Régis Mauroy (Université de Limoges)

Régis Mauroy (Université de Limoges)
Journées d’agrégation sur « L’expression du degré »
Université Bordeaux Montaigne, 24/01/14
« QNT et QLT […] permettent de traiter du complexe.
Mais ils n'éliminent ni les intrications ni les interactions, ni les étagements ni les déformations,
bref, il n'y a pas de métalangue magique. »
Antoine Culioli, 1999, p.89.
So and such:
from anaphora to
(high and low) degree and intensity1
Introduction
I have actually chosen to study the markers so and such, not because they have so many points
in common (but they do have them!), but rather in order to show that they do not have such
great differences after all, which I know is not a very common standpoint. We won't have
enough space here to deal with all of their specific and contextual values, but we shall especially
contend that they both have the same “schematic form” (forme schématique) and also the same
specific values in parallel, albeit in different syntactic constructions.
Let us consider an example with uncountable compact gradable nouns:
Such courage/so much courage → so courageous
Such strength/so much strength → so strong
A compact noun cannot be quantified in theory, but if it is gradable, its quantity (or near
absence of quantity) is identified with the degree:
much courage → very courageous/so much courage → so courageous
much strength → very strong/so much strength → so strong
The difference between so and such is therefore strictly syntactic or morpho-syntactic, which, in
Culioli's words means:
— So, on the one hand, deals with a qualitative delimitation QLT only; it is totally qualitative.
— Such on the other hand, deals with a qualitative delimitation QLT (of an NP) but it is
Je remercie chaleureusement Catherine Moreau pour l’organisation de cette journée à
l’Université Bordeaux3, ainsi que pour ses vifs encouragements.
1
associated with the treatment of its quantitative dimension QNT, which is otherwise dealt with by
the N determiners responsible for the quantification of the NP, which such is not.
Such a N/ such ØN(s), etc.
So much so that a noun with a gradable adjective makes the adjective directly concerned by the
intensifying effect of the marker: 'such a clever and interesting remark!'
The phrasing of the title does not mean that vertically, the origin, the root value of the two
markers is anaphora and that operations have developed from bottom up into the expression of
degree and finally intensity.
It means that the various values can all be scanned (horizontally) from the former to the latter,
with indeed an underlying root form, a ”forme schématique” which is actually none of the
specific values in context all by themselves, but a basic “schema/tic” value which all the other
specific values stem from: let us call it: Qualitative delimitation:
What does it mean? The basic operation is:
So (and such) both identify the qualitative constituent (or dimension) of an occurrence in context
(“a contextual occurrence”), i.e. its precise and specific set of qualitative properties.
E. Gilbert, 2004:
« […] so ne renvoie à l’occurrence que d’un point de vue strictement qualitatif. Cette idée n’a en
soi rien de nouveau. C’est par exemple le point de vue qu’adopte R. Mauroy (1997), qui traite so
comme un marqueur d’anaphore qualitative […]. Cette idée est à même de permettre une
représentation unifiée de la plupart des emplois du marqueur. »
To refer to the qualitative dimension of an occurrence in context implies to take into account the
global set of notional properties, but more specifically, to catch up the subset of specific
properties that define the individual occurrence(s) beyond the general definition, in order to
apply them to a new unit and thereby making it specific:
E. Gilbert, 2004:
« So marque bien une forme d’anaphore qualitative, c’est surtout dans le sens où il fait
fonctionner la propriété reprise comme une délimitation qualitative différentielle de l’occurrence
qui s’en trouve affectée, […] comme une propriété permettant, non pas d’identifier l’occurrence
en question, mais au contraire de la différencier d’éventuelles autres occurrences de la même
notion. »
We shall therefore concentrate on a few well-defined operations, by scanning them in parallel
through comparable examples. The important point of course will be to examine the types of
degree and intensity; from high to low intensity and finally from high to low degree. You
might have expected me to deal mainly with “high degree” in Antoine Culioli's T.O.E, but this is
much better-known than the rest, I suppose and I shall therefore prefer to insist on low intensity
and degree, which are also both extremely conspicuous and relevant to our point!
So and such recurrently appear as expressing a high (or low) degree of intensity on the one hand,
as well as what is currently described as anaphora on the other. This is why we shall start out by
giving a few words of definition of these terms.
Indeed they are such common markers in English that many tags are possible to describe their
functions. The syntactic characteristics (as NP, VP, Adj P, Adv P, etc.) won’t be studied here
though, for the benefits of remarks on the general system in which they are used, as marking the
key notions at stake here.
The value (operational value) of anaphora is a starting point justifying the “forme schématique”:
Qualitative delimitation. It can highlight the cases which are said to be serving the expression of
what we call either degree and intensity after briefly discussing theses terms (that could be
compared them with words like strength / tension / power, etc.
(In physics) a gradient is a continuous scale of intensity of a property, not necessarily graduated
like a thermometer: typically it is a beam laid upon a cold wall on one side and a hot wall on the
other side. Each point is concerned by the gradual change from cold to hot, so that there is an
extreme point and a lowest point of the property at either end of the beam.
(after Wikipedia.fr)
1. A brief description of so and such: their differences
It is well-known that so and such have the same origin : Old-English swa, which gave both so
and as in Modern English1. Such (>swa-lic/lyc/lic/lyc > swylc, swilc is a compound of Old Eng.
swa (so) and lic (like). Beyond, or maybe better said, long before the semantic interpretations of
<so + like> (which are especially difficult to decipher in the light of Modern English); we shall
contend that the difference between them basically boils down to how each marker will link up
with either of at least two great morphosyntactic categories:
- so applying to adjectival/verbal/adverbial/ items on the one hand, - versus such applying only
to nominal items (roughly nouns and pronouns) on the other hand.
Indeed, Mod.Eng. <like> (or Old. Eng lic/lyc for that matter) has a strong syntactic property as
connecting directly with, or modifying nouns (NPs), either as prepositions or as adjectives,
whereas it has a very weak semantic property as being practically redundant of so or as,
displaying an analogous function of qualitative identification: suffice it to compare Mod. Eng.
as and like and the way that they are semantically transparent to, for instance French learners of
English, but turn out to be so often syntactically opaque to the same type of students!
With swa-lic, we would therefore more certainly have a syntactic rather than a semantic
combination or blending of the two words, or shall we call it semantic redundancy and syntactic
articulation?
To simplify the issue, without distorting it too much, we hope, we would say that both so and
such can be described as markers of qualitative delimitation (i.e. through identification with a
qualitative or constituent): this is the basic common point which paves the way for all the ensuing
analogies.
Their functioning differs according to the syntactic condition, for example in terms of
determination (adjectival, adverbial, or verbal on the one hand, and nominal on the other.
2. Anaphora as a starting point
It may seem strange to start describing so and such as anaphoric marker as a fundamental value
because the operation of anaphora in the broadest sense of the term seems to be and certainly is a
complex operation built up at various levels of speech and in very different contexts.
Eric Gilbert, 2004: « Il y a en effet deux grandes conceptions de l’anaphore. La première consiste
à considérer que l’anaphore se résume à la reprise d’un segment de texte par un autre segment de
texte. […] La seconde conception consiste à analyser le processus anaphorique en termes de
coréférence, l’anaphorisant renvoyant non pas à l’anaphorisé lui-même, mais seulement à son
référent. »
What we mean here fundamentally is a combination of two complementary operations that
cannot be disconnected:
a) a (con-)textual (not deictic) operation of identification of A (so/such) the
(endo/exo/cata/ana//phoric marker to B, the anaphorised, (the antecedent or interpreter
with a QLT which is being aimed at!).
b) A (so/such) has no semantic value by itself but provides that of anaphorised B to C, to
which it is connected and applies.
Note that sometimes B= C. (so clever! / such a lovely place!)
