The meaning and development of the Hebrew scalar modifier kexol

Open access


The purpose of this paper is twofold; first, it aims to explore the variety of interpretations of the partially schematic Hebrew construction kexol as in kexol she’ratsiti (‘as much as I wanted’) within the framework of construction grammar; second, it aims to account for this variety through a demonstration of the interrelation between the grammaticalization of the construction and the process of (inter)subjectification or speech-act orientation. The analysis will show that this interrelation has resulted in considerable internal variation in meaning and function in the present day. Corpus findings reveal that initially kexol functioned as a compound consisting of a preposition and a universal quantifier to denote a relation of similarity and comparison. As a result of speaker orientation, the construction has come to exhibit a higher degree of grammaticality in its function as a scalar modifier. Additional schematic and procedural meanings which developed later seem to be the result of hearer-orientation and discourse-orientation tendencies all subsumed under the cover term speech-act orientation

Anderson, S.R., 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 571-612.

Ariel, M., Elitzur D., Du Bois, J.W. and Linzen, T., 2015. Pronominal datives. The royal road to argument status. Studies in Language, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 257-321.

Athanasiadou, A., 2007. On the subjectivity of intensifiers. Language Sciences, vol. 29, pp. 554-565.

Bai, Y., 2014. A usage-based study of the just me construction. German Cognitive Linguistics Association, vol. 2, pp. 127-145.

Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, H., 2017. Between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Helkat Lashon, vol. 50, pp. 94-116. (in Hebrew)

Beck, S., 1997. On the semantics of comparative conditionals. Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 229-271.

Boas, H. C., 2013. Cognitive construction grammar. In: T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, eds. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 233-254.

Borsley, R., 2004. An approach to English comparative correlatives. In: S. Müller, ed. Proceedings of the fourth conference on head - driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

Boye, K. and Harder, P., 2014 (Inter)subjectification in a functional theory of grammaticalization. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 7-24.

Budts, S. and Petré P., 2016. Reading the intentions of Be going to. On the subjectification of future markers. Folia Linguistica Historica, vol. 37, pp. 1-32

Bybee, J. L., 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bybee, J. L., 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In: T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, eds. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 49-69.

Choueka, Y., 1997. Rav-Milim. A comprehensive dictionary of modern Hebrew. Jerusalem: Center for educational technology, Miskal and Steimatzky.

Croft, W. and Cruse, D. A., 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Culicover, P. and Jackendoff, R. S., 1999. The view from the periphery: The English comparative correlative. Linguistic Inquiry, vol. 30, pp. 543-571.

Deppermann, A., 2011. Constructions vs. lexical items as sources of complex meanings. In: P. Auer and S. Pfänder, eds. Constructions: Emerging and emergent. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 88-126.

Diewald, G., 2010. On some problem areas in grammaticalization studies. In: K. Stathi, E. Gehweiler and E. König, eds. Grammaticalization: Current views and issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17-50.

Fanego, T., 2010. Paths in the development of elaborative discourse markers: Evidence from Spanish. In: K. Davidse, L.Vandelanotte and H.Cuyckens, eds. Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 197–237.

Fillmore, C. J., 1986. Varieties of conditional sentences. In: F. Marshall, A. Miller and Z.S. Zhang, eds. Proceedings of the third eastern states conference on linguistics. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, pp. 163-182.

Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P. and O’Connor, M.C., 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 501-538.

Fried, M., 2013. Principles of constructional change. In: T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, eds. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: University Press, pp. 419-437.

Ghesquière, L. and Davidse, K., 2011. The development of intensification scales in noun-intensifying uses of adjectives: sources, path and mechanisms of change. English Language and Linguistics, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 251-277.

Gisborne, N. and Patten, A., 2011. Construction grammar and grammaticalization. In: H. Narrog and B. Heine, eds. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 92-104.

Goldberg, A. E., 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, A. E., 2011. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. In: A. E. Goldberg, ed. Cognitive linguistics: Critical concepts in linguistics. London and New York: Routledge, vol. 3, pp. 30-42.

Goldberg, A. E., 2013. Constructionist approaches. In: T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, eds. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15-31.

Goldberg, A. E. and van der Auwera, J., 2012. This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 109-132.

Gvura, A., 2000. Syntactic studies in the legal contract. Beer-Sheva: Ben Gurion University of the Negev Press. (in Hebrew).

Gzella, H., 2006. Die Entstehung des Artikels im Semitischen: Eine ‘phönizische’ Perspektive. Journal of Semitic Studies, vol.51, pp. 1-18. Hilpert, M., 2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hoffmann, T., and Trousdale, G., 2013. Construction grammar: Introduction. In: T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, eds. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, Oxford: University Press, pp. 1-14.

Hopper, P. J., 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In: E.C. Traugott and B. Heine, eds. Approaches to grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, vol. 1, pp. 17-35.

