Mova0.5 pre-release⌕
☰
home / docs / papers / English / The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy

The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy

What it is about

The paper studies a regular kind of polysemy in English nouns that depends on count and mass use: shoot a rabbit (the animal), eat rabbit (the meat), and wear rabbit (the fur). Computational semantics has usually treated such alternations as produced by a fixed set of lexical rules. The paper argues against this. Count-mass syntax, on this view, is only a procedural constraint on the referent of the noun phrase, and it leaves a semantic output that is less specific than rule-based accounts assume. The author proposes a single relevance-guided lexical pragmatic mechanism, ad hoc concept construction, which handles the regular cases that the rules cover, as well as the cases that rule-based accounts can only solve by appealing to pragmatics. The paper is theoretical and uses worked examples; it reports no experiments or numbers.

Ideas

For Mova

The chapters are 11. Nouns (count and mass nouns) and 19. The lexicon: vocabulary, multiword expressions and register (word senses). The code is en/src/morph.rs for the count-mass features, world/src/dictionary.rs for senses, and prag/src/infer.rs for the context choice. The measures: sense accuracy on the lesson sentences with count-mass nouns, and the negative-control error rate. The paper gives no numbers to match, so the test set has to be built by hand from its examples.

Topics: Word sense disambiguation

Cite

The paper itself, not this card. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.3765/sp.10.20

@article{falkum2017lexical,
  title = {{The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy}},
  author = {Falkum, Ingrid L.},
  journal = {Semantics and Pragmatics},
  year = {2017},
  doi = {10.3765/sp.10.20},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.20}
}

