In the case of the triad "scared, afraid, frightened", I'm less 
inclined to go with semantic explanations than explanations from 
register (formality level). Unfortunately, I can't find my Collins 
Cobuild dictionary, which shows the frequency of words in various 
genres of text, including informal and formal. I suspect that "afraid" 
and "scared" would have high frequency in less-formal genres, and 
"frightened" and "fearful" in more-formal genres.

Yes, form and meaning adhere closely; but it's also true that much of 
language is "fossilized" -- that is, it's so because contemporary 
generations of speakers have inherited a pattern from earlier 
generations, and the motivation for a pattern or its related forms have 
disappeared. A good example is current use of "whom" -- most people 
under 45 (if not  most people, period) no longer operate by the old 
case rules for "whom", and use it rarely (and when they do use it, they 
often guess wrong). But I'd bet most everyone would use it in 
fossilized expressions like "to whom it may concern". This phrase is 
virtually an idiom. Do we ever really think about what "concern" means 
here? It's just a formula for opening a very formal letter.

To address Brett's question, we use language to express meaning not 
just in the sense of describing the world, but also to convey social 
information: we have many words that express virtually (or exactly) the 
same meaning, and differ mainly in formality level. We choose which 
word fits the _social_ context: the roles we see ourselves as playing; 
our perception of how we relate socially to the people we are 
conversing with (or writing to); and the way we want people to perceive 
us.

There are many pairs, triads, and bigger groups of words that differ 
mainly in that some are more formal than others; there are also neutral 
words that work in all situations. I always ask my students which word 
they are likely to hear (a) between teen friends discussing a party; 
(b) spoken by a witness in court to a cross-examining attorney; (c) by 
an expert medical witness in court:

1. drunk
2. wasted
3. intoxicated

("Wasted" can mean under the influence of other substances, but you get 
the picture). They invariably make the right choices: 2. is only 
appropriate in (a); 3. is most likely in (b) or (c); 1. is likely in 
any of the three, but is probably less likely than 3. in cases (b) and 
(c).

Similarly, imagine a police officer who is discussing an arrest in 
three different situations: 1. with her younger children; 2. with her 
fellow officers out of public earshot; 3. testifying in court. Which of 
the three terms above would she be likely to use in each situation? She 
will make choices considering her own view of her role in the 
situation: as parent, she might want to model upstanding behavior for a 
cop (not taking the state of inebriation lightly) while avoiding a term 
too technical for young children to know; as buddy among buddies in the 
police station, she can be totally relaxed--but also has to behave in 
ways that will preserve her insider status; in court, she has to 
display her authority and technical expertise in order to be taken 
seriously as an authoritative witness.

The fact that these choices are socially based is revealed by our 
responses to people who head in the wrong direction: someone who uses 
"wasted" on the witness stand is viewed as being socially clueless; 
someone who uses "intoxicated" among close friends (without signalling 
sarcasm) is thought of as bookish or setting herself up as superior (or 
is thought to be a nerd). Use of the inappropriate word is viewed as a 
_social_ gaffe, not a linguistic one.

I tell my students that we are _always_ "watching our language", even 
when we think we are just relaxing and being ourselves. We _always_ 
have to behave in socially appropriate ways, including signalling 
closeness to our most intimate friends. Breaking the rules will lead to 
some kind of awkwardness (see my made-up story below).

Student writing is often off not because of poor choices of grammar or 
the wrong word for the intended meaning; often, a student has simply 
chosen a word of the wrong formality level, either too "high" or too 
"low" (too "low" is much the more common problem). Here are some common 
ones across formality levels:

low			higher			even higher

a lot of		many, much		numerous
real(ly)		very				highly
scared		afraid, frightened	fearful, trepidatious  ("afraid" can also be 
low formality; witness its very common use by young children)
kids			children			youths, minors
baby			infant
somebody	(a) person		(an) individual
relatives						kin
big			large
little			small			diminutive?      (though "little" has formal uses: 
"little else"; "has little to do with"
teeny		tiny				minuscule

I use a little made-up story to demonstrate the social differences 
between words that mean pretty much the same thing. Imagine you are 
having lunch with a close friend who has just told you that, in the 
shower, he found a small lump in his armpit that had not been there 
before. You have urged him to see a doctor, but he replies that he is 
too afraid that it might be cancer. What would be the social effect of 
each of these replies:

a. Yeah, sure, a lot of people are scared of going to the doctor. But 
not going could make things even worse -- you could die!
b. Indeed, many individuals are fearful of visiting a physician. 
However, not doing so could have more-serious consequences, including 
death.

A close friend would find response b. quite inappropriately formal and 
would be very likely to (would probably) take offense (get mad; be 
offended) and assume (think, believe) that his friend was either making 
fun of him, taking the situation lightly, or getting on her high horse 
and lecturing. Notice that these are _social_ implications, having 
nothing to do with the meanings of the two responses, which are pretty 
much (virtually) identical.

As to Craig's comparisons, "an afraid boy" is not possible in standard 
English. In fact, it seems that all a- prfix adjectives are restricted 
to a position after the verb:

The house was ablaze  *the ablaze house
The patient was awake  *the awake patient
The snake is alive   *the alive snake
My father was aghast  *my aghast father

Other adjectives appear _only_ before the word they modify, and can't 
be positioned after:

In future years   *the years that are future
an utter fool    *a fool who is utter
the main complaint is ...   *this complaint is main
a lone rider   *a rider was lone
mock leather  *that leather is mock
the sole flaw  *the flaw is sole

(These examples are from the Cambridge Grammar of English.)

The "a-" examples (at least some of them) may originate in old 
progressives -- these used to be formed with "on", e.g. "the house is 
on blazing". The "on" was reduced in pronunciation to "a-" (which 
survives in, e.g., Appalachian English, "I'm a-comin' "). The absence 
of "-ing" needs to be explained -- maybe Herb has this in his vast 
stock of knowledge of the history of English. Most speakers of English 
have dropped the "a-" in the progressive construction, but it remains. 
In fact, it seems to have given us a prefix for deriving adjectives 
from verbs: "a-twitter" from "twitter"; "alight" from "to light (a 
fire)"; "aglow", "askew". But I don't think it's productive -- we don't 
use it to make new verbs as a matter of course. This would render words 
like "afall" (falling); "atwist", "asink" (cf. "afloat").


Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/