The third dimension within APPRAISAL is that of GRADUATION. Within this semantic space, we are concerned with values which scale other meanings along two possible parameters - either locating them on a scale from low to high intensity, or from core to marginal membership of a category.
This semantics of those which scale according to intensity is most transparently exemplified by the set of adverbials which have typically been explored in the literature under headings such as `intensifiers', `amplifiers' and `emphatics. The set includes slightly, a bit, somewhat, quite, rather, really, very, and extremely. Via these values, the speaker raises or lowers the intensity of a wide range of semantic categories - thus `very' in `a very smart fellow' acts to heightens the intensity of the JUDGEMENT value (capacity) of `smart'. and `a bit' in `I'm a bit worried' acts to lower the intensity of the affectual value of `worried'. Under the system set out here, this dimension of scaling with respect to intensity will be labelled FORCE.
The values of FORCE contrast with those that are labelled FOCUS. Here the scaling operates in terms of the sharpness or softness of the valeur relationship represented by the item. Values at the `sharp' end of the focus scale are exemplified by true friend, pure evil, a clean break, a genuine mistake, a complete disaster, par excellence. Here FOCUS values operate to indicate that the valeur represented has core or prototype status - that the valeur relationship is sharply focussed. Values at the `soft' end of the focus scale are exemplified typically by examples of what Lakoff ( 1972) termed `hedges' - `all day, it was kind'v nerve-wracking', `a whale is fish, sort'v', `he as good as killed his brother' etc. Here the value operates to indicate that the item in question has marginal status in the category or that the valeur relationships are blurred or have imprecise boundaries.
Before turning to these two dimensions in more detail, I will address some general features of the semantics of scaling. It should firstly be noted that scaling is not confined to cases where the value is explicitly carried by some independent, isolating lexical item such as very or somewhat. We need, additionally, to consider implicit scaling. Once we allow for an implicit semantic, we discover that scaling, in terms of the raising or lowering of intensity, operates across the APPRAISAL system and is not confined within a specific sub-domain. We discover that most values of APPRAISAL are scaled for intensity, in the sense that are located somewhere on a cline between high and low degrees. This feature has already been demonstrated in the context of AFFECT. For example, in dealing with the general affectual value of `antipathy', the speaker must choose either a low value, (dislike, for example), a median value (hate) or a high value (abhor). Accordingly, some scale of intensity (from low to high) is an integral part of this semantic and to deal with such meanings is necessarily to down-tone or intensify. The operation of this implicit scaling for intensity across the gradable values of APPRAISAL is exemplified by the following,
In this sense, scaling can be seen as an interpersonal coloration or tonality across the APPRAISAL system.
