In:Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics
Edited by Agnieszka Piskorska
[Figurative Thought and Language 8] 2020
► pp. 25–43
Chapter 1Category extension as a variety of loose use
Published online: 20 May 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.01wal
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.8.01wal
Abstract
The chapter focuses on category extension, typically illustrated by the use of salient brand names such as
Hoover for any vacuum cleaner, and seeks to provide a comprehensive discussion of this
relevance-theoretic notion. Category extension is regarded as part of the continuum of loose uses, along with
approximation, hyperbole and metaphor, but, compared with the other varieties, it has not been given due attention.
The chapter seeks to clarify the theoretical status of category extension, by discussing its relation to the other
varieties of loose use and by analysing different cases of the phenomenon falling into two groups: limited and
creative category extensions. The chapter also shows how concepts such as lexical warfare, paragons, snowclones,
schemata and pragmatic routines may improve the understanding of category extension.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Lexical modulation
- 2.1Ad hoc concept construction: Narrowing and broadening
- 3.Category extension
- 4.Types of category extension
- 4.1Limited category extensions
- 4.2Creative category extensions
- 5.Conclusions
Notes Acknowledgements References
References (48)
Allan, K. (2009). The
connotations of English colour terms: Colour-based x-phemisms. Journal of
Pragmatics, 41, 626–637.
(2011). Some
perspectives on lexical pragmatics. In D. Archer & P. Grundy (Eds.), The
pragmatics
reader (pp. 99–114). London: Routledge.
Brown, C. H. (1990). A
survey of category types in natural
language. In S. Tsohatzidis (Ed.), Meanings
and prototypes: Studies in linguistic
categorization (pp. 17–47). London & New York: Routledge.
Carston, R. (1997). Enrichment
and loosening: Complementary processes in deriving the proposition
expressed? Linguistische
Berichte, 8, 103–127.
(2012). Metaphor
and the literal/non-literal distinction. In K. Allan & K. M. Jaszczolt (Eds.), The
Cambridge handbook of
pragmatics (pp. 469–492). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(2016). Contextual
adjustment of meaning. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of
semantics (pp. 195–210). London & New York: Routledge.
Carston, R., & Wearing, C. (2015). Hyperbolic
language and its relation to metaphor and irony. Journal of
Pragmatics, 79, 79–92.
Davis, S. (1996). Metonymy. In T. Enos (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of rhetoric and composition. Communication from ancient times to the information
age (pp. 444–446). New York & London: Routledge.
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive
linguistics: An
introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Conceptual
integration network. Cognitive
Science, 22, 133–187.
Hall, A. (2017). Lexical
pragmatics, explicature and ad hoc concepts. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics
and pragmatics: Drawing a
line (pp. 85–100). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Horn, L. (2007). Neo-Gricean
pragmatics: A Manichaean manifesto. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 158–183). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
(2008). Pragmatics
and the lexicon. In P. van Sterkenburg (Ed.), Unity and
diversity of
languages (pp. 29–41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Huang, Y. (2009). Neo-Gricean
pragmatics and the lexicon. International Review of
Pragmatics, 1, 118–153.
Ifantidou, E. (2014). Pragmatic
competence and relevance. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jodłowiec, M., & Piskorska, A. (2015). Metonymy
revisited: Towards a new relevance-theoretic account. Intercultural
Pragmatics, 12, 161–187.
Kronenfeld, D. (1988). Full
bloods and protestants: Semantic extension in complex domains. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Riverside.
(1996). Plastic
glasses and church fathers: Semantic extension from the ethnoscience
tradition. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women,
fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the
mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
(1999). Cognitive
models and prototype theory. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts:
Core
readings (pp. 391–421). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lemmens, M. (2017). A
cognitive, usage-based view on lexical pragmatics: Response to
Hall. In I. Depraetere & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics
and pragmatics: Drawing a
line (pp. 101–114). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Liberman, M. (2005, March 27). Liberalism
is the new communism. [Web log post]. [URL]
Ludlow, P. (2014). Living
words: Meaning underdetermination and the dynamic
lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pullum, G. (2003, October 27). Phrases
for lazy writers in kit form. [Web log post]. [URL]
(2004, January 16). Snowclones:
Lexicographical dating to the second. [Web log post]. [URL]
Rubio-Fernández, P., Wearing, C., & Carston, R. (2013). How
metaphor and hyperbole differ: An empirical investigation of the relevance-theor etic account of loose
use. UCL Working Papers in
Linguistics, 25, 46–65.
Solska, A. (2017). Degrees
of ‘punniness’? A relevance-theoretic account of puns and pun-like
utterances. In A. Piskorska & E. Wałaszewska (Eds.), Applications
of relevance theory: From discourse to
morphemes (pp. 198–222). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance:
Communication and cognition. (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
(2008). A
deflationary account of metaphors. In R. W. Gibbs (Ed.), The
Cambridge handbook of metaphor and
thought (pp. 84–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, J. R. (1989/1995). Linguistic
categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. (2nd
ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Traugott, E. C. (2014). Toward
a constructional framework for research on language
change. In S. Hancil & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization –
theory and
data (pp. 87–105). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization
and constructional
changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Unger, C. (2011). Exploring
the borderline between procedural encoding and pragmatic
inference. In V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti, & A. Ahern (Eds.), Procedural
meaning: Problems and
perspectives (pp. 103–127). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2004). When
novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough: Toward a
dual-process model of language. International Journal of Language and
Communication
Disorders, 39, 1–44.
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., Cameron, K., Bridges, K., & Sidtis, J. J. (2015). The
formulaic schema in the minds of two generations of native
speakers. Ampersand, 2, 39–48.
Vega Moreno, R. E. (2007). Creativity
and convention: The pragmatics of everyday figurative speech. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wałaszewska, E. (2015). Relevance-theoretic
lexical pragmatics: Theory and applications. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2007). A
unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc
concepts. In N. Burton-Roberts (Ed.), Pragmatics (pp. 230–259). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Introduction:
Pragmatics. In Meaning and
relevance (pp. 1–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zwicky, A. (2006, March 13). Snowclone
mountain? [Web log post]. [URL]
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2023. Paralanguage and ad hoc concepts. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:3 ► pp. 343 ff.
Wałaszewska, Ewa
2023. Non-literal uses of proper names in XYZ constructions. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 33:3 ► pp. 368 ff.
Piskorska, Agnieszka
2021. Being ambivalent by exploiting indeterminacy in the explicit import of an utterance. Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2 ► pp. 376 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 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.