Cover not available

Article published In: On the Role of Pragmatics in Construction Grammar
Edited by Rita Finkbeiner
[Constructions and Frames 11:2] 2019
► pp. 244–269

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Possessive interpretation at the semantics-pragmatics interface

 | University of York
Published online: 7 November 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00030.kol
Abstract
This paper discusses semantic and pragmatic aspects of possessive interpretation (PI), the process whereby semantically underspecified possessive noun phrases (NPs) such as John Smith’s house and the house of John Smith receive concrete referential interpretations (e.g. ‘the house owned by John Smith’) in context. By observing what is common to the interpretation of both constructions, I lay out the ingredients for a uniform pragmatic account of PI whilst rehashing the contextualist notion of saturation. As defined by Recanati (Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and many others, saturation is a linguistically mandated and obligatory pragmatic process, operating to enrich the incomplete logical forms of referring expressions, including possessive NPs. I argue that present proposals which assume that saturating the possessive relation is crucial to determining the possessive referent fail to do justice to the many ways in which possessive NPs may be understood in concrete communicative situations. Supporting similar claims by (2017). Full but not saturated. The myth of mandatory primary pragmatic processes. In S. Conrad & K. Petrus (Eds.), Meaning, context, and methodology (pp. 31–50). Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, this suggests that saturation is more adequately defined as a communicatively optional pragmatic process. The discussion simultaneously contributes to the growing literature on pragmatic aspects of constructions as form-meaning pairings, by outlining some of the theoretical issues that arise from the division of labour between semantic and pragmatic meaning in PI.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Semantic and pragmatic aspects of possessive interpretation
  • 3.Meaning equivalence (or not?) in possessive NPs
    • 3.1More semantic and pragmatic aspects of possessive interpretation
    • 3.2Interim conclusion
  • 4.Possessive interpretation at the semantics-pragmatics interface
  • 5.Reference determination via possessive NPs
    • 5.1Possessive saturation
    • 5.2Novel evidence
  • 6.Sketching a uniform account of possessive interpretation
  • 7.Concluding remarks: Semantic and pragmatic aspects of constructions
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
References (64)
Corpora
The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. URL: [URL]
References
Ariel, M. (2008). Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barker, C. (1995). Possessive descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2017). Compounds and compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol. 21). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and Form. 3rd impression 1983. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breban, T. (2018). Proper names used as modifiers: a comprehensive functional analysis. English Language & Linguistics, 22(3), 1–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breban, T., Kolkmann, J., & Payne, J. (2015). Is the Ghana problem Ghana’s problem? Differing interpretations of two English NP constructions. Presented at IPRA14, 26–31 July 2015, Antwerp.
(in press). The impact of semantic relations on grammatical alternation: An experimental study of proper name modifiers and determiner genitives. English Language & Linguistics, 23(3).
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kramer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions, Special Volume 11, 1–28.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 115–151). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., Dugas, E., & Tobin, V. (2015). An afterthought on let alone. Journal of Pragmatics, 801, 70–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, R. (2009). The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1), 35–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, I., & Salkie, R. (2017). Free pragmatic enrichment, expansion, saturation, completion: A view from linguistics. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line (pp. 11–37). Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, R. (2014). Identical constituent compounds in German. Word Structure, 7(2), 182–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Girju, R., Moldovan, D., Tatu, M., & Antohe, D. (2005). On the semantics of noun compounds. In Computer Speech and Language – Special Issue on Multiword Expressions, 19(4), 479–496.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J. (2014). Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language & Linguistics, 18(3), 471–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutzmann, D. (2010). Unbestimmtheit und die Semantik/Pragmatik-Schnittstelle. In I. Pohl (Ed.), Semantische Unbestimmtheit im Lexikon (pp. 19–44). Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, B. (1997). Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2007). Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: a multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 437–474. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kay, P., & Zimmer, K. (1976). On the semantics of compounds and genitives in English. In Sixth California Linguistics Association Proceedings (pp. 29–35). San Diego: Campile Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1977). Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Korta, K., & Perry, J. (2006). Three demonstrations and a funeral. Mind & Language, 21(2), 166–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Critical pragmatics. An inquiry into reference and communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Full but not saturated. The myth of mandatory primary pragmatic processes. In S. Conrad & K. Petrus (Eds.), Meaning, context, and methodology (pp. 31–50). Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Possession and possessive constructions. In J. R. Taylor & R. E. MacLaury (Eds.), Language and the cognitive construal of the world (pp. 51–79). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Metonymic grammar. In K.-U. Panther, L. Thornburg, & A. Barcelona (Eds.), Metonymy and metaphor in grammar (pp. 45–71). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levi, J. (1978). The Syntax and semantics of complex nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. (2014). Word-formation and contextualism. International Review of Pragmatics, 6(1), 103–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). On “R” in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach. STUF Language Typology and Universals, 68(3), 241–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1988). On alienable and inalienable possession. In W. Shipley (Ed.), In honor of Mary Haas (pp. 475–521). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Payne, J., & Huddleston, R. (2002). Nouns and noun phrases. In R. Huddleston & G. K. Pullum (Eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language (pp. 323–524). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perek, F. (2012). Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(3), 601–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perry, J. (2001). Reference and reflexivity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, S., & Westerståhl, D. (2013). The semantics of possessives. Language, 89(4), 713–759. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenbach, A. (2002). Genitive variation in English: conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies [Topics in English Linguistics, Vol. 42]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Emerging variation: determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics, 11(1), 143–189. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Identifying noun modifiers in English. Ms, University of Paderborn.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). English genitive variation–the state of the art. English Language & Linguistics, 18(2), 215–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(in press). On the (non-)equivalence of constructions with determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English. English Language & Linguistics, 23(3).
Seiler, H. (1983). Possession as an operational dimension of language. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, M. B. (2006). Reference point constructions, the underspecification of meaning, and the conceptual structure of Palauan -er. Oceanic Linguistics, 45(1), 1–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communicaton and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. Topics in English Linguistics, 431, 413–444.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1996). Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanderwende, L. (1994). Algorithm for automatic interpretation of noun sequences. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 782–788). Kyoto, Japan: Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vikner, C., & Jensen, P. A. (2002). A Semantic analysis of the English genitive. Interaction of lexical and formal semantics. Studia Linguistica, 56(2), 191–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warren, B. (1978). Semantic patterns of noun-noun compounds. Gothenburg Studies in English, 411, 1–266. Gothenburg: Gothenburg University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiner, E. J. & Labov, W. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 191, 29–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willemse, P. (2005). Nominal reference-point constructions: Possessive and esphoric NPs in English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, E. S. (1982). The NP cycle. Linguistic Inquiry, 131, 277–295.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zehentner, E. (2018). Ditransitives in Middle English: on semantic specialisation and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language & Linguistics, 22(1), 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Belligh, Thomas & Klaas Willems
2022. Epistemological challenges in the study of alternating constructions. Lingua 280 ► pp. 103425 ff. DOI logo
De Vaere, Hilde, Julia Kolkmann & Thomas Belligh
2020. Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics 170 ► pp. 96 ff. DOI logo
Kolkmann, Julia & Ingrid Lossius Falkum
2020. The pragmatics of possession: A corpus study of English prenominal possessives. Journal of Pragmatics 157 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue