English Compounds and Ad Hoc Concept

doi:10.18627/jslg.36.3.202011.315

All Issue

2020 Vol.36, Issue 3 Preview Page Next Page

Research Article

English Compounds and Ad Hoc Concept 합성어의 의미와 상황의미(ad hoc concept): 양정연, 이상철
Yang, Jeong Yeon and Lee, Sangcheol

30 November 2020. pp. 315-327

PDF

Abstract

The previous studies on English compound words are operated syntactically and semantically, focusing on the headness and semantic relations between English compounds’ constituents.. In Relevance theory, however, the inference of lexical meanings also has the same process as the general communication process. It should be interpreted based on the contextual information. Flexible lexical inference such as narrowing, loosening, and metaphoical extension is necessary to make the inference process efficient. In this paper, the metaphor or metonym is not treated as a separate category but inferential process. The meaning of the constituents and the contextual information are integrated conceptually through the interential process and then finally constructed through the ad hoc concept.

Keywords

English compound

relevance theory

ad hoc concept

lexical meaning inference

metaphorical extension

References

석종환. 2011. 영어합성어의 분류. 『현대영미어문학』 29, 105-126. 10.5771/0175-274x-2011-2-126
양정연. 2020. 관련성 이론에 의한 영어 광고 분석. 충남대학교박사학위논문.
Bagasheva, A. 2011. Compound Verbs in English Revisited. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 125-151.
Barsalou, L. 1987. The Instability of Graded Structure in Concepts. In Neisser, U. (ed.), Concepts and Conceptual Development: Encological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101-140.
Bauer, L. 2001. Compounding. In Haspelmath, M. et al. (ed.) Language Typology and Language Universals. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 695-707.
Benczes, R. 2006. Creative Compounding in English: The Semantics of Metaphorical and Metonymical Noun-Noun Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.19
Bloomfiled, L. 1993. Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Carston, R. 2002. Metaphor, Ad hoc Concepts and Word Meaning–More Questions than Answers. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 83-105.
Carston, R. 2010. Lexical Pragmatics, Ad hoc Concepts and Metaphor: A Relevance Theory Perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics 22, 157-180.
Carston, R. 2019. Ad hoc Concepts, Polysemy and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.014
Elly, I. 2009. Newspaper Headlines and Relevance: Ad hoc Concepts in Ad hoc Contexts. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 699-720. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.016
Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D., and McGlone, M. S. 1997. Metaphor Comprehension: How metaphors create new categories. Creative Thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and process. 327-350. 10.1037/10227-013
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole ans J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
Libben, G., Gibson M., and Sandra D. 2003. Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headness. Brain and Language 84, 26-43. 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5
Lieber, R. 2005. English Word-formation Processes. In Stekauer, P. and Lieber, R.(eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation. Netherlands: Springe. 353-373. 10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_16
Mioduszewska, E. 2017. Relevance, Ad hoc Concepts and Analogy. Linguistics Beyond and Within 3, 155-168. 10.31743/lingbaw.5656
Recanati, F. 2004. What is Said and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distintion. In C. Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, Stanford University, 45-64.
Scalise, S. and A. Bisetto. 2011. The classification of compounds. In R. Lieber and P. Stekauer(ed.), Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34-53. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199695720.013.0003
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Language and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2004. Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Williams, E. 1981. On the “Notions Lexically Related” and “Head of a Word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12.2, 245-274.
Wilson D. and R. Carston. 2007. A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts. In: N. Burton-Roberts(ed.), Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 230-259. 10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12
Wilson, D. and D. Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (ed.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. 607-632.

Information

Publisher :The Modern Linguistic Society of Korea
Publisher(Ko) :한국현대언어학회
Journal Title :The Journal of Studies in Language
Journal Title(Ko) :언어연구
Volume : 36
No :3
Pages :315-327
DOI :https://doi.org/10.18627/jslg.36.3.202011.315

[1] 석종환. 2011. 영어합성어의 분류. 『현대영미어문학』 29, 105-126. 10.5771/0175-274x-2011-2-126

[2] 양정연. 2020. 관련성 이론에 의한 영어 광고 분석. 충남대학교박사학위논문.

[3] Bagasheva, A. 2011. Compound Verbs in English Revisited. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 125-151.

[4] Barsalou, L. 1987. The Instability of Graded Structure in Concepts. In Neisser, U. (ed.), Concepts and Conceptual Development: Encological and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101-140.

[5] Bauer, L. 2001. Compounding. In Haspelmath, M. et al. (ed.) Language Typology and Language Universals. New York: Walter de Gruyter, 695-707.

[6] Benczes, R. 2006. Creative Compounding in English: The Semantics of Metaphorical and Metonymical Noun-Noun Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.19

[7] Bloomfiled, L. 1993. Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

[8] Carston, R. 2002. Metaphor, Ad hoc Concepts and Word Meaning–More Questions than Answers. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14, 83-105.

[9] Carston, R. 2010. Lexical Pragmatics, Ad hoc Concepts and Metaphor: A Relevance Theory Perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics 22, 157-180.

[10] Carston, R. 2019. Ad hoc Concepts, Polysemy and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108290593.014

[11] Elly, I. 2009. Newspaper Headlines and Relevance: Ad hoc Concepts in Ad hoc Contexts. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 699-720. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.016

[12] Glucksberg, S., Manfredi, D., and McGlone, M. S. 1997. Metaphor Comprehension: How metaphors create new categories. Creative Thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and process. 327-350. 10.1037/10227-013

[13] Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole ans J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 41-58. 10.1163/9789004368811_003

[14] Libben, G., Gibson M., and Sandra D. 2003. Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headness. Brain and Language 84, 26-43. 10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00520-5

[15] Lieber, R. 2005. English Word-formation Processes. In Stekauer, P. and Lieber, R.(eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation. Netherlands: Springe. 353-373. 10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_16

[16] Mioduszewska, E. 2017. Relevance, Ad hoc Concepts and Analogy. Linguistics Beyond and Within 3, 155-168. 10.31743/lingbaw.5656

[17] Recanati, F. 2004. What is Said and the Semantics/Pragmatics Distintion. In C. Bianchi (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford: CSLI Publications, Stanford University, 45-64.

[18] Scalise, S. and A. Bisetto. 2011. The classification of compounds. In R. Lieber and P. Stekauer(ed.), Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34-53. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199695720.013.0003

[19] Sperber, D. and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Language and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

[20] Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 2004. Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

[21] Williams, E. 1981. On the “Notions Lexically Related” and “Head of a Word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12.2, 245-274.

[22] Wilson D. and R. Carston. 2007. A Unitary Approach to Lexical Pragmatics: Relevance, Inference and Ad Hoc Concepts. In: N. Burton-Roberts(ed.), Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 230-259. 10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12

[23] Wilson, D. and D. Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (ed.), Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell. 607-632.

The Journal of Studies in Language ISSN:1225-4770(Print) 2671-6151(Online) 언어연구

All Issue