References

125 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. Allan, Keith. 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56(3). 541–567. https://doi.org/10.2307/414449. ↗
  2. Allott, Nicholas & Mark Textor. 2012. Lexical pragmatic adjustment and the nature of ad hoc concepts. International Review of Pragmatics 4(2). 185– 208. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00040204. ↗
  3. Apresjan, Iurii Derenikovich. 1974. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 14(2). 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1974.12.142.5. ↗
  4. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/2027/heb08413.0001.001. ↗
  5. Asher, Nicholas. 2011. Lexical meaning in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511793936. ↗
  6. Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  7. Bale, Alan C. & David Barner. 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: Using comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. Journal of Semantics 26(3). 217–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003. ↗
  8. Barner, David & Jesse Snedeker. 2005. Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition 97(1). 41–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06.009. ↗
  9. Barner, David & Jesse Snedeker. 2006. Children’s early understanding of mass-count syntax: Individuation, lexical content, and the number asymmetry hypothesis. Language Learning and Development 2(3). 163–194. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15473341lld0203_2. ↗
  10. Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  11. Bloom, Paul. 1994. Possible names: The role of syntax-semantics mappings in the acquisition of nominals. Lingua 92(1-4). 297–329. https://doi.org/1 0.1016/0024-3841(94)90345-X. ↗
  12. Bloom, Paul. 1996. Possible individuals in language and cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science 5(3). 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1 467-8721.ep10772823. ↗
  13. Bloom, Paul. 1999. The role of semantics in solving the bootstrapping problem. In Ray Jackendoff, Paul Bloom & Karen Wynn (eds.), Language, logic Count-mass polysemy and concepts: Essays in memory of John Macnamara, 285–310. Cambridge: MIT Press. find
  14. Bloom, Paul & Deborah Kelemen. 1995. Syntactic cues in the acquisition of collective nouns. Cognition 56(1). 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-02 77(94)00648-5. ↗
  15. Blutner, Reinhard. 1998. Lexical pragmatics. Journal of Semantics 15(2). 115– 162. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/15.2.115. ↗
  16. Blutner, Reinhard. 2002. Lexical semantics and pragmatics. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 10. 27–58. https://blutner.de/lexsem.pdf. ↗
  17. Blutner, Reinhard. 2007. Optimality theoretic pragmatics and the explicature/ implicature distinction. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 67–89. London: Palgrave-Macmillan. find
  18. Blutner, Reinhard. 2010. Some experimental aspects of optimality-theoretic pragmatics. In Enikö Németh & Károli Bibok (eds.), The role of data at the semantics-pragmatics interface (Mouton Series in Pragmatics [MSP] 9), 161–204. Berlin: de Gryuter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110240276.161. ↗
  19. Boleda, Gemma, Sebastian Padó & Jason Utt. 2012. Regular polysemy: A distributional model. In Semeval ’12: Proceedings of the first joint conference on lexical and computational semantics, 151–160. Montréal: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=23876 36.2387663. ↗
  20. Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, volume 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263905.00 1.0001. ↗
  21. Borthen, Kaja. 2003. Norwegian bare singulars. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science & Technology dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/1125 0/242756. ↗
  22. Bosch, Peter. 1983. “Vagueness” is context-dependence: A solution to the sorites paradox. In Thomas T. Ballmer & Manfred Pinkal (eds.), Approaching vagueness, 189–210. Amsterdam: North Holland Linguistic Series. find
  23. Bosch, Peter. 1995. Meaning and contextual concepts. In Manfred Bierwisch & Peter Bosch (eds.), Semantic and conceptual knowledge: Papers from a joint workshop of the Max Planck Arbeitsgruppe “Strukturelle Grammatik” and the IBM Institute for Logic and Linguistics, 79–99. Tübingen & Berlin: Arbeitsberichte des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340. find
  24. Bosch, Peter. 2007. Productivity, polysemy and predicate indexicality. In Henk W. Zeewat & Balder ten Cate (eds.), Language, logic and computation: I. L. Falkum TbiLLC 2005 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4363), 58–71. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-75144-1_5. ↗
  25. Briscoe, Ted, Ann Copestake & Alex Lascarides. 1995. Blocking. In Patrick Saint-Dizier & Evelyn Viegas (eds.), Computational lexical semantics, 273– 302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10 . 1017 /CBO9780511527227.018. ↗
  26. Bunt, Harry C. 1985. Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  27. Carston, Robyn. 1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Ruth M. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations: The interface between language and reality, 155–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  28. Carston, Robyn. 1997. Enrichment and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition expressed. In Eckard Rolf (ed.), Pragmatik: Implikaturen und Sprechakte (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 8), 103– 127. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_7. ↗
  29. Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1002/9 780470754603. ↗
  30. Carston, Robyn. 2010. Explicit communication and ‘free’ pragmatic enrichment. In Belén Soria & Esther Romero (eds.), Explicitness: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition (PSPLC)). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/97802302 92352_14. ↗
  31. Carston, Robyn. 2012. Word meaning and concept expressed. The Linguistic Review 29(4). 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0022. ↗
  32. Carston, Robyn. 2013. Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In Carlo Penco & Filippo Domaneschi (eds.), What is said and what is not: The semantics/ pragmatics interface, 175–204. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. find