Jackendoff, R., 2013. Constructions in the parallel architecture. In: T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, eds. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: University Press, pp. 70-92.

Kay, P., 2013. The limits of (construction) grammar. In: T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale, eds. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: University Press, pp. 32-48.

Kay, P. and Fillmore, C. J., 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistics generalizations: The ‘what’s X doing Y’ construction. Language, vol. 75, pp. 1-33.

Kay, P. and Michaelis, L.A., 2012. Constructional meaning and compositionality. In: C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger and P. Portner, eds. Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, vol.3. pp. 2271-2296.

Langacker, R. W., 1998. On subjectification and grammaticalization. In: J.P. Koenig, ed. Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 71-87.

Livnat, Z., 2006. Argumentation is scientific discourse: The use of concession. Helkat Lashon 37-38, pp. 75-84. (in Hebrew)

Livnat, Z., 2010. Rhetoric of the scientific article. Language and the discourse community. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press. (in Hebrew)

Malkin, R., 1976. The word “all” its meaning and opposites. In: M. Zahari, M. Zand and A. Tartakover, eds. Hagut Ivrit Bebrit Hamoatsot [Hebrew contemplation in the U.S.S.R.] Jerusalem: Biblos. pp. 36-42. (in Hebrew)

Martin, J., 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Maschler, Y., 2018. From matrix clause to prototypical discourse marker: The construction (‘ani) lo yode’a/yoda’at ‘(I) dunno (M/F)’ from a pragmatic typological perspective. Leshoneno (‘Our Language’) 80 (1-2), pp. 137-166. (in Hebrew)

McCawley, J. D., 1989. The comparative conditional constructions in English, German and Chinese. Proceedings of the 14th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 176-187.

Michaelis, L. A., 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 15, pp. 1-67.

Narrog, H., 2012. Modality, subjectivity and semantic change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Narrog, H., 2017. Three types of subjectivity, three types of intersubjectivity, their dynamicization and a synthesis. In: D. Van Olmen, H. Cuyckens and L. Ghesquière, eds. Aspects of grammaticalization, Berlin/Boston: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 19-46.

Nir, B. and Berman, R. A., 2010. Parts of speech as constructions, the case of Hebrew ‘adverbs’. Constructions and Frames, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 242-274.

Nuyts, J., 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 33, pp. 383-400.

Pajusalu, R., 2008. Pragmatics of quantifiers: The case of Estonian kõik ‘all’. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 40, pp. 1950-1965.

Panther, K.U. and Thornburg, L.L., 2009. From syntactic coordination to conceptual modification: The case of the nice and Adj construction. Constructions and Frames, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 58-86.

Paradis, C., 2000. Reinforcing adjectives: A cognitive semantic perspective on grammaticalization. In: R. Bermúdez-Otero, D. Denison, R. Hogg and C. McCully, eds. Generative theory and corpus studies: A dialogue from 10 ICEHL, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 233-58.

Peretz, Y., 1967. The relative clause. Tel-Aviv: Dvir. (in Hebrew)

Polak-Yitzhaki, H. and Maschler, Y., 2016. Disclaiming understanding? Hebrew ani lo mevin/a (‘I don’t understand’) in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 106, pp. 163-183.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J., 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London/New-York: Longman.

Rickford J. R., Wasow, T., Zwiky, A. and Buchstaller, I., 2007. Intensive and quotative ALL: Something old something new. American Speech, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 3-31.

Schwenter, S.A. and Traugott, E.S., 2000. Invoking scalarity. The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7-25.

Sullivan, K., 2011. If and when it’s a construction … Constructions and Frames, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 236-260.

Traugott E. C., 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In: R. Hickey, ed. Motives for language change, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 124-139.

Traugott E. C., 2008. Grammaticalization, constructions and the incremental development of language: Suggestions from the development of degree modifiers in English. In: R. Eckardt, G. Jager and T. Veenstra, eds. Variation, selection, development-probing the evolutionary model of language change. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 219-250.

Traugott, E.C., 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In: K. Davidse, L. Vandelotte and H. Cuyckens, eds. Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 29-71.

Traugott, E.C. and Trousdale, G., 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: University Press.

Ziv, Y., 2001. Pashut: discourse markers in Spoken Hebrew. Hebrew Linguistics, vol. 48, pp. 17-29. (in Hebrew)

Ziv, Y., 2006. Naxon and ma: Codification of givenness and surprise in the processing of information. In: A. Maman and S. Fassberg, eds. Studies in Language, vol. 10, pp. 65-73. (in Hebrew)

Ziv, Y., (n.d.) Existentials: Modern Hebrew. In: G. Khan, ed. Encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics, Brill. [Accessed 1 December 2017]. Available at:

Zusman, O., 2016. Concession. Helkat Lashon, vol. 49, pp. 52-74. (in Hebrew)

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.43

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.217
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.655


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 66 66 11
PDF Downloads 52 52 6