Cover not available
Article published In:
On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar
Edited by Rita Finkbeiner
[Constructions and Frames 11:2] 2019
► pp. 244–269

Possessive interpretation at the semantics-pragmatics interface

| University of York

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.

Keywords: genitive alternation, possessive constructions, possessive interpretations, contextualism, saturation, pragmatic inference, semantics-pragmatics interface, grammar-pragmatics interface
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
Published online: 7 November 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00030.kol
References

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 logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, C.
(1995) Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2017) Compounds and compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Bolinger, D.
(1977) Meaning and Form. 3rd impression 1983. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Breban, T.
(2018) Proper names used as modifiers: a comprehensive functional analysis. English Language & Linguistics, 22(3), 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
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
Cappelle, B.
(2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions, Special Volume 11, 1–28.Google Scholar
(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
Cappelle, B., Dugas, E., & Tobin, V.
(2015) An afterthought on let alone . Journal of Pragmatics, 801, 70–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, R.
(2009) The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, R.
(2014) Identical constituent compounds in German. Word Structure, 7(2), 182–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J.
(2014) Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language & Linguistics, 18(3), 471–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2004) Extending collostructional analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Heine, B.
(1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Kempson, R. M.
(1977) Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Korta, K., & Perry, J.
(2006) Three demonstrations and a funeral. Mind & Language, 21(2), 166–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Critical pragmatics. An inquiry into reference and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
(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 logoGoogle Scholar
Levi, J.
(1978) The Syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meibauer, J.
(2014) Word-formation and contextualism. International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 103–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach. STUF Language Typology and Universals, 68(3), 241–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, J.
(2001) Reference and reflexivity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D.
(2013) The semantics of possessives. Language, 89(4), 713–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
(1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Recanati, F.
(2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Emerging variation: determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics, 11(1), 143–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Identifying noun modifiers in English. Ms, University of Paderborn.Google Scholar
(2014) English genitive variation–the state of the art. English Language & Linguistics, 18(2), 215–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(1986/1995) Relevance: Communicaton and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
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
Taylor, J. R.
(1996) Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, B.
(1978) Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds. Gothenburg Studies in English, 411, 1–266. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. J. & Labov, W.
(1983) Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 191, 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Willemse, P.
(2005) Nominal reference-point constructions: Possessive and esphoric NPs in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Williams, E. S.
(1982) The NP cycle. Linguistic Inquiry, 131, 277–295.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

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
De Vaere, Hilde, Julia Kolkmann & Thomas Belligh
2020. Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 170 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 march 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.