  33. Carston, Robyn. 2016. The heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Lingua 175-176. 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010. ↗
  34. Carston, Robyn. 2019. Ad hoc concepts, polysemy and the lexicon. In Kate Scott, Billy Clark & Robyn Carston (eds.), Relevance, pragmatics, and interpretation, 150–162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://d oi.org/10.1017/9781108290593.014. ↗
  35. Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across language. Natural Language Semantics 6(4). 339–405. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:10083242185 06. Count-mass polysemy Clark, Eve V. & Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4). 767–811. https://doi.org/10.2307/412745. ↗
  36. Clark, Stephen. 2015. Vector space models of lexical meaning. In Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 493– 522. Malden: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch 16. ↗
  37. Copestake, Ann. 2015. Can distributional approaches improve on Good Old-Fashioned Lexical Semantics? In Aurelie Herbelot, Roberto Zamparelli & Gemma Boleda (eds.), Proceedings of IWCS 2013 workshop: Towards a formal distributional semantics, 11–20. Potsdam: Association for Computational Linguistics. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-0602. ↗
  38. Copestake, Ann & Ted Briscoe. 1992. Lexical operations in a unification-based framework. In James Pustejovsky & Sabine Bergler (eds.), Lexical semantics and knowledge representation: Proceedings of the First SIGLEX Workshop, 101–119. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55 801-2_30. ↗
  39. Copestake, Ann & Ted Briscoe. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics 12(1). 15–67. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/12.1.15. ↗
  40. Dölling, Johannes. 2020. Systematic polysemy. In Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier, Hotze Rullmann & Thomas Ede Zimmermann (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to semantics. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10 .1002/9781118788516.sem099. ↗
  41. Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization: An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199262601.001.0001. ↗
  42. Erk, Katrin. 2012. Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A survey. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10). 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1002/lnco.362. ↗
  43. Espinal, M. Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish: Their structure and meaning. Lingua 120(4). 984–1009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.li ngua.2009.06.002. ↗
  44. Falkum, Ingrid Lossius. 2011. The semantics and pragmatics of polysemy: A relevance-theoretic account. University College London dissertation. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1139079/. ↗
  45. Fodor, Jerry A. 1981. The present status of the innateness controversy. In Representations: Philosophical essays on the foundations of cognitive science, 257–316. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  46. I. L. Falkum Fodor, Jerry A. 1998. Concepts: Where cognitive science went wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org//10.1093/0198236360.001.0001. ↗
  47. Fodor, Jerry A. 2008. LOT2: The language of thought revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548774.00 1.0001. ↗
  48. Fodor, Jerry A. & Ernie Lepore. 2002. The compositionality papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press. find
  49. Frisson, Steven & Lyn Frazier. 2005. Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language 53(2). 277–291. https://d oi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.004. ↗
  50. Geis, Michael L. & Arnold M. Zwicky. 1971. On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry 2(4). 561–566. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177664. ↗
  51. Gibbs, Raymond W. 1994. The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. find
  52. Gillon, Brendan S. 1992. Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(6). 597–639. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/BF00628112. ↗
  53. Gillon, Brendan S. 1999. The lexical semantics of English count and mass nouns. In Evelyne Viegas (ed.), The breadth and depth of semantic lexicons: Text, speech and language technology, vol. 10, 19–37. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0952-1_2. ↗
  54. Grimm, Scott. 2012. Number and individuation. Stanford University dissertation. https://purl.stanford.edu/jq748dq4516. ↗
  55. Hall, Alison. 2009. Subsentential utterances, ellipsis, and pragmatic enrichment. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2). 222–250. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc .17.2.02hal. ↗
  56. Hall, Alison. 2017. Lexical pragmatics, explicature and ad hoc concepts. In Ilse Depraetere & Raphael Salkie (eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (Logic, Argumentation, and Reasoning (LARI) 11), 85–100. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32247-6_6. ↗
  57. Heylen, Kris, Thomas Wielfaert, Dirk Speelman & Dirk Geeraerts. 2015. Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua 157. 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.20 14.12.001. ↗
  58. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO97 81139165525. Count-mass polysemy Imai, Mutsumi & Dedre Gentner. 1997. A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition 62(2). 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00784-6. ↗
  59. Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2010. Color, context, and compositionality. Synthese 174(1). 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-96 85-7. ↗
  60. Kilgarriff, Adam. 1995. Inheriting polysemy. In Patrick St. Dizier & Evelyne Viegas (eds.), Computational lexical semantics, 319–335. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527227.020. ↗
  61. Kilgarriff, Adam & Gerald Gazdar. 1995. Polysemous relations. In Frank Palmer (ed.), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons, 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620638.002. ↗
