---
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.
altloc: []
chapter: ~
commentary: ~
commref: ~
confdates: '31. August - 03. September 2005'
conference: Linguistics Association of Great Britain Meeting
confloc: 'University of Cambridge, Fitzwilliam College'
contact_email: ~
creators_id: []
creators_name:
- family: Unger
given: Christoph
honourific: ''
lineage: ''
date: 2005
date_type: published
datestamp: 2007-03-22
department: ~
dir: disk0/00/00/54/65
edit_lock_since: ~
edit_lock_until: ~
edit_lock_user: ~
editors_id: []
editors_name: []
eprint_status: archive
eprintid: 5465
fileinfo: /style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png;/5465/1/lexprag_pre_post_04a.pdf
full_text_status: public
importid: ~
institution: ~
isbn: ~
ispublished: unpub
issn: ~
item_issues_comment: []
item_issues_count: 0
item_issues_description: []
item_issues_id: []
item_issues_reported_by: []
item_issues_resolved_by: []
item_issues_status: []
item_issues_timestamp: []
item_issues_type: []
keywords: 'Lexical Pragmatics, Linguistic Semantics, Procedural Semantics, Ad-hoc Concepts, Prepositions, Postpositions'
lastmod: 2011-03-11 08:56:48
latitude: ~
longitude: ~
metadata_visibility: show
note: ~
number: ~
pagerange: ~
pubdom: FALSE
publication: ~
publisher: ~
refereed: FALSE
referencetext: |+
Bedir Khan, E. D. and Roger Lescot (1986): _Kurdische Grammatik._ Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft. Original: _Grammaire Kurde (Dialecte Kurmandji)._ Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve, 1970.
Blakemore, D. (1987): _Semantic Constraints on Relevance._ Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2002): _Relevance and Linguistic Meaning._ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blass, R. (1990): _Relevance Relations in Discourse._ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blutner, R. (1998): Lexical pragmatics. _Journal of Semantics_ 15:1-20.
Breheny, R. (1998): Interface economy and focus. In V. Rouchota and A. Jucker (eds), _Current Issues in Relevance Theory,_ pp. 105-140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Carston, R. (2002): _Thoughts and utterances._ Oxford: Blackwell.
Iten, C. (2003): Lexical pragmatics and procedural meaning. Paper presented at the International Pragmatics Conference, Toronto.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1998): The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In P. Carruthers and J. Boucher (eds) _Language and Thought,_ pp. 184-200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wharton, T. (2003): Natural pragmatics and natural codes. _Mind & Language_ 18:447-477.
Wilson, D. (to appear): Relevance and lexical pragmatics. _Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica_ Special issue on pragmatics and the lexicon.
Wilson, D. and D. Sperber (1993): Linguistic form and relevance. _Lingua_ 90(1/2):1-25.
relation_type: []
relation_uri: []
reportno: ~
rev_number: 12
series: ~
source: ~
status_changed: 2007-09-12 17:10:06
subjects:
- ling-sem
- ling-prag
succeeds: ~
suggestions: ~
sword_depositor: ~
sword_slug: ~
thesistype: ~
title: |-
Lexical pragmatics and types of linguistic encoding: evidence from
pre- and postpositions in Behdini-Kurdish
type: confpaper
userid: 4992
volume: ~