E. Gilbert, 2004 :
« Ce phénomène d’anaphore, ou de cataphore, fait automatiquement du terme objet de la
reprise un point de référence, un étalon. Autrement dit, la proposition se voit conférer un statut de
centre, au sens technique du terme, qui, dans le cas présent où l’on a affaire à une notion
gradable, ne peut correspondre qu’à un centre attracteur, d’où cette valeur systématique de point
extrême. »
3. The conditions for intensity: high and low degree of so and such:
Anaphoric and intensifying values can be strictly distinguished:
- gradable notions : either adjectival, adverbial verbal notions (not predicational) :
1. We have no (real) co-text:
‘I love you so!’ A = so; B = C = <I love you> (like <I love you> ) .
So here is an intensifier (high degree).
 Try to make it anaphoric or exophoric (by giving a kiss, a ring, etc.) and it becomes
funny!: * I love you so. (= like this / as much as this, etc.)
2. We have a (relevant) context:
‘Do you find it funny?’
‘I think so.’ A = so; B = (‘(This is) very funny…’≠ C = <I think>.
 Try to make it an intensifier and it becomes funny! *I think so!
Because the antecedent / the interpreter is not supposed to be gradable and neither is the verb
to think (in itself): think hard/so hard: ok.
Or they also often co-exist:
- With nominal/gradable notions: such courage /such strength, so and such are no longer
anaphoric, only intensifiers when, by definition they are not associated with a term of reference
but refer to the qualitative reference to itself, in a loop:
Welcome to the Hotel California...
Such a lovely place (such a lovely place) Such a lovely face...
There's plenty of room at the Hotel California, Any time of year (any time of year)
You can find it here... (Hotel California, 1976)
So and such are anaphoric only, when the antecedent B is a non-gradable notion.
(anaphoric) so and such also automatically become intensifiers when they apply to a gradable
notion. Culioli says that the process of anaphora or deixis makes the reference become unstable,
especially when it is only qualitative QLT, because it means that is “non quelconque”, therefore
absolutely specific; and from a subjective point of view (to start with, then intersubjective).
« On aura donc, entre autres procédés, l'identification qui singularise une valeur : 'C'est
quelque chose, ce qu'il y a comme vent !' […], bref, une accumulation de procédures qui
concourent à produire du non quelconque. […] Quant à 'Il y a un de ces vents.', il comporte un
marqueur de fragmentation (un), mais aussi la trace de la construction d'un sous-domaine (ces
vents). Or le démonstratif est un déterminant qui permet de construire une valeur et une seule
(avec élimination d'autres valeurs). Le démonstratif ramène la bifurcation du domaine <p /
autre que p> à < p /à l'exclusion de tout autre que p>. Ceci se retrouve aussi bien dans le
pointage que dans l'identification anaphorique, mais également dans la production du non
quelconque : 'Ah ce Paul, c'est bien lui, ça ! Il a encore fait des siennes !' […]
On retrouve de même la production du non quelconque avec le couplage entre occurrence
actuelle et occurrence (abstraite) dans le domaine : 'Avec ce vent / un vent comme ça / un
vent pareil / un tel vent, je te déconseille de faire de la moto. Il devrait être clair, à ce stade de
l'exposé, que dans 'un vent comme ça' (c'est-à-dire : un vent comme le vent qu'il fait', on a d'un
côté 'Il fait du vent', d'où 'le vent qu'il fait', et de l'autre '<un vent> avec une mise en relation
grâce à comme. » Antoine Culioli, 1999, p. 88.
The notional and differential properties are therefore exacerbated because this instability
projects these properties towards the high degree (in the natural direction of the gradient).
So and such are no longer anaphoric but only intensifiers when, by definition they are not
associated with a term of reference but refer the qualitative reference to itself, in a loop:
so sweet! / such a nice guy!, etc.
To call this self-anaphora makes it clear but does not add much to the question of anaphora as
such, more so to the expression of degree.
