The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy

IF 1.4 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Semantics & Pragmatics Pub Date : 2017-12-21 DOI:10.3765/SP.10.20
I. Falkum
{"title":"The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy","authors":"I. Falkum","doi":"10.3765/SP.10.20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates a subtype of systematic polysemy which in English (and several other languages) appears to rest on the distinction between count and mass uses of nouns (e.g., shoot a rabbit /eat rabbit /wear rabbit ). Computational semantic approaches have traditionally analysed such sense alternations as being generated by an inventory of specialised lexical inference rules. The paper puts the central arguments for such a rule-based analysis under scrutiny, and presents evidence that the linguistic component provided by count-mass syntax leaves a more underspecified semantic output than is usually acknowledged by rule-based theories. The paper develops and argues for the positive view that count-mass polysemy is better given a lexical pragmatic analysis, which provides a more flexible and unified account. Treating count-mass syntax as a procedural constraint on NP referents, it is argued that a single, relevance-guided lexical pragmatic mechanism can cover the same ground as lexical rules, as well as those cases in which rule-based accounts need to appeal to pragmatics. \n \nEARLY ACCESS","PeriodicalId":45550,"journal":{"name":"Semantics & Pragmatics","volume":"10 1","pages":"20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Semantics & Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3765/SP.10.20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

This paper investigates a subtype of systematic polysemy which in English (and several other languages) appears to rest on the distinction between count and mass uses of nouns (e.g., shoot a rabbit /eat rabbit /wear rabbit ). Computational semantic approaches have traditionally analysed such sense alternations as being generated by an inventory of specialised lexical inference rules. The paper puts the central arguments for such a rule-based analysis under scrutiny, and presents evidence that the linguistic component provided by count-mass syntax leaves a more underspecified semantic output than is usually acknowledged by rule-based theories. The paper develops and argues for the positive view that count-mass polysemy is better given a lexical pragmatic analysis, which provides a more flexible and unified account. Treating count-mass syntax as a procedural constraint on NP referents, it is argued that a single, relevance-guided lexical pragmatic mechanism can cover the same ground as lexical rules, as well as those cases in which rule-based accounts need to appeal to pragmatics. EARLY ACCESS
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数-质一词多义的词汇语用学
本文研究了英语(和其他几种语言)中系统多义词的一个分支,它似乎依赖于名词的数量用法和数量用法之间的区别(例如,shoot a rabbit /eat rabbit /wear rabbit)。计算语义方法传统上分析这种由专门的词汇推理规则清单产生的意义变化。本文对这种基于规则的分析的中心论点进行了仔细的审查,并提供了证据,证明由计数质量语法提供的语言成分留下了比基于规则的理论通常承认的更不明确的语义输出。从词汇语用分析的角度出发,提出了数团一词多义的积极观点,这一观点提供了一个更灵活、更统一的解释。将计数-质量语法视为对NP指称物的程序约束,认为单一的、关联引导的词汇语用机制可以覆盖与词汇规则相同的基础,以及那些基于规则的解释需要诉诸语用学的情况。早期访问
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
50 weeks
期刊最新文献
Using the Anna Karenina Principle to explain why cause favors negative-sentiment complements Putting oughts together Probabilities and logic in implicature computation: Two puzzles with embedded disjunction Context Dynamics Pair-list answers to questions with plural definites
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1