Chapter 1
Category extension as a variety of loose use
The chapter focuses on category extension, typically illustrated by the use of salient brand names such as
Hoover for any vacuum cleaner, and seeks to provide a comprehensive discussion of this
relevance-theoretic notion. Category extension is regarded as part of the continuum of loose uses, along with
approximation, hyperbole and metaphor, but, compared with the other varieties, it has not been given due attention.
The chapter seeks to clarify the theoretical status of category extension, by discussing its relation to the other
varieties of loose use and by analysing different cases of the phenomenon falling into two groups: limited and
creative category extensions. The chapter also shows how concepts such as lexical warfare, paragons, snowclones,
schemata and pragmatic routines may improve the understanding of category extension.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Lexical modulation
- 2.1Ad hoc concept construction: Narrowing and broadening
- 3.Category extension
- 4.Types of category extension
- 4.1Limited category extensions
- 4.2Creative category extensions
- 5.Conclusions
-
Notes
-
Acknowledgements
-
References
References (48)
Allan, K.
(
2009)
The
connotations of English colour terms: Colour-based x-phemisms.
Journal of
Pragmatics, 41, 626–637.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Allott, N.
(
2010)
Key
terms in
pragmatics. London: Continuum.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blutner, R.
(
1998)
Lexical
pragmatics.
Journal of
Semantics, 15, 115–162.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Blutner, R.
(
2011)
Some
perspectives on lexical pragmatics. In
D. Archer &
P. Grundy (Eds.),
The
pragmatics
reader (pp. 99–114). London: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, C. H.
(
1990)
A
survey of category types in natural
language. In
S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.),
Meanings
and prototypes: Studies in linguistic
categorization (pp. 17–47). London & New York: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R.
(
1997)
Enrichment
and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition
expressed? Linguistische
Berichte, 8, 103–127.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R.
(
2002)
Thoughts
and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit
communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R.
(
2012)
Metaphor
and the literal/non-literal distinction. In
K. Allan &
K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.),
The
Cambridge handbook of
pragmatics (pp. 469–492). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R.
(
2016)
Contextual
adjustment of meaning. In
N. Riemer (Ed.),
The
Routledge handbook of
semantics (pp. 195–210). London & New York: Routledge.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, R., & Wearing, C.
(
2015)
Hyperbolic
language and its relation to metaphor and irony.
Journal of
Pragmatics, 79, 79–92.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Davis, S.
(
1996)
Metonymy. In
T. Enos (Ed.),
Encyclopedia
of rhetoric and composition. Communication from ancient times to the information
age (pp. 444–446). New York & London: Routledge.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Evans, V., & Green, M.
(
2006)
Cognitive
linguistics: An
introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Falkum, I. L.
(
2015)
The
how and why of polysemy: A pragmatic
account.
Lingua, 157, 93–99.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(
1998)
Conceptual
integration network.
Cognitive
Science, 22, 133–187.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hall, A.
(
2017)
Lexical
pragmatics, explicature and ad hoc concepts. In
I. Depraetere &
R. Salkie (Eds.),
Semantics
and pragmatics: Drawing a
line (pp. 85–100). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Horn, L.
(
2007)
Neo-Gricean
pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto. In
N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.),
Pragmatics (pp. 158–183). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Horn, L.
(
2008)
Pragmatics
and the lexicon. In
P. van Sterkenburg (Ed.),
Unity and
diversity of
languages (pp. 29–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huang, Y.
(
2009)
Neo-Gricean
pragmatics and the lexicon.
International Review of
Pragmatics, 1, 118–153.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A.
(
2015)
Metonymy
revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account.
Intercultural
Pragmatics, 12, 161–187.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kronenfeld, D.
(
1988)
Full
bloods and protestants: Semantic extension in complex domains. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Riverside.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kronenfeld, D.
(
1996)
Plastic
glasses and church fathers: Semantic extension from the ethnoscience
tradition. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
(
1987)
Women,
fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lakoff, G.
(
1999)
Cognitive
models and prototype theory. In
E. Margolis &
S. Laurence (Eds.),
Concepts:
Core
readings (pp. 391–421). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Langacker, R. W.
(
1993)
Reference-point
constructions.
Cognitive
Linguistics, 4, 1–38.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lemmens, M.
(
2017)
A
cognitive, usage-based view on lexical pragmatics: Response to
Hall. In
I. Depraetere &
R. Salkie (Eds.),
Semantics
and pragmatics: Drawing a
line (pp. 101–114). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Liberman, M.
(
2005,
March 27).
Liberalism
is the new communism. [Web log post].
[URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ludlow, P.
(
2014)
Living
words: Meaning underdetermination and the dynamic
lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pullum, G.
(
2003,
October 27).
Phrases
for lazy writers in kit form. [Web log post].
[URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pullum, G.
(
2004,
January 16).
Snowclones:
Lexicographical dating to the second. [Web log post].
[URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R.
(
2013)
How
metaphor and hyperbole differ: An empirical investigation of the relevance-theor etic account of loose
use.
UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics, 25, 46–65.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Solska, A.
(
2017)
Degrees
of ‘punniness’? A relevance-theoretic account of puns and pun-like
utterances. In
A. Piskorska &
E. Wałaszewska (Eds.),
Applications
of relevance theory: From discourse to
morphemes (pp. 198–222). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(
1995)
Relevance:
Communication and cognition. (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D.
(
2008)
A
deflationary account of metaphors. In
R. W. Gibbs (Ed.),
The
Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Taylor, J. R.
(
1989/1995)
Linguistic
categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C.
(
2014)
Toward
a constructional framework for research on language
change. In
S. Hancil &
E. König (Eds.),
Grammaticalization –
theory and
data (pp. 87–105). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(
2013)
Constructionalization
and constructional
changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Unger, C.
(
2011)
Exploring
the borderline between procedural encoding and pragmatic
inference. In
V. Escandell-Vidal,
M. Leonetti, &
A. Ahern (Eds.),
Procedural
meaning: Problems and
perspectives (pp. 103–127). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
(
2004)
When
novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough: Toward a
dual-process model of language.
International Journal of Language and
Communication
Disorders, 39, 1–44.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Cameron, K., Bridges, K., & Sidtis, J. J.
(
2015)
The
formulaic schema in the minds of two generations of native
speakers.
Ampersand, 2, 39–48.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wałaszewska, E.
(
2015)
Relevance-theoretic
lexical pragmatics: Theory and applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D.
(
2003)
Relevance
and lexical pragmatics.
Rivista di
Linguistica, 12, 273–291.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D.
(
2004)
Relevance
and lexical pragmatics.
UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics, 16, 343–360.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D.
(
2014)
Relevance
theory.
UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics, 26, 1–20.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Carston, R.
(
2007)
A
unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc
concepts. In
N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.),
Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D.
(
2012)
Introduction:
Pragmatics. In Meaning and
relevance (pp. 1–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zwicky, A.
(
2006,
March 13).
Snowclone
mountain? [Web log post].
[URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by 3 other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.