1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper discusses semantic and pragmatic aspects of possessive interpretation (PI), the process whereby semantically underspecified possessive noun phrases (NPs) such as and receive concrete referential interpretations (e.g. ‘the house owned by John Smith’) in context. By observing what is common to the interpretation of both constructions, I lay out the ingredients for a uniform pragmatic account of PI whilst rehashing the contextualist notion of . As defined by Recanati (20042010) and many others, saturation is a linguistically mandated and obligatory pragmatic process, operating to enrich the incomplete logical forms of referring expressions, including possessive NPs. I argue that present proposals which assume that saturating the possessive relation is crucial to determining the possessive referent fail to do justice to the many ways in which possessive NPs may be understood in concrete communicative situations. Supporting similar claims by Korta and Perry (2017), this suggests that saturation is more adequately defined as a communicatively optional pragmatic process. The discussion simultaneously contributes to the growing literature on pragmatic aspects of constructions as form-meaning pairings, by outlining some of the theoretical issues that arise from the division of labour between semantic and pragmatic meaning in PI.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00030.kol
2019-11-07
2019-11-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) 2007Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ariel, M.
    (2008) Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791314
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791314 [Google Scholar]
  3. (2010) Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511777912
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511777912 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barker, C.
    (1995) Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bauer, L.
    (2017) Compounds and compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108235679
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235679 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol.2). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bolinger, D.
    (1977) Meaning and Form. 3rd impression 1983. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Breban, T.
    (2018) Proper names used as modifiers: a comprehensive functional analysis. English Language & Linguistics, 22(3), 1–21. 10.1017/S1360674316000514
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000514 [Google Scholar]
  9. Breban, T., Kolkmann, J., & Payne, J.
    (2015) Is the Ghana problem Ghana’s problem? Differing interpretations of two English NP constructions. Presented atIPRA14, 26–31 July 2015, Antwerp.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (in press). The impact of semantic relations on grammatical alternation: An experimental study of proper name modifiers and determiner genitives. English Language & Linguistics, 23(3).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2007) Predicting the dative alternation. InG. Bouma, I. Kramer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp.69–94). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions, Special Volume1, 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. (2017) What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions?InI. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp.115–151). Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cappelle, B., Dugas, E., & Tobin, V.
    (2015) An afterthought on let alone. Journal of Pragmatics, 80, 70–85. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.02.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Carston, R.
    (2009) The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 35–62. 10.1163/187731009X455839
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455839 [Google Scholar]
  16. Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R.
    (2017) Free pragmatic enrichment, expansion, saturation, completion: A view from linguistics. InI. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp.11–37). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑32247‑6_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Finkbeiner, R.
    (2014) Identical constituent compounds in German. Word Structure, 7(2), 182–213. 10.3366/word.2014.0065
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2014.0065 [Google Scholar]
  18. Girju, R., Moldovan, D., Tatu, M., & Antohe, D.
    (2005) On the semantics of noun compounds. InComputer Speech and Language – Special Issue on Multiword Expressions, 19(4), 479–496.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grafmiller, J.
    (2014) Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language & Linguistics, 18(3), 471–496. 10.1017/S1360674314000136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000136 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gries, S. & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  22. Gutzmann, D.
    (2010) Unbestimmtheit und die Semantik/Pragmatik-Schnittstelle. InI. Pohl (Ed.), Semantische Unbestimmtheit im Lexikon (pp.19–44). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Heine, B.
    (1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hinrichs, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2007) Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: a multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 437–474. 10.1017/S1360674307002341
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002341 [Google Scholar]
  25. Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kay, P., & Zimmer, K.
    (1976) On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. InSixth California Linguistics Association Proceedings (pp.29–35). San Diego: Campile Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Kempson, R. M.
    (1977) Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Korta, K., & Perry, J.
    (2006) Three demonstrations and a funeral. Mind & Language, 21(2), 166–186. 10.1111/j.0268‑1064.2006.00310.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-1064.2006.00310.x [Google Scholar]
  29. (2011) Critical pragmatics. An inquiry into reference and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511994869
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511994869 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2017) Full but not saturated. The myth of mandatory primary pragmatic processes. InS. Conrad & K. Petrus (Eds.), Meaning, context, and methodology (pp.31–50). Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501504327‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504327-003 [Google Scholar]
  31. Labov, W.
    (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. 10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  34. (1995) Possession and possessive constructions. InJ. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp.51–79). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110809305.51
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110809305.51 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2009) Metonymic grammar. InK.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp.45–71). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.25.04lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.25.04lan [Google Scholar]
  36. Levi, J.
    (1978) The Syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Meibauer, J.
    (2014) Word-formation and contextualism. International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 103–126. 10.1163/18773109‑00601006
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00601006 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2015) On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach. STUF Language Typology and Universals, 68(3), 241–261. 10.1515/stuf‑2015‑0013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2015-0013 [Google Scholar]
  39. Nichols, J.
    (1988) On alienable and inalienable possession. InW. Shipley (Ed.), Inhonor of Mary Haas (pp.475–521). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110852387.557
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852387.557 [Google Scholar]
  40. Payne, J., & Huddleston, R.
    (2002) Nouns and noun phrases. InR. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp.323–524). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Perek, F.
    (2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  43. Perry, J.
    (2001) Reference and reflexivity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D.
    (2013) The semantics of possessives. Language, 89(4), 713–759. 10.1353/lan.2013.0065
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0065 [Google Scholar]
  45. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Recanati, F.
    (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (2010) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rosenbach, A.
    (2002) Genitive variation in English: conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies [Topics in English Linguistics, Vol. 42]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110899818
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899818 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2007) Emerging variation: determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics, 11(1), 143–189. 10.1017/S1360674306002140
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674306002140 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2009) Identifying noun modifiers in English. Ms, University of Paderborn.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. (2014) English genitive variation–the state of the art. English Language & Linguistics, 18(2), 215–262. 10.1017/S1360674314000021
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000021 [Google Scholar]
  52. (in press). On the (non-)equivalence of constructions with determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language & Linguistics, 23(3).
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Seiler, H.
    (1983) Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Smith, M. B.
    (2006) Reference point constructions, the underspecification of meaning, and the conceptual structure of Palauan -er. Oceanic Linguistics, 45(1), 1–20. 10.1353/ol.2006.0019
    https://doi.org/10.1353/ol.2006.0019 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1986/1995) Relevance: Communicaton and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2003) Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. Topics in English Linguistics, 43, 413–444.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Taylor, J. R.
    (1996) Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Vanderwende, L.
    (1994) Algorithm for automatic interpretation of noun sequences. InProceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.782–788). Kyoto, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/991250.991272
    https://doi.org/10.3115/991250.991272 [Google Scholar]
  59. Vikner, C., & Jensen, P. A.
    (2002) A Semantic analysis of the English genitive. Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica, 56(2), 191–226. 10.1111/1467‑9582.00092
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9582.00092 [Google Scholar]
  60. Warren, B.
    (1978) Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds. Gothenburg Studies in English, 41, 1–266. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Weiner, E. J. & Labov, W.
    (1983) Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics19, 29–58. 10.1017/S0022226700007441
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007441 [Google Scholar]
  62. Willemse, P.
    (2005) Nominal reference-point constructions: Possessive and esphoric NPs in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
  63. Williams, E. S.
    (1982) The NP cycle. Linguistic Inquiry, 13, 277–295.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Zehentner, E.
    (2018) Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language & Linguistics, 22(1), 1–27. 10.1017/S1360674316000447
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674316000447 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00030.kol
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00030.kol
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error