Article published In:
Concepts and Context in Relevance-Theoretic Pragmatics: New DevelopmentsEdited by Agnieszka Piskorska and Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics 33:3] 2023
► pp. 324–342
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?
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.
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
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. 
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.
Barsalou, Lawrence W.
1983 “Ad Hoc Categories.” Memory and Cognition 111: 211–227.
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.
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.
2000 “Concepts: Structure.” In Encyclopedia of Psychology, vol. 21, ed. by Alan E. Kazdin, 245–248. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Bezuidenhout, Anne
2002 “Truth-Conditional Pragmatics.” Philosophical Perspectives 161: 105–134.
Borg, Emma
2016 “Exploding Explicatures.” Mind & Language 311: 335–355.
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
2012 “Word Meaning and Concept Expressed.” The Linguistic Review 291: 607–623.
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.
2016 “The Heterogeneity of Procedural Meaning.” Lingua 1751: 154–166.
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.
2021 “Polysemy: Pragmatics and Sense Conventions.” Mind & Language 361: 108–133.
Croft, William, and D. Alan Cruse
2004 Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dobler, Tamara
2020 “The Occasion-Sensitivity of Thought.” Topoi 391: 487–497.
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.
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green
2006 Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
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.
Fillmore, Charles J.
1982 “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.
Fodor, Jerry A.
1975 The Language of Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
2001 “Language, Thought and Compositionality.” Mind & Language 161: 1–15.
Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr.
1994 The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Groefsema, Marjolein
2007 “Concepts and Word Meaning in Relevance Theory.” In Pragmatics, ed. by Noël Burton-Roberts, 136–157. Basingtoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Haiman, John
1980 “Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.” Lingua 501: 329–357.
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.
Halliday, Michael A. K.
1973 Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward Arnold.
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.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 11: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Leclercq, Benoît
2019a “On the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface: A Theoretical Bridge between Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory.” PhD diss. University of Lille.
2020 “Semantics and Pragmatics in Construction Grammar.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 341: 225–234.
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.
Murphy, Gregory L.
1991 “Meaning and Concepts.” In The Psychology of Word Meaning, ed. by Paula J. Schwanenflugel, 11–35. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Norén, Kerstin, and Per Linell
2007 “Meaning Potentials and the Interaction Between Lexis and Contexts: An Empirical Substantiation.” Pragmatics 171: 387–416.
Pustejovsky, James
1995 The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Reboul, Anne
2000 “Words, Concepts, Mental Representations, and Other Biological Categories.” In The Lexicon-Encyclopedia Interface, ed. by Bert Peeters, 55–95. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Recanati, François
2004 Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1987 “Precis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition.” Behavioural and Brain Sciences 101: 697–754.
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
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.
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.
Wilson, Deirdre
1995 “Is There a Maxim of Truthfulness?” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 71: 197–212.
2003 “Relevance Theory and Lexical Pragmatics.” Italian Journal of Linguistics/Rivista di Linguistica 151: 273–291.
2009 “Parallels and Differences in the Treatment of Metaphor in Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics.” Studies in Pragmatics 111: 42–60.
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.
2016 “Reassessing the Conceptual-Procedural Distinction.” Lingua 1751: 5–19.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Robyn Carston
2006 “Metaphor, Relevance and the ‘Emergent Property’ Issue.” Mind and Language 211: 404–433.
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.
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.