1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 11, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to investigate the possibility of a cross-theoretical understanding of , a “kind of contextual enrichment/adjustment” (Lauwers & Willems 2011: 1220), by combining insights from Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. In Construction Grammar, coercion has mostly been discussed in terms of the semantics of the linguistic items that occur in the sentence and how these interact with each other. Relevance Theory, on the other hand, does not distinguish cases of coercion from other instances of lexical adjustment, and discusses them in terms of the pragmatic principles involved during utterance interpretation. In order to highlight the complementarity of the two perspectives, this paper particularly consists in pinning down their respective explanatory limits. It will be shown that coercion is better described in terms of a linguistically required pragmatic process. Therefore, it will be suggested that coercion might actually instantiate a particular type of .

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00031.lec
2019-11-07
2024-12-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.00031.lec
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aït-Kaci, H.
    (1984) A lattice-theoretic approach to computation based on a calculus of partially ordered type structures. PhD. thesis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
  2. Bencini, G. M. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2000) The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 640–651. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2757
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bencini, G. M. L., & Valian, V. V.
    (2008) Abstract sentence representations in 3-year-olds: Evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 97–113. 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2011) Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in “a”-adjective production. Language, 81(1), 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Boyd, J. K., Gottschalk, E., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2009) Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning, 93, 418–429.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Cappelle, B.
    (2014) Conventional combinations in pockets of productivity: English resultatives and Dutch ditransitives expressing excess. InR. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp.251–282). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Carston, R.
    (2000) Explicature and semantics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 1–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2002) Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) Lexical pragmatics, ad hoc concepts and metaphor: A relevance theory perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 153–180.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. (2012) Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review, 29, 607–623. 10.1515/tlr‑2012‑0022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0022 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2015) Contextual adjustment of meaning. InN. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp.195–210). London, New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang, F., Bock, K., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2003) Do thematic roles leave traces in their places?Cognition, 90(1), 29–49. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(03)00123‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00123-9 [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark, B.
    (1991) Relevance Theory and the semantics of non-declaratives. PhD. thesis. University College London.
  14. (2013) Relevance Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139034104
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139034104 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (2014) Figurative Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Davis, M.
    (2004) BYU-BNC. (Based on the British National Corpus from Oxford University Press). Available online at: https://www.english-corpora.org/bnc/
  17. Depraetere, I.
    (2010) Some observations on the meaning of modals. InB. Cappelle & N. Wada (Eds.), Distinctions in English grammar, offered to Renaat Declerck (pp.72–91). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2014) Modals and lexically-regulated saturation. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 160–177. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. de Swart, H.
    (2000) Tense, aspect and coercion in a cross-linguistic perspective. InM. Butt & T. H. King (Eds.), Proceedings of the Berkeley Formal Grammar Conference. University of California, Berkeley: CSLI publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2011) Mismatches and coercion. InC. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger, & P. Portner (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning (pp.574–597). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226614.574
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226614.574 [Google Scholar]
  22. Escandell-Vidal, V., & Leonetti, M.
    (2002) Coercion and the stage/individual distinction. InJ. Gutierrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics (pp.159–179). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. (2011) The rigidity of procedural meaning. InV. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti, & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives (pp.81–102). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7(5), 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 131–154. 10.1515/cogl.2011.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.006 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2013) Constructionist approaches. InT. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, A. E., & Bencini, G. M. L.
    (2005) Support from processing for a constructional approach to grammar. InA. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp.3–18). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gonzálvez-García, F.
    (2011) Metaphor and metonymy do not render coercion superfluous: Evidence from the subjective-transitive construction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1305–1358. 10.1515/ling.2011.037
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.037 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hare, M. L., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (1999) Structural priming: Purely syntactic?InM. Hahn & S. C. Stones (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.208–211). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hobbs, J. R., Walker, D. E., & Amsler, R. A.
    (1982) Natural language access to structured text. InCOLING 82: Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.127–132). Prague: Academia. 10.3115/991813.991833
     https://doi.org/10.3115/991813.991833 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hobbs, J. R., & Martin, P.
    (1987) Local pragmatics. InProceedings of the Tenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Milan (pp.520–23). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hobbs, J. R., Stickel, M. E., Appelt, D. E., & Martin, P.
    (1993) Interpretation as abduction. Artificial Intelligence, 63(1–2), 69–142. 10.1016/0004‑3702(93)90015‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(93)90015-4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Israel, M.
    (1996) The way constructions grow. InA. E. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp.217–230). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaschak, M. P., & Glenberg, A. M.
    (2000) Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 508–529. 10.1006/jmla.2000.2705
     https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2705 [Google Scholar]
  38. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lauwers, P., & Willems, D.
    (2011) Coercion: Definition and challenges, current approaches and new trends. Linguistics, 49(6), 1219–1235. 10.1515/ling.2011.034
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.034 [Google Scholar]
  40. Michaelis, L.
    (2004) Type-shifting in construction grammar: A unified model of aspectual coercion. Cognitive linguistics, 15, 1–67. 10.1515/cogl.2004.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Moens, M., & Steedman, M.
    (1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Padilla Cruz, M.
    (2016) Three decades of relevance theory. InM. Padilla Cruz (Ed.), Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions (pp.1–29). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.268.01cru
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.01cru [Google Scholar]
  43. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1991) The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 409–441.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. (2011) Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49(6), 1401–1431. 10.1515/ling.2011.039
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.039 [Google Scholar]
  46. Recanati, F.
    (1989) The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4, 295–329. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.1989.tb00258.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1989.tb00258.x [Google Scholar]
  47. (2012) Pragmatic enrichment. InG. Russel & D. Graff Fara (Eds.), Routledge companion to philosophy of language (pp.67–78). New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
    (1995) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. (2005) Pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 17, 353–388.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. E.
    (2011) The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 6, 1237–1270.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Wilson, D.
    (2004) Relevance theory and lexical pragmatics. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 16, 343–360.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Wilson, D., & Carston, R.
    (2007) A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. InN. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp.230–259). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  53. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
    (2012) Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ye, Z., Zhan, W., & Zhou, X.
    (2007) The semantic processing of syntactic structure in sentence comprehension: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1142, 135–145. 10.1016/j.brainres.2007.01.030
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2007.01.030 [Google Scholar]
  55. Yoon, S.
    (2012) Constructions, semantic compatibility, and coercion: An empirical usage-based approach. Ph.D. thesis. Rice University.
  56. Ziegeler, D.
    (2007a) Arguing the case against coercion. InG. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg, & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.99–123). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.136.08zie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.08zie [Google Scholar]
  57. (2007b) A word of caution on coercion. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 990–1028. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.014 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00031.lec
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): coercion; Construction Grammar; pragmatics; Relevance Theory; saturation; semantics

Most Cited

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