An intermediate situation is when so and such intensifiers are connected to a certain degree
expressed in a consecutive or final clause: a complex set of operations in which so or such are
cataphoric referring to the consecutive clause that follows), and both unstable (expressing high
degree) but stabilised (to a degree) located relative to an event or situation expressed in the
consecutive (or final) clause.
Examples:
A5T 127 ‘The market is so bad now that it won't get any worse, at least in the South,’ said
Richard Roberts, an economist with Barclays Bank.
Note that the first proposition as such is not enough in itself to entail the following conclusion:
*The market is bad now → it won't get any worse
Paraphrases seem to work both ways:
<It’s because it's so bad that it won't get any worse>
Also:
<It's because it won't get any worse that it is so bad>
G07 667 That was good, so good I can't describe it.
Again, simple qualification does not entail the conclusion:
* That was good → I can't describe it. (???)
On the contrary, I can describe it because it is good!
But: so good → I can't describe it. (OK)
An example with so strictly cataphoric, with a consecutive relation:
AR3 697 ‘Now if you will be so good as to let me pass.’
Anaphoric (or exophoric) and intensifying:
BMW 2110 It simply was not fair that anyone could look so good in absolutely everything!
CFR 391 How can a cooker that looks so good cost so little?
Anaphoric (in the co-text) and intensifying:
CKD 865 She stared up at him, touched to tears by his thoughtfulness, he had come into her life
such a short time ago and yet he had been so good to her, so strong and kind.
The shoemaker's daughter, Iris Gower, London: Corgi Books, 1992.
H8A 2949 He had been doing excellent business from the Lionisers, so good that he was
beneficent enough to feel sorry for poor old Cedric.
Good can only reflect excellent if it is intensified with so:
*He had been doing excellent business from the Lionisers, very good [and]…
Anaphoric and intensifying:
H97 3441 So, instead, she said, ‘I really want to thank you for being so good with Emily today.
Exophoric and intensifying:
BMY 226 I am thinking particularly of one of the Bushmen you knew who was so good at
imitating a professor.
So very much with a consecutive clause (strictly intensifying to the extent of the clause)):
AC6 1704 But we were not moved to write about them, possibly because they were so very
much themselves, any personal comment of ours might seem an intrusion.
CRM 1924 In particular, we can make a crude estimate of the asymptotic C fraction f C, for such
very large symmetrical patterns.
4. Negation: a stable low degree (not very) or the (unstable) lowest degree of intensity (not
so/such- very-)
NB1: These markers are so often associated with the negation that it is hardly possible just to
disregard these examples and not to try to provide some kind of explanation.
NB2: Associated with a gradable property p, p0, p1, p2, etc. (ex: good/bad), negation NOT may
have to do with the Exterior zone of the gradient with a relation of disconnection, just as with
non-gradable properties:
true/not true (*slightly true, not quite, just a teeny weeny bit true) unless you play with truth
values as a joke, not in at Court!.
good/not good ; bad/not bad or “not bad!” = “quite/very good”
Also it is important to note that opposite qualitative markers, good/bad ; high/low ; long/short ;
rich/poor ; strong/weak, etc. always have a privileged orientation from minus towards plus, so
that there is not a perfect symmetry (How long? /*how short? /how old? / *How young are you?
(in ordinary circumstances).
But with intensifiers the negation keeps the property within the Interior, but at a very low degree:
not very interesting: literally: only a little but understatement in subjective evaluations makes it
synonymous of “uninteresting”.
This is why an objective evaluation is clearer than a subjective one: a piano: out of tune/not out
of tune = I/E, like in tune/not in tune = I/E.
And still this is result of progressive adjustment, which shows how subjective these categories are
in fine.
On the whole, the effect on the negation on a gradient is that of an inverter of the orientation
(see below).
What does it mean and what does it result in, as a matter of interpreted meaning?
B72 1652 This one-man vigilante squad is not such a noxious twit after all.