  62. Klepousniotou, Ekaterini. 2002. The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy and polysemy in the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 81(1-3). 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2518. ↗
  63. Kolaiti, Patricia & Deirdre Wilson. 2014. Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: An overview. International Review of Pragmatics 6(2). 211–239. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00602002. ↗
  64. Kolkmann, Julia. 2016. What makes a default interpretation? Considerations from English attributive possession. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 22. 99–132. find
  65. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. find
  66. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987b. Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1). 53–94. https ://doi.org/10.2307/415384. ↗
  67. Lascarides, Alex & Ann Copestake. 1998. Pragmatics and word meaning. Journal of Linguistics 34(2). 387–414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S00222267980 07087. ↗
  68. Laurence, Stephen & Eric Margolis. 1999. Concepts and cognitive science. In Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (eds.), Concepts: Core readings, 3–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9383.001.0 001. ↗
  69. Leech, Geoffrey N. 1981. Semantics: The study of meaning. Harmondsworth: Penguin. find
  70. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/1 0.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001. ↗
  71. I. L. Falkum Margolis, Eric & Stephen Laurence (eds.). 2015. The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://do i.org/10.7551/mitpress/9383.001.0001. ↗
  72. McNally, Louise. 2013. Semantics and pragmatics. WIREs Cognitive Science 4(3). 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1227. ↗
  73. McPherson, Leslie Maggie Perrin. 1991. A little goes a long way: Evidence for a perceptual basis of learning for the noun categories count and mass. Journal of Child Language 18(2). 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305 000900011089. ↗
  74. Middleton, Erica L., Edward J. Wisniewski, Kelly A. Trindel & Mutsumi Imai. 2004. Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between count noun and mass noun aggregates. Journal of Memory and Language 50(4). 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02 .005. ↗
  75. Mufwene, Salikoko. 1984. The count/mass distinction and the English lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 20(2): Parasession on lexical semantics. David Testen & Veena Mishra (eds.). 200–221. find
  76. Murphy, Gregory L. 1997. Polysemy and the creation of novel word meanings. In Thomas B. Ward, Steven M. Smith & Jyotsna Vaid (eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes, 235–265. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10 .1037/10227-000. ↗
  77. Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1602.001.0001. ↗
  78. Noveck, Ira A. & Dan Sperber. 2007. The why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar inferences’. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 184–212. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10 . 1017 /CBO9781139028370.018. ↗
  79. Nunberg, Geoffrey & Annie Zaenen. 1992. Systematic polysemy in lexicology and lexicography. In Hannu Tommola, Krista Varantola, Tarja Salmi-Tolonen & Jurgen Schopp (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th EURALEX International Congress, 386–396. Tampere: Tampereen YIiopisto. https://eurale x.org/publications/systematic-polysemy-in-lexicology-and-lexicography /. Ostler, Nicholas & Beryl T. Atkins. 1992. Predictable meaning shift: Some linguistic properties of lexical implication rules. In James Pustejovsky & Sabine Bergler (eds.), Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation: First SIGLEX workshop, Berkeley, CA, USA, June 17, 1991. Proceedings (Lec-Count-mass polysemy ture Notes in Artificial Intelligence (LNAI)), 87–100. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55801-2_29. ↗
  80. Papafragou, Anna. 2005. Relations between language and thought: Individuation and the count/mass distinction. In Henri Cohen & Claire Lefebre (eds.), Handbook of categorization in cognitive science, 256–277. Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50066-4. ↗
  81. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 1975. Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. Philosophia 5(4). 451–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02379268. ↗
  82. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 2012. Lexical nouns are both +mass and +count, but they are neither +mass nor +count. In Diane Massam (ed.), Count and Mass Across Languages, 9–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199654277.003.0002. ↗
  83. Pelletier, Francis Jeffry & Lenhart K. Schubert. 2003. Mass expressions. In Dov M. Gabbay & Franz Guenthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, vol. 10, 249–335. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-0 17-4524-6_6. ↗
  84. Perner, Josef, Michael Huemer & Brian Leahy. 2015. Mental files and belief: A cognitive theory of how children represent belief and its intensionality. Cognition 145. 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.006. ↗
  85. Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics 17(4). 409–441. https://aclanthology.org/J91-4003/. ↗
  86. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. find
  87. Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9636.001.0001. ↗
  88. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman. find
  89. Rabagliati, Hugh, Gary F. Marcus & Liina Pylkkänen. 2010. Shifting senses in lexical semantic development. Cognition 117(1). 17–37. https://doi.org/10 .1016/j.cognition.2010.06.007. ↗
  90. Rabagliati, Hugh, Gary F. Marcus & Liina Pylkkänen. 2011. Rules, radical pragmatics and restrictions on regular polysemy. Journal of Semantics 28(4). 485–512. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffr005. ↗
  91. Rabagliati, Hugh & Jesse Snedeker. 2013. The truth about chickens and bats: Ambiguity avoidance distinguishes types of polysemy. Psychological Science 24(7). 1354–1360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472205. ↗
  92. Recanati, François. 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Cognitive Science 19(2). 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1902_2. ↗
