Cover not available
Article published In:
Concepts and Context in Relevance-Theoretic Pragmatics: New Developments
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska and Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics 33:3] 2023
► pp. 324–342

Ad hoc concepts and the relevance heuristics

A false paradox?

| University of Paris 8
The idea that interpreting a lexeme typically involves a context-dependent process of meaning construction has in recent years become common ground in linguistic theory. This view is very explicit in relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995), which posits that speakers systematically infer ad hoc concepts (Carston 2002). Such an approach raises theoretical issues, though. First, it directly poses a challenge for the exact nature of (and difference between) concepts and ad hoc concepts (Carston 2002, 249). In addition, as Wilson (2011, 2016) and Carston (2013, 2016) point out, this view also uncovers the following paradox: if speakers are assumed to follow a path of least effort (relevance heuristics), why should they so systematically infer ad hoc concepts rather than test the encoded concept first? The aim of this paper is to reflect on this theoretical puzzle. It will first be argued that the hypotheses formulated both by Wilson and by Carston seem rather post hoc and fail to fully resolve the apparent paradox. Attention will then be given to the assumed nature of (ad hoc) concepts to show that the problem can be resolved when an alternative (non-atomic) view of concepts in terms of meaning potential is adopted.
Keywords: relevance theory, ad hoc concepts, relevance heuristics, paradox, meaning potential
Article outline
  • 1.Background and aim
  • 2.Dealing with the paradox
    • 2.1Wilson’s (2011, 2016) procedural account
    • 2.2Carston’s (2013, 2016) underspecification account
  • 3.Resolving the paradox: Concepts and meaning potential
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 7 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21057.lec
References (58)
References
Allwood, Jens. 2003. “Meaning Potential and Context: Some Consequences for the Analysis of Variation in Meaning.” In Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics, ed. by Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven, and John R. Taylor, 29–65. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2008. “Intention, Common Ground and the Availability of Semantic Content: A Relevance-Theoretic Perspective.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes, and Jacob Mey, 105–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1983. “Ad Hoc Categories.” Memory and Cognition 111: 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987. “The Instability of Graded Structure: Implications for the Nature of Concepts.” In Concepts and Conceptual Development, ed. by Ulric Neisser, 101–140. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1993. “Flexibility, Structure, and Linguistic Vagary in Concepts: Manifestations of a Compositional System of Perceptual Symbols.” In Theories of Memory, ed. by Alan F. Collins, Susan E. Gathercole, Martin A. Conway, and Peter E. Morris, 29–101. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2000. “Concepts: Structure.” In Encyclopedia of Psychology, vol. 21, ed. by Alan E. Kazdin, 245–248. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. “The Human Conceptual System.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. by Michael J. Spivey, Ken McRae, and Marc F. Joanisse, 239–258. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. “Situated Conceptualization: Theory and Applications.” In Foundations of Embodied Cognition, vol. 11: Perceptual and Emotional Embodiment, ed. by Yann Coello, and Martin H. Fischer, 11–37. Routledge: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bezuidenhout, Anne. 2002. “Truth-Conditional Pragmatics.” Philosophical Perspectives 161: 105–134.Google Scholar
Borg, Emma. 2016. “Exploding Explicatures.” Mind & Language 311: 335–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Explicit Communication and ‘Free’ Pragmatic Enrichment.” In Explicit Communication: Robyn Carston’s Pragmatics, ed. by Belén Soria, and Esther Romero, 271–285. Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Word Meaning and Concept Expressed.” The Linguistic Review 291: 607–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Word Meaning, What Is Said and Explicature.” In What Is Said and What Is Not, ed. by Carolo Penco, and Filippo Domaneschi, 175–203. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
. 2016. “The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.” Lingua 1751: 154–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Ad Hoc Concepts, Polysemy and the Lexicon.” In Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott, Billy Clark, and Robyn Carston, 150–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2021. “Polysemy: Pragmatics and Sense Conventions.” Mind & Language 361: 108–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobler, Tamara. 2020. “The Occasion-Sensitivity of Thought.” Topoi 391: 487–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2017. “Notes for a Restrictive Theory of Procedural Meaning.” In Doing Pragmatics Interculturally: Cognitive, Philosophical, and Sociopragmatic Perspectives, ed. by Rachel Giora, and Michael Haugh, 79–95. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Falkum, Ingrid L. 2011. “The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: A Relevance-Theoretic Account.” PhD diss. University College London.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2003. “Polysemy and Conceptual Blending.” In Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language, ed. by Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman, and David Clarke, 79–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The Language of Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2001. “Language, Thought and Compositionality.” Mind & Language 161: 1–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 2007. “Concepts and Word Meaning in Relevance Theory.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noël Burton-Roberts, 136–157. Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. “Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.” Lingua 501: 329–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Alison. 2017. “Lexical Pragmatics, Explicature and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by Ilse Depraetere, and Raphael Salkie, 85–100. Berlin: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Horsey, Richard. 2006. “The Content and Acquisition of Lexical Concepts.” PhD diss. University College London.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 11: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leclercq, Benoît. 2019a. “On the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: A Theoretical Bridge between Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory.” PhD diss. University of Lille.
. 2019b. “Coercion: A Case of Saturation.” Constructions and Frames 11 (2): 270–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. “Semantics and Pragmatics in Construction Grammar.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 341: 225–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, Maarten. 2017. “A Cognitive, Usage-Based View on Lexical Pragmatics: Response to Hall.” In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by Ilse Depraetere, and Raphael Salkie, 101–114. Berlin: Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 1991. “Meaning and Concepts.” In The Psychology of Word Meaning, ed. by Paula J. Schwanenflugel, 11–35. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Norén, Kerstin, and Per Linell. 2007. “Meaning Potentials and the Interaction Between Lexis and Contexts: An Empirical Substantiation.” Pragmatics 171: 387–416.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reboul, Anne. 2000. “Words, Concepts, Mental Representations, and Other Biological Categories.” In The Lexicon-Encyclopedia Interface, ed. by Bert Peeters, 55–95. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael. 1979. “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Conflict in Our Language about Language.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 284–324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 2005. “Modularity and Relevance: How Can a Massively Modular Mind Be Flexible and Context-Sensitive?” In The Innate Mind: Structure and Content, ed. by Peter Carruthers, and Stephen Laurence, 53–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1987. “Precis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Behavioural and Brain Sciences 101: 697–754. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1998. “The Mapping between the Mental and the Public Lexicon.” In Language and Thought: Interdisciplinary Themes, ed. by Peter Carruthers, and Jill Boucher, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “A Deflationary Account of Metaphor.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond Gibbs, 84–105. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 2018. “Adaptability and Meaning Potential.” In The Dynamics of Language, ed. by Rajend Mesthrie, and David Bradley, 99–109. Cape Town: UCT Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. “Is There a Maxim of Truthfulness?” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 71: 197–212.Google Scholar
. 2003. “Relevance Theory and Lexical Pragmatics.” Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 151: 273–291.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics.” Studies in Pragmatics 111: 42–60.Google Scholar
. 2011. “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Reassessing the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” Lingua 1751: 5–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston. 2006. “Metaphor, Relevance and the ‘Emergent Property’ Issue.” Mind and Language 211: 404–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noël Burton-Roberts, 230–259. Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” In The Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar