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


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’.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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 Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.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]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): construction grammar; scale structures; tense; 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