Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2015) ► pp.28–58

‘I’m dying on you’

Constructions of intensification in Hebrew expression of love/desire/adoration

A specific type of intensification in the domain of love/desire/adoration is conveyed in Hebrew through the use of the idiomatic construction [X PRD al Y] [‘X die/crazy/ill/devastated on Y’] which deviates from the basic patterns of the grammar at both the morphosyntactic and the semantic levels. The present paper examines both the process of emergence and the accessibility of the construction: it explains how pragmatic needs drive a metonymy-based metaphorical mapping between dissociative conceptual domains, and how the mechanisms of negativity bias and embodiment are involved in this mapping. Subsequently the present paper shows how these pragmatic-driven processes are realised within a grammatical construction with a fixed, accessible idiomatic meaning. The paper additionally argues that emotive intensification is not limited to (adverbial) modification, but instead can be expressed by more complex constructions.
Keywords: construction grammar, intensification, emotion, metonymy, metaphor, embodiment, negativity bias, Hebrew
Published online: 23 June 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.02var
References (56)
Afek, E., & Cahanman, I. (1982). Al in its function in Israeli Hebrew. The David Gross Book: A collection of essays, studies, and literature dedicated to Dr. David Gross for his 70th birthday (pp. 231–245). Tel Aviv: Hamatmid. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
. (1985). New trends in the function of al in Israeli Hebrew. Leshoneinu la-am, 36(2), 41–61; (3–4), 84–98; (8–10), 205–215. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Ameka, F.K. (2008). He died old dying to be dead right: Transitivity and semantic shifts of ‘die’ in Ewe in crosslinguistic perspective. In M. Bowerman & P. Brown (Eds.), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure (pp. 231–253). New York/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barcelona, A. (2002). Clarifying and applying the notions of metaphor and metonymy within cognitive linguistics: An update. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 207–278). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavlavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blenki, I. (2003). “Locative” al and “directional” al. Master’s thesis. Tel AvivGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Comparative grammar: The prepositions in Hebrew and in Russian. Hed ha-ulpan ha-xadash, 891, 114–128. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree words. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borochovsky Bar-Aba, E., & Sovran, T. (2003). Hebrew Construction Grammar. In R. Ben-Shaxar & G. Turi (Eds.), Hebrew – A living language III (pp. 31–50). Tel Aviv: The Porter institute and Hakibuts ha-meuxad. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conception of time. Cognitive Psychology, 431, 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacchiani, S. (2005). Local vehicles for intensification and involvement: the case of English intensifiers. In P. Cap (Ed.), Pragmatics today (pp. 401–419). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2002). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–206). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Swart, P. (2007). Cross-linguistic variation in object marking. PhD dissertation. Radboud University.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive grammar: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foolen, A. (2012). The relevance of emotion language for language and linguistics. In A. Foolen, U.M. Lüdtke, T.P. Racine, & Z. Jordan (Eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness, and language (pp. 349–368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gafni, I. (2009). Semantic processes of power and violence terms in Hebrew. A seminarian paper. Tel Aviv University. [Hebrew]
Geeraerts, D. (2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R.W. Jr. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax (volume I1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goossens, L. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 323–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halevi, R. (2007). Transitive verbs with non-accusative alternation in Hebrew: Cross-language comparison with English, German, and Spanish. In N. Delbecque & B. Cornillie (Eds.), On interpreting construction schema: From action and motion to transitivity and causality (pp. 61–101). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2006). Syntactic leaps or lexical variation?: More on “creative syntax”. In S.T. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 127–157). Berlin/NewYork: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J., & Napoli, D.J. (2008). Just for the hell of it: A comparison of two taboo-term constructions. Linguistics, 441, 347–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P.J., & Thompson, S.A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2007). Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 417–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? construction. Language, 75(1), 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2005). Metaphor in Culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, D. (2002). ‘Preposition’ as functor: The case of long in Bislama. In S. Feigenbaum & D. Kurzon (Eds.), Prepositions in their syntactic, semantic and pragmatic context (pp. 1231–248). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (pp. 43–70). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: Theoretical prerequisite. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lorentz, G. (2002). Really worthwhile or not really significant?: A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammaticalization of intensifiers in Modern English. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 143–162). Amsterdam/Philadelphia : John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Majid, A. (2014). Current emotion research in the language sciences. Emotion Review, 4(4), 432–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, A.L. (2005). Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In M. Amberber & H. de Hoop, H. (Eds.), Competition and variation in natural languages: The case for case (pp. 73–118). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNabb, Y. (2012). The syntax and semantics of degree modification. PhD dissertation. The University of Chicago.
Napoli, D.J., & Hoeksema, J. (2009). The grammatical versatility of taboo terms. Studies in language, 33(3), 612–643. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G. (1998). The conceptualisation of emotional causality by means of prepositional phrases. In A. Athanasiadou & E. Tabakowska (Eds.), Speaking of emotions: Conceptualisation and expression (pp. 273–294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). How metonymic are metaphors. In R. Dirven & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 407–434). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenblum, A., & Triger, Z. (2007). Speechless: How contemporary Israeli culture isreflected in language. Or Yehuda: Kinneret, Zmora-Bitan, Dvir. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E.B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shatil, N. (2001). The preposition al as a meaning extender in the spoken language. The Hebrew and Her Sisters: A magazine for the study of the Hebrew language, its relation to the Semitic languages and to the languages of the Jews, 11, 141–148. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Smith, W. (1996). Spoken narrative and preferred clause structure: Evidence from Modern Hebrew discourse. Studies in Language, 20(1), 163–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J.R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory (second edition). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, S.E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsunoda, T. (1981). Split case-marking patterns in verb-types and tense/aspect/mood. Linguistics, 191, 389–438.Google Scholar
. (1985). Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 211, 385–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Amichai, Y. (1977). ‘Poems 1948–1962’. Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing House. [Hebrew]Google Scholar
Tanach (the Jewish bible). [Biblical Hebrew]
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Shor, Leon
2024. Eye closures in spoken Hebrew. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Shyldkrot, Hava Bat-Zeev & Einat Kuzai
2022. Life and Death Expressions in Hebrew Through Time. In Developing Language and Literacy [Literacy Studies, 23], ► pp. 703 ff. DOI logo
Inbar, Anna & Leon Shor
2019. Covert negation in Israeli Hebrew: Evidence from co-speech gestures. Journal of Pragmatics 143 ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.