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
Published online: 16 March 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00005.kiy
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00005.kiy
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 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 enough construction
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Theoretical background
- 2.1Construction grammar
- 2.2Syntactic idiosyncrasy of enough
- 3.Two approaches to threshold value
- 3.1The implicit threshold approach
- 3.2The explicit threshold approach
- 4.Toward an item- and tense-specific construction
- 4.1Realis and irrealis interpretations in the enough construction
- 4.2Comparing be and other copulative verbs
- 4.3Invited inference
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
References
References (37)
Beltrama, A. (2016). Bridging the gap. Intensification between social and semantic meaning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.
Bierwisch, M. (1989). The semantics of gradation. In M. Bierwisch & E. Lang (Eds.), Dimensional adjectives (pp. 71–262). Berlin: Springer.
Boas, H. C. (2009). Verb meanings at the crossroads between higher-level and lower-level constructions. Lingua, 120(1), 22–34.
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I. A. (Eds.). (2011). Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Center for the Study.
Bolinger, D. (1967). Adjective comparison: A semantic scale. Journal of English Linguistics, 11, 2–10.
Cresswell, M. J. (1977).The semantics of degree. In B. Partee (Ed.), Montague grammar (pp. 261–292). New York: Academic Press.
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.
Dixon, R. M. W. (2005). A semantic approach to English grammar (2nd edition.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistics Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
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.
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.
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.
Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Iwata, S. (2008).Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
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.
(2014b). This construction is too hot to handle: A corpus study of an adjectival construction. In J. C. L. A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp. 740–748). Kyoto: Japanese Cognitive Linguistics Association.
(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.
(2015). Adjectives and usage-patterns in the [x enough to verb]-construction (Tech. Rep. No. 9th). International Cognitive Linguistics Association.
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical construction and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing y?construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33.
Kennedy, C., & McNally, L. (2005). Scale structure and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language, 81(2), 345–381.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (vol. 1). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Meier, C. (2003). The meaning of too, enough and so … that. Natural Language Semantics, 111, 69–107.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Rotstein, C., & Winter, Y. (2004). Total adjectives vs. partial adjectives: Scale structure and higher-order modifiers. Natural Language Semantics, 12(3), 259–288.
Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In Proceedings of the 21st meeting of the chicago linguistic society (pp. 293–337). Chicago.
Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Traugott, E. C. (2006). Historical pragmatics. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 538–561). Wiley-Blackwell.
(2012). Pragmatics and language change. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 549–565).Cambridge University Press.