Addressee's entitlement 7.3.3.3 Speaker's commitment 7.3.3.4 Acknowledgement of non-obviousness 7.3.3.5 Interest of H 7.3.3.6 Interest of S 7.3.4 Intensification ofperlocutionary effects 7.3.5 Framework of speech act modification through intensifiers 7.4 Politeness behaviors of intensives and downtoners 7.4.1 Politeness behaviors in various intensifier categories 7.4.2 Politeness behaviors of intensifiers in various speech acts 7.4.2.1 Politeness behaviors in four speech act categories 7.4.2.2 Politeness behaviors in various speech act types 7.4.3 Politeness behaviors of individual intensifiers 7.5 Politeness behaviors, speech acts and semantic prosodies 7.6 SummaryChapter Eight Conclusion 8.1 Major Findings 8.2 Implications 8.3 Limitations and Suggestions for further studiesReferencesAppendicesAppendix ¢ñ Plays collected in the Shakespeare corpusAppendix ¢ò Sample data for the present studyAppendix ¢ó Definition and exemplification of intensifiersin Quirk et al