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

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 161 102 6
PDF Downloads 121 73 5