  93. I. L. Falkum Recanati, François. 2004. Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615382. ↗
  94. Recanati, François. 2010. Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0 001. ↗
  95. Recanati, François. 2012. Mental files. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https ://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199659982.001.0001. ↗
  96. Recanati, François. 2017. Contextualism and polysemy. Dialectica 71(3). 379– 397. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-8361.12179. ↗
  97. Rothschild, Daniel & Gabriel Segal. 2009. Indexical predicates. Mind & Language 24(4). 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01371.x. ↗
  98. Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978113 9173452. ↗
  99. Soja, Nancy N. 1992. Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship between perception and syntax. Cognitive Development 7(1). 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(92)90003-A. ↗
  100. Soja, Nancy N., Susan Carey & Elizabeth S. Spelke. 1991. Ontological categories guide young children’s inductions of word meanings: Object terms and substance terms. Cognition 38(2). 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0 010-0277(91)90051-5. ↗
  101. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  102. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1998. The mapping between the mental and the public lexicon. In Peter Carruthers & Jill Boucher (eds.), Language and thought, 184–200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597909.012. ↗
  103. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphor. In Raymond W. Gibbs (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, 84–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816802. ↗
  104. Stojanovic, Isidora. 2014. Prepragmatics: Widening the semantics/pragmatics boundary. In Alexis Burgess & Brett Sherman (eds.), Metasemantics: New essays on the foundations of meaning, 311–326. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669592.003.0013. ↗
  105. Szabó, Zoltán Gendler. 2001. Adjectives in context. In István Kenesei & Robert M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics and discourse: A Count-mass polysemy festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer, 119–146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https ://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.90.12gen. ↗
  106. Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199266647.001.0001. ↗
  107. Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486500. ↗
  108. Travis, Charles. 1985. On what is strictly speaking true. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 15(2). 187–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1985.10716 416. ↗
  109. Travis, Charles. 2008. Occasion-sensitivity: Selected essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230334.00 1.0001. ↗
  110. Van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste, Laure Carles & Dan Sperber. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance in telling the time. Mind & Language 17(5). 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00207. ↗
  111. Van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste & Dan Sperber. 2004. Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In Ira A. Noveck & Dan Sperber (eds.), Experimental pragmatics (Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition (PSPLC)), 141–171. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://do i.org/10.1057/9780230524125_7. ↗
  112. Van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste, Dan Sperber & Guy Politzer. 2002. When is a conclusion worth deriving? A relevance-based analysis of indeterminate relational problems. Thinking & Reasoning 8(1). 1–20. https://doi.org/10 .1080/13546780143000071. ↗
  113. Vega-Moreno, Rosa. 2007. Creativity and convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/1 0.1075/pbns.156. ↗
  114. Ware, Robert X. 1975. Some bits and pieces. Synthese 31(3). 379–393. https : //doi.org/10.1007/BF00485210. ↗
  115. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18. ↗
  116. Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past, present and future. In Manuel Leonetti Victoria Escandell-Vidal & Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives (Current Research in the Semantics/ Pragmatics Interface 25), 3–31. Leiden: Brill. https://do i.org/10.1163/9780857240941_002. ↗
  117. I. L. Falkum Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ‘emergent property’ issue. Mind & Language 21(3). 404–433. https://doi.org/1 0.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00284.x. ↗
  118. Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. London: Palgrave. find
  119. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Mind 111(443). 583–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583. ↗
  120. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory L. Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell. find
  121. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978113902837 0. ↗
  122. Wisniewski, Edward J. 2010. On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia tantum: What counts? In Francis Jeffry Pelletier (ed.), Kinds, things, and stuff: Mass terms and generics, 166–190. Oxford University Press: Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382891.003.0009. ↗
  123. Wisniewski, Edward J., Mutsumi Imai & Lyman Casey. 1996. On the equivalence of superordinate concepts. Cognition 60(3). 269–298. https://doi.o rg/10.1016/0010-0277(96)00707-X. ↗
  124. Wisniewski, Edward J., Christopher Lamb & Erica Middleton. 2003. On the conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction. Language and Cognitive Processes 18(5-6). 583–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960 344000044. ↗
  125. Zarcone, Alessandra. 2014. Event knowledge and models of logical metonymy interpretation. Universität Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.18419/opus-339 1. Ingrid Lossius Falkum Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature (CSMN) P. O. Box 1020 Blindern 0315 Oslo, Norway i.l.falkum@ifikk.uio.no ↗

This page in Markdown → https://md.mova.elamur.ai/free/en/docs/papers/falkum-2017-lexical-pragmatics-count-mass-polysemy/