1887
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2213-8722
  • E-ISSN: 2213-8730
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Construction Grammar, one of the major frameworks in Cognitive Linguistics, has been successful in providing accounts of a wide range of empirical data. The approach has recently placed great emphasis on low-level generalizations, and some studies have argued that a constructional meaning is often associated only with a specific lexical item. Therefore, by investigating in detail the form [copula + Adj. + + -infinitive], the present study proposes that the combinatorial potential of the intensifier and the derived constructional meanings are sensitive to tense, thus emphasizing the importance of ‘item- and tense-specific constructions’.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00005.kiy
2018-03-16
2019-10-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beltrama, A.
    (2016) Bridging the gap. Intensification between social and semantic meaning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bierwisch, M.
    (1989) The semantics of gradation. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional adjectives (pp.71–262). Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑642‑74351‑1_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74351-1_3 [Google Scholar]
  3. Boas, H. C.
    (2009) Verb meanings at the crossroads between higher-level and lower-level constructions. Lingua, 120(1), 22–34.10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.03.008 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, H. C. , & Sag, I. A.
    (Eds.) (2011) Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Center for the Study.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bolinger, D.
    (1967) Adjective comparison: A semantic scale. Journal of English Linguistics, 1, 2–10.10.1177/007542426700100102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/007542426700100102 [Google Scholar]
  6. (1972) Degree words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110877786
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110877786 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cresswell, M. J.
    (1977).The semantics of degree. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague grammar (pp.261–292). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Croft, W.
    (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens , B. Thomas , D. René , & K. -U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden (pp.49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  9. (2012).Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (2005) A semantic approach to English grammar (2nd edition.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2012) Basic linguistic theory: Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1982) Frame semantics. InThe Linguistics Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, C. J. , & Atkins, B. T.
    (1992) Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp.75–102). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, C. J. , Kay, P. , & O’Connor, C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538.10.2307/414531
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fried, M. F. , & Östman, J. -O.
    (2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. F. Fried & J. -O. Östman (Eds.), Construction grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp.11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  16. Givón, T.
    (1993) English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Iwata, S.
    (2008).Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/cal.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jensen, K.
    (2014a) Performance and competence in usage-based construction grammar. In L. Dam & R. Cancino (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives on linguistic competences (pp.157–188). Aalborg Universitetsforlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2014b) This construction is too hot to handle: A corpus study of an adjectival construction. InJ. C. L. A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp.740–748). Kyoto: Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (2014c) Too female to be ruthless and too pregnant to argue: Semantic conflict and resolution in the [too ADJ to V]-construction. Contemporary Linguistics, 40(77), 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2015) Adjectives and usage-patterns in the [x enough to verb]-construction (Tech. Rep. No. 9th). International Cognitive Linguistics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C. J.
    (1999) Grammatical construction and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing y?construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kennedy, C. , & McNally, L.
    (2005) Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–381.10.1353/lan.2005.0071
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0071 [Google Scholar]
  25. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Meier, C.
    (2003) The meaning of too, enough and so … that. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 69–107.10.1023/A:1023002608785
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023002608785 [Google Scholar]
  28. Quirk, R. , Greenbaum, S. , Leech, G. , & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rotstein, C. , & Winter, Y.
    (2004) Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12(3), 259–288.10.1023/B:NALS.0000034517.56898.9a
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALS.0000034517.56898.9a [Google Scholar]
  30. Sapir, E.
    (1944).Grading, a study in semantics. Philosophy of Science, 11(2), 93–116.10.1086/286828
    https://doi.org/10.1086/286828 [Google Scholar]
  31. Talmy, L.
    (1985) Force dynamics in language and thought. InProceedings of the 21st meeting of the chicago linguistic society (pp.293–337). Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100.10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tomasello, M.
    (2005) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Traugott, E. C.
    (2006) Historical pragmatics. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.538–561). Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756959.ch24
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch24 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2012) Pragmatics and language change. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp.549–565).Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139022453.030
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139022453.030 [Google Scholar]
  36. Traugott, E. C. , & Dasher, R. B.
    (2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Von Stechow, A.
    (1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1–77.10.1093/jos/3.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/3.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00005.kiy
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cogls.00005.kiy
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construction grammar , scale structures , tense and the enough construction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error