Article In:
Constructions and Frames: Online-First Articles

Scaffolding the sentential Ultimate construction into a word

A link-based analysis

 | Tel Aviv University
 | Tel Aviv University
In this paper, we propose a model that accounts for the change in the grammatical status of the members of the Hebrew Ultimate construction family, the only full sentences in Hebrew to undergo lexicalization, from extra-sentential elements to full-fledged words, specifically, flexible modifiers. We propose a specific type of contextual construction — the Anaphoric degree-adverb exclamative — and argue that it is this construction that enables both the grammatical change and the categorial flexibility of the newly evolved words by incorporating the members of the Ultimate construction family as subordinate clauses. Our analysis emphasizes the critical role of network links between the (various) constructions involved in this lexicalization process.
Keywords: lexicalization, Hebrew, Diachronic Construction Grammar, sentence-level constructions, exclamative sentence construction, ultimate construction, amplifiers
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Some comments about terminology
    • 2.1‘Lexicalization’ vs ‘constructionalization’
    • 2.2‘Word’
    • 2.3‘Sentence’ and ‘clause’
  • 3.The proposed model
    • Stage I
    • Stage II
    • Stage III
    • Stage IV
  • 4.The corpora used
    • 4.1Historical Jewish Press corpus
    • 4.2Yedioth Ahronoth corpus
    • 4.3IsraBlog corpus
    • 4.4HeTenTen corpus
    • 4.5Corpus selection
  • 5.The data and analyses supporting the model
    • 5.1The position of the newly evolved idiomatic sentences with respect to the relevant context(s) (issue i)
    • 5.2Strategies to compensate for the loss of emotive force of intensifiers (issue ii)
    • 5.3The frequency of stage II Anaphoric degree-adverb exclamatives with respect to any other alternative of stage II (issue iii)
    • 5.4The timeline of Anaphoric degree-adverb exclamatives (IIa) and their counterparts lacking the anaphoric degree-adverb (III) (issue iv)
    • 5.5A further look at the claim about a strong association between the members of the Ultimate construction family and the Anaphoric degree-adverb exclamatives
      • 5.5.1Horizontal links and constructional competition
      • 5.5.2The allosentence competing with the Anaphoric degree-adverb exclamative hosting en milim
    • 5.6The flexibility of the newly evolved modifiers and the timeline of emergence of adjectives, adverbs and intensifiers
  • 6.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (72)
References
Audring, J., & Booij, G. (2016). Cooperation and coercion. Linguistics, 54 (4), 617–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bardenstein, R., & Ariel, M. (2022). The missing link between truth and intensification. Studies in Language, 46 (2), 285–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English word-formation. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024a). Constructions “on the move”: From independent-sentential to lexical constructions. [Doctoral dissertation]. Tel Aviv University.
(2024b). Let my speakers talk: Metalinguistic activity can indicate semantic change. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 20 (2), 289–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beltrama, A., & Bochnak, M. R. (2015). Intensification without degrees cross-linguistically. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 33 (3), 843–879. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, T. (2014). Competition as a unifying concept for the study of language. Mental Lexicon, 9 (2), 338–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, A. (2001). Pathways of lexicalization. In W. Raible, M. Haspelmath, E. König, & W. Oesterreicher (Eds.), Language universals and language typology (pp. 1596–1608). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Blank, G., & Reisdorf, B. C. (2012). The participatory web: A user perspective on Web 2.0. Information, Communication & Society, 15 (4), 537–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2009). Lexical integrity as a formal universal: A constructionist view. In S. Scalise, E. Magni, & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of language today (pp. 83–100). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G., & Audring, J. (2018). Category change in construction morphology. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 209–228). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, K., Vincent, N., & Walkden, G. (2015). On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society, 113 (3), 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82 (4), 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions, special volume 1: Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications. Retrieved from [URL]
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culperer, J., & Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danet, B. (2001). Cyberpl@y: Communicating online. Routledge.Google Scholar
De Smet, H., D’hoedt, F., Fonteyn, L., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics, 29 (2), 197–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2020). A dynamic network approach to the study of syntax. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 1. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
(2023). The Constructicon: Taxonomies and networks. Elements in Construction Grammar, Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Diewald, G. (2006). Context types in Grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions, special volume 1: Constructions all over: Case studies and theoretical implications. Retrieved from [URL]
Dixon, R. M. W., & Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2002). Word: A typological framework. In R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Word: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–41). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Wilkins, D. (2000). In the mind’s ear: The semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages. Language, 76 (3), 546–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Langauge, 64 (3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flach, S. (2020). Constructionalization and the Sorites Paradox: The emergence of the into-causative. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 45–67). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). From movement into action to manner of causation: Changes in argument mapping in the into-causative. Linguistics, 59 (1), 247–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glinert, L. (1989). The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions : A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2011). The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica, 45 (1), 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). What is the difference between a clause and a sentence? Retrieved from Diversity Linguistics Comment: Language structures throughout the world: [URL]