The point here is that we easily find examples with so very and not so very, which I will study.
As for such, we find such very and not such, but hardly ever <no such very> (in BNC), again
because very intensifies an adjective and such a noun + plus its adjective, but indirectly through
the combination of both qualitative components Qlt, that of the noun + that of the adjective,
which makes it, not impossible, but more complex to say:
This is not such a very bad idea, actually. 2
than :
This idea is not so very bad, actually.
BMU 1505 ‘It's a lovely piano, and not so very much out of tune.'
Note that out of tune is already a negative expression (lexicalised), which make things still a little
more complex.
(This piano is out of tune, but very very little (so): just a teeny weeny bit)
= Ce piano était désaccordé, mais très peu, un minimum, un tout petit peu.)
The order of the quantifiers is important:
It's a horrible piano, and so very much out of tune.
But:
*It's a lovely piano, and very so much out of tune.
*It's a lovely piano, and not very so much out of tune.
Je remercie Dominique Boulonnais de m’avoir fait remarquer que pour des raisons qui
restent à explorer dans un tel exemple, such a reprend une forte valeur anaphorique en
s’inscrivant en faux (not) contre la valeur de référence que serait l’antécédent.
2
Of course, in this example we have a combination of two markers in the affirmative: so very /
*very so (the equivalent is impossible in standard French: *si très.../ très si.../ si tellement...)
apart maybe from : “je t'aime tellement si fort” which is a little bit uncanny).
The expression of intensity here is stronger than normally, because it results from a combination
of non stabilised degree upon stabilised degree, in this order not the contrary which is logically
impossible: a combination of stable and unstable, oddly enough is always instable.
In other word you can apply unstable upon stable (so very), but not stable upon instable, simply
because it won't change to stable in the end.
The High Degree is not a stable point (describes as “formal”/”imaginary”, “abstract”, etc.
because its nature is fundamentally subjective, impossible or difficult to express having to do
with emotion (l'affect), more than with measure. Therefore the linguistic operation of identifying
with the HD, necessarily produces unstable determination.
(High Degree)
HD
Interior I
Frontier F
Exterior E
|-------------------|-----------------[-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/--/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-]----------------------Deg0 really p
/ not really p
/
not really not p / really not p = p'
(Deg0 = Deg(p) = anywhere in I between the Frontier and the High Degree, <quelconque>)
HD
Interior
Frontier
Exterior
|---------------|--------------------|--------------------|------------------[-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-]-------------------(very p) Deg1
Deg0 (p)
Deg2 (not very p)
Very marks a degree which is relatively high, considerable but stabilised and made objective to share with
co-speakers.
Negation (not very) reverses the orientation of the gradient towards the Frontier (and possibly beyond).
Here the result is a stabilised relatively low degree, which is still within the Interior of the Domain.
So p (good):
HD
I
F
E
|-------x-----------------------------------|-------------------------------x-------[-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-]----------(so p) Deg3
←
← Deg0 (p) →
→ Deg4 (not so p)
So refers to the quest for the High Degree of QLT, meaning the Attracting Centre: the last best point.
So therefore refers to the High Degree, but without stabilising QLT’s subjective point of view. This stage
is necessary to account for the dynamic process at stake. However, note that it must at least become
intersubjective in order to be expressed and shared.
HD
Interior
Frontier
Exterior
|-x----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------x-[-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-]-------←
(so very p) Deg5
← Deg0 (p) →
→ Deg6 (not so very p)
The schematic synthesis of the various degrees on the gradient's Interior of the notional domain of a
gradable property p determined by so/such and very:
HD
Interior
Frontier
E
|-x--------x-----------------------|-----------|------------|----------------------x--------x-[-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-]--Deg0 (p)
(very p) Deg1
Deg3 (so p) ←
Deg5 (so very p) ←
Deg2 (not very p)
→ Deg4 (not so p)
→ Deg6 (not so very p)
N.B. Les quatre points marqués ‘x’ représentant les degrés D 3, D4, D5 et D6 ne sont pas des
positions sur le gradient (comme par exemple D0, D1 et D2; c’est pourquoi leur position relative
par rapport au Haut Degré HD sur ce schéma n’a aucune signification, dans la mesure où ils
s’identifient soit au Haut degré (D3, D5) soit à la sortie de l’Intérieur I représentée par la borne
ouvrant la Frontière, ce que symbolisent (maladroitement) les flèches dans chacune de ces
directions. Ces positions permettent cependant de relativiser ces expressions du degré entre elles,
mais il est entendu qu’avec so et such il s’agit d’une dynamique (vers HD) sans position arrêtée
une fois pour toute.
C8A 1584 I pointed out that it was silly to argue over such good fortune — that if she was
getting so much pleasure, it didn't matter what the cause was!
Best (Magazine) London: Gruner & Jahr (UK), 1991
Les deux occurrences such good fortune et so much pleasure sont à l'évidence anaphoriques en
contexte et intensives tout à la fois.
G00 3272 Text and graphics produced on a 300 dots per inch page printer is visibly not such
good quality as that produced by a typesetting system.
Conclusion
At least two types of intensifiers have been distinguished in English: firstly, the mark of stable
intensity, which provides a direct relatively important degree on the gradient (very <vérai/vrai /
extremely / absolutely / infinitely, etc. and we can see that they are probably all shaped by lexical
metaphors). Secondly, the mark of unstable subjective degree with so and such draws its power
from a dynamic operation of self-identification of gradable properties. Note that a line of research
here would be to find out to what extent such markers may be compared to deictic markers, when
we think of their translation in French, for instance: tant, tel, tellement, originally deictics which
have basically turned into anaphoras (the French root <t> in tant, tel is to be paralleled with to
<th> in English this, that, the, etc. dating back to Proto-Indo-European).
Thank you (so/very) much!
Bibliographical references
Blanvillain, O., « Le marqueur SUCH en anglais contemporain : propriétés définitoires,
partitionnement notionnel et intensification ». Travaux linguistiques du CerLiCO 18, 2005 : 99122.
Bolinger, D., Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, 1972.
Borillo, A., «D'un schéma
de la progression spatiale à l'expression de la gradation
Culioli, A., Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, T. 3. Domaine notionnel, Ophrys 1999.
Culioli, A., « À propos des énoncés exclamatifs ». Linguistique et enseignement du français,
problèmes actuels. Langue française 22, 1974 : 6-15.
Gilbert, E., « Anaphore et qualification : quelques valeurs de so », paru dans Cycnos, Volume 18
n°2 (So intensifieur 157-162)
: 145-166 mis en ligne le 15 juillet 2004, URL :
http://revel.unice.fr/cycnos/index.html?id=37
Huart, R., « Ajustement et centrage : les constructions de la forme QLT A GN (such a fuss, what
a mess, rather a chore, quite a dilemma, how big a piece...) ». L’ajustement dans la TOE
d'Antoine Culioli, C. Filippi-Deswelle, (éd) Épilogos, 3, Rouen.
Lambert, F., « Une idée très très intéressante : l'hyperrelatif, entre degré et intensité ». Travaux
linguistiques du CerLiCO 17, 2004 : 117-131.
Larreya, P., « On the semantics of SO and AS ». Sigma 17-18, 1996: 97-131. http://bv.ubordeaux3.fr/pub/docs/group-degre/larreya.pdf
Mauroy, R,, 1997. 'It isn't so': deux types de marqueurs anaphoriques pour deux opérations
spécifiques.. In Bouscaren (éd.), Cahiers de recherche, tome 7, 169-216, Gap: Ophrys.
Mauroy, R., « Le marqueur such en anglais : anaphore qualitative et intensité », communication
affichée au 16ème Colloque du CerLiCO : Degré, comparaison intensité, Brest 5, 6 et 7 juin
2004 (non publiée).