@unpublished{cogprints5465,
           title = {Lexical pragmatics and types of linguistic encoding: evidence from
pre- and postpositions in Behdini-Kurdish},
          author = {Christoph Unger},
            year = {2005},
        keywords = {Lexical Pragmatics, Linguistic Semantics, Procedural Semantics, Ad-hoc Concepts, Prepositions, Postpositions},
             url = {http://cogprints.org/5465/},
        abstract = {Lexical pragmatics starts from the assumption that the meaning communicated
by a word is underdetermined by its semantics, and lexical pragmatists
usually study the processes involved in bridging the gap between the
encoded and the communicated meaning of words. This paper studies
a different but related question: wether different types of linguistic
encoding can play empirically distinguishable roles in lexical pragmatics.
Carston (2002) suggests that some words may encode templates for concept
formation whereas others encode fully-fledged concepts that provide
inputs to pragmatic processes. Blakemore (1987) argued that some words
encode constraints on inferential processes rather than concepts.
But if some words might encode nothing more than concept-formation
templates, and others procedural constraints, then both types of words
appear to be highly context dependent and their linguistic semantics
rather abstract in nature. Is it possible to distinguish these different
types of encoding empirically? In this paper I want to argue that
the answer to this question is positive. In Behdini-Kurdish, there
is a class of four fundamental prepositions *di* 'in', *li*
'at', *ji* 'from', *bi* 'with'. Furthermore, there is a
larger class of simple prepositions such as *ser* 'on', *nav*
'within', *ber* 'in front'. These simple prepositions can be
added to one of the fundamental prepositions to form compound ones:
*diser* 'on top of', *dinav* 'inside', *diber* 'in
front of, in sight of'. Any fundamental, simple or compound preposition
can be used together with one of three postpositions *da*, *ra*
and *ve*. Postpositions are morphologically and syntactically
simple, in contrast to prepositions. Though overlapping in meaning
with prepositions, they are not redundant. Fundamental prepositions
have a wider range of meaning than simple prepositions and compound
prepositions. Finally, there are grammaticalisation paths from nouns
through compound preposition to simple prepositions, but none involving
the postpositions. My thesis is that these properties of the Behdini-Kurdish
system of pre-and postpositions can be explained on the assumptions
that the class of fundamental prepositions encodes templates for ad-hoc
concept construction, the class of simple prepositions encodes concepts
that allow the construction of ad-hoc concepts, and that the class
of postpositions encode procedures constraining ad-hoc concept construction.
This thesis gets additional support from German prepositional phrases.
I conclude that the different types of linguistic encoding discussed
do indeed lead to distinct effects in lexical pragmatics and are therefore
empirically distinguishable. Thus, while there is reason to think
that a unified account of the pragmatic processes involved in lexical
pragmatics is possible (Wilson, to appear), the different
types of inputs to these processes need to be recognised. }
}

<script src="//archive-bar.soton.ac.uk/archive-bar.js"></script>