Heaney, S. (1966). Death of a naturalist. Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (2002). On the role of context in Grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on Grammaticalization (pp. 83–101). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henkin, R. (1994). kinuyey remez mašvim ve-šimušam le-derug [Comparative demonstratives as superlatives in Modern Hebrew]. Lĕšonénu: A Journal for the Study of the Hebrew Language and Cognate Subjects, 54 (2), 119–143. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Hetterle, K. (2015). Adverbial clauses in cross-linguistic perspective. De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2013). Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Three open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson (Eds.), Grammaticalization meets Construction Grammar (pp. 21–39). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1991). On some principles of Grammaticalization. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization: Theoretical and methodological issues (Vol. 11, pp. 17–35). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003 [1993]). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, P. (2015). Expressive meaning in an AAE attributive construction. Language Sciences, 50 1, 12–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, H. (1998). Adverbs of degree in Dutch and related languages. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuzar, R. (1992). psukiot nominalizacia ba-ʕivrit ha-isreʔelit [Nominal clauses in Israeli hebrew]. balšanut ʕivrit [Hebrew Linguistics: A Journal for Hebrew Descriptive, Computational and Applied Linguistics], 36 1, 71–89. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. (pp. 181–226). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipka, L. (1992). An outline of English lexicology: Lexical structure, word semantics, and word-formation. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
McNabb, Y. (2012). Cross-categorial modification of properties in Hebrew and English. Semantics and Linguistic Theory, 22 1, 365–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Méndez-Naya, B. (2003). On intensifiers and grammaticalization: The case of SWIÞE . English Studies, 84 (4), 372–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., & Hornik, K. (2008). Visualizing contingency tables. In C.-h. Chen, W. Härdle, & A. Unwin (Eds.), Handbook of data visualization (pp. 590–616). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2001). Exclamative constructions. In W. Raible, M. Haspelmath, E. König, & W. Oesterreicher (Eds.), Language universals and language typology (pp. 1038–1050). Walter De Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15 (1), 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A., & Lambrecht, K. (1996). The exclamative sentence type in English. In A. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 375–389). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Neuman, Y. (2017). psukit zika ʕacmaʔit bli šin ha-zika ba-ʕivrit ha-xadaša [Independent relative clause lacking relative that in modern Hebrew]. Paper presented at The 44th Conference of the Israel Association of Applied Linguistics, Achva Academic College, Israel. [in Hebrew].
O’Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2009). Web squared: Web 2.0 five years on. Retrieved from [URL]
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23 (3), 601–635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramat, P. (2016). What’s in a word? SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 13 (2), 106–121.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. (2019). Historical corpora meet the digital humanities: the Jerusalem Corpus of Emergent Modern Hebrew. Language Resources and Evaluation, 53 (4), 807–835. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salazar-García, V. (2010). Degree words, intensification, and word class distinctions in Romance languages. In U. Ansaldo, J. Don, & R. Pfau (Eds.), Parts of Speech: Empirical and theoretical advances (pp. 201–226). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The Dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaviv, T. (2018). legamrey — gilgulu šel maʕacim [The evolution of an Intensifier]. Helkat Lašon — A Journal for Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 51 1, 152–174. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Smirnova, E., Mailhammer, R., & Flach, S. (2019). The role of atypical constellations in the grammaticalization of German and English passives. Diachronica, 36 (3), 384–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L. (2020). The nature of the node and the network — Open questions in Diachronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 1–42). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L. (2020). Constructionalization, constructional competition and constructional death: Investigating the demise of Old English POSS DEM constructions. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 69–103). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svensson, M. H. (2008). A very complex criterion of fixedness: Non-compositionality. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology : An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 81–93). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional Changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T. (2021). Using structural priming to test links between constructions: English caused-motion and resultative sentences inhibit each other. Cognitive Linguistics, 32 (3), 389–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2024). Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks: Two sides of the same coin? Constructions and Frames, 16 (1), 30–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaisman, C., & Gonen, I. (2011). ʕivrit ʔinternetit [Hebrew on-line]. Keter Publishing House. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 141–179). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K., Vanderbauwhede, G., & De Smet, H. (2018). The emergence of a new adverbial downtoner: Constructional change and Constructionalization of Dutch [ver van X] and [verre van X] ‘far from X’. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé, & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 179–205). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, E., & Traugott, E. C. (2020). Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 167–211). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar