Possessive interpretation at the semantics-pragmatics interface
This paper discusses semantic and pragmatic aspects of possessive interpretation (PI), the process whereby semantically underspecified possessive noun phrases (NPs) such as John Smith’s house and the house of John Smith 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 saturation. As defined by Recanati (2004, 2010) 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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Semantic and pragmatic aspects of possessive interpretation
- 3.Meaning equivalence (or not?) in possessive NPs
- 3.1More semantic and pragmatic aspects of possessive interpretation
- 3.2Interim conclusion
- 4.Possessive interpretation at the semantics-pragmatics interface
- 5.Reference determination via possessive NPs
- 5.1Possessive saturation
- 5.2Novel evidence
- 6.Sketching a uniform account of possessive interpretation
- 7.Concluding remarks: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of constructions
- Notes
-
Corpora
-
References
References (64)
Corpora
The British National Corpus
,
version 3 (BNC XML Edition)
2007 Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL:
[URL]
Ariel, M.
(
2008)
Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ariel, M.
(
2010)
Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barker, C.
(
1995)
Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bauer, L.
(
2017)
Compounds and compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R.
(
1999)
Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol. 21). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bolinger, D.
(
1977)
Meaning and Form. 3rd impression 1983. London/New York: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Breban, T.
(
2018)
Proper names used as modifiers: a comprehensive functional analysis.
English Language & Linguistics, 22(3), 1–21.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Breban, T., Kolkmann, J., & Payne, J.
(
2015)
Is the Ghana problem Ghana’s problem? Differing interpretations of two English NP constructions. Presented at IPRA14, 26–31 July 2015, Antwerp.
Breban, T., Kolkmann, J., & Payne, J.
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).
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H.
(
2007)
Predicting the dative alternation. In
G. Bouma,
I. Kramer, &
J. Zwarts (Eds.),
Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cappelle, B.
(
2006)
Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”.
Constructions, Special Volume 11, 1–28.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cappelle, B.
(
2017)
What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In
I. Depraetere &
R. Salkie (Eds.),
Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 115–151). Cham: Springer.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cappelle, B., Dugas, E., & Tobin, V.
(
2015)
An afterthought on let alone
.
Journal of Pragmatics, 801, 70–85.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R.
(
2009)
The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication.
International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 35–62.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R.
(
2017)
Free pragmatic enrichment, expansion, saturation, completion: A view from linguistics. In
I. Depraetere &
R. Salkie (Eds.),
Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 11–37). Cham: Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Finkbeiner, R.
(
2014)
Identical constituent compounds in German.
Word Structure, 7(2), 182–213.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Girju, R., Moldovan, D., Tatu, M., & Antohe, D.
(
2005)
On the semantics of noun compounds. In
Computer Speech and Language – Special Issue on Multiword Expressions, 19(4), 479–496.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E.
(
1995)
Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grafmiller, J.
(
2014)
Variation in English genitives across modality and genres.
English Language & Linguistics, 18(3), 471–496.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gries, S. & Stefanowitsch, A.
Gutzmann, D.
(
2010)
Unbestimmtheit und die Semantik/Pragmatik-Schnittstelle. In
I. Pohl (Ed.),
Semantische Unbestimmtheit im Lexikon (pp. 19–44). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Heine, B.
(
1997)
Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(
2002)
The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kay, P., & Zimmer, K.
(
1976)
On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. In
Sixth California Linguistics Association Proceedings (pp. 29–35). San Diego: Campile Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kempson, R. M.
(
1977)
Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Korta, K., & Perry, J.
(
2006)
Three demonstrations and a funeral.
Mind & Language, 21(2), 166–186.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Korta, K., & Perry, J.
(
2011)
Critical pragmatics. An inquiry into reference and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Korta, K., & Perry, J.
(
2017)
Full but not saturated. The myth of mandatory primary pragmatic processes. In
S. Conrad &
K. Petrus (Eds.),
Meaning, context, and methodology (pp. 31–50). Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Labov, W.
(
1972)
Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1991)
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1993)
Reference-point constructions.
Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1995)
Possession and possessive constructions. In
J. R. Taylor &
R. E. MacLaury (Eds.),
Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 51–79). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
2009)
Metonymic grammar. In
K.-U. Panther,
L. Thornburg, &
A. Barcelona (Eds.),
Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Levi, J.
(
1978)
The Syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meibauer, J.
(
2014)
Word-formation and contextualism.
International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 103–126.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meibauer, J.
(
2015)
On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach.
STUF Language Typology and Universals, 68(3), 241–261.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nichols, J.
(
1988)
On alienable and inalienable possession. In
W. Shipley (Ed.), In
honor of Mary Haas (pp. 475–521). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Payne, J., & Huddleston, R.
(
2002)
Nouns and noun phrases. In
R. Huddleston &
G. K. Pullum (Eds.),
The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp. 323–524). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perek, F.
(
2012)
Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment.
Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Perry, J.
(
2001)
Reference and reflexivity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D.
(
2013)
The semantics of possessives.
Language, 89(4), 713–759.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(
1985)
A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Recanati, F.
(
2004)
Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Recanati, F.
(
2010)
Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbach, A.
(
2007)
Emerging variation: determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English.
English Language and Linguistics, 11(1), 143–189.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbach, A.
(
2009)
Identifying noun modifiers in English. Ms, University of Paderborn.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbach, A.
(
2014)
English genitive variation–the state of the art.
English Language & Linguistics, 18(2), 215–262.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbach, A.
in press).
On the (non-)equivalence of constructions with determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English.
English Language & Linguistics, 23(3).
Seiler, H.
(
1983)
Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Smith, M. B.
(
2006)
Reference point constructions, the underspecification of meaning, and the conceptual structure of Palauan -er.
Oceanic Linguistics, 45(1), 1–20.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(
1986/1995)
Relevance: Communicaton and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stefanowitsch, A.
(
2003)
Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English.
Topics in English Linguistics, 431, 413–444.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, J. R.
(
1996)
Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Vanderwende, L.
(
1994)
Algorithm for automatic interpretation of noun sequences. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 782–788). Kyoto, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Warren, B.
(
1978)
Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds.
Gothenburg Studies in English, 411, 1–266. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Weiner, E. J. & Labov, W.
(
1983)
Constraints on the agentless passive.
Journal of Linguistics 191, 29–58.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Willemse, P.
(
2005)
Nominal reference-point constructions: Possessive and esphoric NPs in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Williams, E. S.
(
1982)
The NP cycle.
Linguistic Inquiry, 131, 277–295.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zehentner, E.
(
2018)
Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation.
English Language & Linguistics, 22(1), 1–27.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
Belligh, Thomas & Klaas Willems
2022.
Epistemological challenges in the study of alternating constructions.
Lingua 280
► pp. 103425 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
De Vaere, Hilde, Julia Kolkmann & Thomas Belligh
2020.
Allostructions revisited.
Journal of Pragmatics 170
► pp. 96 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Kolkmann, Julia & Ingrid Lossius Falkum
2020.
The pragmatics of possession: A corpus study of English prenominal possessives.
Journal of Pragmatics 157
► pp. 1 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 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.