Article published in:
Cognitive Linguistic Studies
Vol. 4:2 (2017) ► pp. 273–292

When tense meets constructional meaning

The realis and irrealis alternation in the enough construction

| University of Kitakyushu (Japan)
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 be + Adj. + enough + to-infinitive], the present study proposes that the combinatorial potential of the intensifier enough and the derived constructional meanings are sensitive to tense, thus emphasizing the importance of ‘item- and tense-specific constructions’.
Keywords: construction grammar, scale structures, tense, the construction


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 16 March 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00005.kiy

Full-text

When tense meets constructional meaning
References

References

Beltrama, A.
(2016) Bridging the gap. Intensification between social and semantic meaning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.Google Scholar
[ p. 291 ]
Bierwisch, M.
(1989) The semantics of gradation. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional adjectives (pp. 71–262). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2009) Verb meanings at the crossroads between higher-level and lower-level constructions. Lingua, 120(1), 22–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A.
(Eds.) (2011) Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Center for the Study.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1967) Adjective comparison: A semantic scale. Journal of English Linguistics, 1, 2–10. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1972) Degree words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cresswell, M. J.
(1977).The semantics of degree. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague grammar (pp. 261–292). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012).Verbs: Aspect and causal structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
(2005) A semantic approach to English grammar (2nd edition.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2012) Basic linguistic theory: Further grammatical topics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame semantics. In (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T.
(1993) English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Iwata, S.
(2008).Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
(2014b) This construction is too hot to handle: A corpus study of an adjectival construction. In (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp. 740–748). Kyoto: Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
(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
(2015) Adjectives and usage-patterns in the [x enough to verb]-construction (Tech. Rep. No. 9th). International Cognitive Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
[ p. 292 ]
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J.
(1999) Grammatical construction and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing y?construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L.
(2005) Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meier, C.
(2003) The meaning of too, enough and so … that. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 69–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y.
(2004) Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12(3), 259–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, E.
(1944).Grading, a study in semantics. Philosophy of Science, 11(2), 93–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(1985) Force dynamics in language and thought. In Proceedings of the 21st meeting of the chicago linguistic society (pp. 293–337). Chicago.Google Scholar
(1988) Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2005) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
(2006) Historical pragmatics. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 538–561). Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Pragmatics and language change. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 549–565).Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B.
(2002) Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Von Stechow, A.
(1984) Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics, 3, 1–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar