The Lexical Pragmatics of Count-Mass Polysemy

Semantics & Pragmatics Volume 10, Article 20, 2017 https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.20

This is an early access version of

Falkum, Ingrid Lossius. 2017. The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy. Semantics and Pragmatics 10(20). https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.10.20.

This version will be replaced with the final typeset version in due course. Note that page numbers will change, so cite with caution.

©2017 Ingrid Lossius Falkum This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/). early access

The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy*

Ingrid Lossius Falkum CSMN, University of Oslo

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.

Keywords: polysemy, lexical pragmatics, count-mass, Relevance Theory, concepts, proce- dural meaning

1 Introduction

A central insight of lexical pragmatics is that word meanings undergo pragmatic modulation in the course of utterance interpretation. Consider the italicised word forms in (1)-(5):

(1) Mary was hungry and opened the grapefruit. (2) Emma had a difficult first year at university. She didn’t get enough units to continue.1

* This research was supported by the Research Council of Norway (grants no. 205513 and 240324). I thank Nick Allott, Robyn Carston, Torfinn Huvenes, Beth Levin, Louise McNally, Astrid Nome, Bjørn Ramberg, Agustín Vicente and Deirdre Wilson for insightful comments and discussions at various stages in the process of writing this paper. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for a number of constructive comments and objections which helped substantially improve the paper. 1 Example due to Carston(1988: 145) early access 2 .Atog h consmydfe with differ may accounts the Although ). 2007 2006, Carston & Wilson 2008, 1985, ,terneo osbeseictosi enn o hsvr (e.g. verb this for meaning in specifications possible of range the ), 1998 Wilson ,cniesecddsnec ennst fall to meanings sentence encoded considers 2010 ), Recanati 2002, Carston (e.g., nsbigpamtclyfietndb a fseicto rgnrlsto of generalisation or specification of way by mean- fine-tuned linguistically-encoded pragmatically of being instances as ings (1)-(5) treat accounts pragmatic Lexical (3) pae enns hc r ae ob h err ftuhcniinlcontent. truth-conditional of this bearers the on be a position underdetermine to for massively taken 1) my meanings are Chapter that sentence which ( 2002: that meanings, outset Carston idea speaker instance the ‘pragmaticist’ for at the See latter. of noted the defence be comprehensive is paper, should this meanings), It throughout truth- linguistically-encoded reflected meanings). of (i.e., issue, sentences notion speaker of the (i.e., property concerns utterances a communication is or it linguistic whether of inferred and field pragmatically content, the conditional be within must debate them of fundamental of all A store number should considerable lexicon conference, a the a least that mouth, at one’s unlikely so curtains, seem and of it them, pair makes a etc.) wine, document, of word bottle a a dishwasher, a etc. & book, two, Sperber a 1983 , in Searle it 1994, slicing involve (Bosch may authors several squeezer by juice out a involve pointed may in as eating use Moreover, concept for for the grapefruit it a of opening opening it, specification instance, peeling further for context, required: the be encoded on may concept expressed depending general Also, more of verb. the skin), sort the of its the (narrowing) removing by involves specification regarding typically a clues grapefruit to with a contributes hearer open and to the (e.g., provides by expresses verb denoted it the object opening the of with object associated of direct knowledge case real-world the the that in be instance, would For idea words. the individual of level the at manifested speakers by the content) occasions. truth-evaluable bridge given or on to meaning hearer communicated propositions the the the (i.e., for and expressed meanings required linguistically-encoded be underspecified between to gap inference reference and pragmatic disambiguation and after (even resolution), contents truth-conditional yielding of pragmatics short truth-conditional as to linguistically-encoded referred of sometimes basis view, the This itali- such on alone. derived the for by be meaning responsible communicated cannot be contents (1)-(5) the in to expressions that take idea cised they the share mechanism(s) they the adjustment, of lexical specifics the Travis to , 2008 1998, regard Wilson & 2000, Sperber Levinson 2016, , 1994 2004, Gibbs 1998, 1995, 2010, Recanati (Blutner 2002, 2002, utterance Carston Murphy of 2007, , 1994 situation 1983, the Bosch with 2002, accordance in content, a He’s conceptual top. the to It’s it room. make his doubt in no sleep will baby Peter the let to best it’s think I (5) (4) fe h hn alwt e xbyred aecm u ftero with room the of out came Jane ex-boyfriend, her red with call phone the After eyes. 2 eia rgais hn drse eatcunderdeterminacy semantic addresses then, pragmatics, Lexical 2 lion . boiling outside. open .L Falkum L. I. (1), in open early access While the important contribution of in (2), and the shade and distribution 6 ) encode a procedure for constructing context- 3 in (4) and the metaphorical extension of units open , lion , , where a single word form is conventionally or boiling red in (5), each requires the addressee to take his world Indeed, some ‘radical’ pragmatic accounts tend to see 5 lion polysemy 4 the loose use of 3 content words (e.g., all in (3), Lexical pragmatic processes are thought to play a central role in giving rise red lexical meaning such as specification2002, andWilson broadening & (see, Carston e.g.,2006, (Recanati In2007, 1995 , theSperber2004, case &Carston of Wilson 1997, 2008)). conventionally polysemousthe senses, existence identifying of the the related pragmaticSperber senses process would and responsible be for Wilson were a discussing matterspecification/narrowing of cases or diachronic like broadening analysis the of (Traugott ones & conceptual in Dasher content. (1)-(5),2002) which can be analysed in terms of that in fact specific senses on the basispragmatic of approach the I encoded take conceptual in contentmight this and be paper contextual a is assumptions. promising closely While option linked the content for to that spelling that systematic out of polysemy Wilson, in gives an moreSome rise indexicalist formal to. contemporary approach terms theories the variations of in lexical truth-conditional pragmatics defend a ‘deflationary’ approach to metaphor, So-called indexical approaches to lexicalpublications (e.g., meaning,Bosch first, 1983 introduced1994, by2007),adjectives treat give Peter the rise Bosch variation to in in as truth-conditional aMcNally resulting content, 2010 series either thatSzabó of from colour 2001), a or hidden from variable their in being their fully logical indexical form predicates (Kennedy (Bosch & 1983, Rothschild information” (Sperber & Wilson 1998: 197). pragmatics to lexical interpretation has becomethe increasingly most recognised, ardent even defenders among ofappears formal to lexical be semantic wide theories agreement (Asher to that2011), there there as is ‘systematic’ a or certain type ‘regular’, of that polysemy, often does referred not lend itself to a pragmatic analysis a finite set of words to new functions rather thancommunicators to to invent do new this. words forpolysemy each as sense an epiphenomenon ofindividual words: pragmatic “In processes general operating . . at . polysemy the is level the of outcome of a pragmatic process to the phenomenon of contextually associated with several related meanings (e.g., Falkum , 2011 Hopper polysemy in natural languages suggests that there is pressure on the lexicon to extend of the concept encoded by knowledge and the situational contextmeaning into (e.g., accountWilson in & deriving Carston the2007; speaker-intended for a range of attested examples, see Kolaiti Count-mass polysemy on the basis ofspecification world of knowledge the and/or meaning the of situation the of noun utterance. Similarly, the which they take to involve the same pragmatic mechanism(s) as do other types of adjustments of & Segal 2009 ). A pragmatic counterpart to such indexical approaches is ’sWilson 2011) ( proposal (Copestake & Briscoe , 1992 1995, Rabagliati et al. 2011). In systematic polysemy, (Murphy :2002 406), and lexical pragmatic processes play a key role in enabling whereby intended senses are inferred on the basis of encoded concepts and contextual & Traugott 1993/2003 , Sperber & Wilson , 1998 Taylor ).2003 The prevalence of & Wilson 2014). 5 6 4 3 early access ok,terlsaetknt oewt pcfi nepeiepeitosbsdon based predictions interpretive specific with come to taken are rules the works, (henceforth W have We a. (7) Krnpoie h ol cook would she promised Karen a. (8) a. (6) Ja ie odrink to likes Joan a. (9) a for case strong apparently An extension. sense generated of linguistically rules being lexicon-internal as of treated set standardly a are by cases Such overview). an for ( fruit the of meat the ( denote city to ‘real-world’ used or animals ( ontological for animal the terms the from are predicted Examples denotation. be its can of word category a of senses related the oyeyi eatci aueadtu httesneatrain tgvsrs to I rise polysemy, gives count-mass it on alternations Focusing sense scrutiny. the under — that generated thus linguistically and are nature in semantic is polysemy might processes. that morphological parallel with and the drawn productivity and be the polysemy explain availability systematic to the of and for consequences contexts, account morpho-syntactic uninformative to in required are senses sort rules ‘default’ this lexical of of that Advocates claim 1995 ). often 1991, 2003, approach Pustejovsky & Kilgarriff Lascarides 1992, of 1995, Atkins & Kilgarriff & Asher 1999, Ostler conventional2011, 1992, 1995, a Gillon Asher Gazdar have 1995, (e.g., would 1992, on term Briscoe liquid so & a Copestake and of default, would use term as count animal sense a an default, serving of as use sense mass meat a a instance, have for that so information, stored frame- lexically semantic lexical many Within accordingly. denotation its altering thereby a of value the distinction count-mass syntactic the with English, in patterns that languages, polysemy other systematic of several subtype and the is analysis rule-based lexical hspprpt hswdsra iw—ta h rcs neligsystematic underlying process the that — view widespread this puts paper This change to be to rules lexical the of effect the take typically approaches Rule-based abig oe conservative voted Cambridge ... . . have I Could c. b...... of made is table This c. b...... us made Karen c. b. . . . serve They c. b. aeacer nm garden my in cherry a have I hce shealthy is Chicken on-aspolysemy count-mass rabbit A + COUNT risotto olive turkey water , , updoe h ec.(‘animal’) fence. the over jumped cherry , pine a , martini or halibut soup rabbit + he beers three MASS , , eiiu pasta delicious a norgre.(‘tree’) garden. our in ,nmso iisue odnt h naiat fthe of inhabitants the denote to used cities of names ), steak chestnut , , tteRvrCf.(‘meat’) Café. River the at coke reindeer beer (6)-(9): by illustrated as ), etr ntelxclrpeetto ftenoun, the of representation lexical the in feature ,trsfrfut sdt eoetete carrying tree the denote to used fruits for terms ), pine , , stew (‘drink’) . cappuccino lae ‘rn serving’) (‘drink please? , forthcoming Dölling (see more many and ), , (‘wood’) . birch , 4 etc. , frog etc. , etc. , ‘odportion’) (‘food . pasta etc. , oih.(‘food’) tonight. .L Falkum L. I. early access 5 The paper is organised as follows. Section2 discusses the rule-based approach to to appeal to pragmatics. In Section4 I discuss how the apparent systematicity of polysemy can be given amatic more framework. flexible I and propose unified Relevance account Theory (Carston within, 2002 aSperber lexical & prag- this Wilson purpose and argue that aground single as lexical the pragmatic lexical mechanism rules, can as cover well the as same those cases in which rule-based accounts need systematic/productive; (iii) the ‘blocking’ phenomenon, and (iv) the availability of explanation. Section3 discusses the syntactican count-mass account distinction of and how proposes this morpho-syntacticinterpretive component system. may I interact then with develop the and pragmatic argue for the positive view that count-mass interpretation continue to underlie workFrisson on & polysemy Frazier in2005, psycholinguistics Klepousniotou (see,2011, 2002, e.g., Rabagliati Murphy &1997, Snedeker Rabagliati2013). et al. 2010, systematic polysemy. The standard arguments underlyingered, this including: approach (i) the are senses consid- are linguistically marked; (ii) the sense alternations are for systematic polysemy. One problematic issueare is too how rare to to account occurmy for in senses corpus focus which data in (for what discussion,the follows see most will Copestake developed2015). be lexical Therefore, the semantic accountstill classical of widely rule-based systematic influential. theory, polysemy For which to instance, remains date its and assumptions is regarding sense generation and abandon lexical rules inlarge-scale favour corpus analyses of are a used moreof to a create empirically word’s predictive (attested) oriented models senses for approach (e.g., shift the where Boleda distribution of et focus al. from2012 , stipulatedHeylenrepresents lexical et a rules al. promising2015). to development While within models this computationalare based lexical still on semantics, many actual unresolved there word (and usage underexplored) issues when it comes to accounting pragmatics. Thus, the (bold) claim ofrules this are paper is required that to no account specialisedits for lexical origin systematic semantic in polysemy; the instead, operation thenoted of phenomenon that more has general recent lexical computational pragmatic semanticmeaning processes. approaches, It in particularly should distributional work be semantics on word (for overviews, see Clark 2015, Erk 2012), found in these apparentlysensitive systematic and cases, subject to which pragmatic Ilinguistic modulation. will component The provided paper show by presents are count-mass evidencea both that syntax more the to context- underspecified systematic semantic polysemy output leaves theories, than and is that usually the acknowledged alternations by in rule-based meaning that arise can be explained by appeal to Count-mass polysemy argue that rule-based approaches tend tothe overlook, fact or that at the least flexibility considerably observed downplay, in lexical interpretation quite generally is also 1986/1995, Wilson & Sperber 2004, 2012) as a suitable theoretical framework for ‘default’ senses. I argue that each of them can be countered by a plausible pragmatic early access xml rmMdst,L .J.(2009). Jr. E. L. Modesitt, (1995). from Briscoe Example & 8 Copestake to due Example 7 1992), Atkins & Ostler 1995 , Briscoe & a In 1995). 1991 , Pustejovsky 1992, Atkins & Ostler 1981, Leech 1995 , Gazdar & ihohrrlso h rma seicly opooia ue) naddition, In rules). morphological (specifically, grammar the of rules other with hswudyedteidvdae eeec of reference individuated the yield would This (1985) Bunt’s by performed is operation converse The below. (10) in sense stuff’ ‘rabbit the yield Atrteacdn,teewas there accident, the After (10) avoiding way this in rules, inference is lexical specialised polysemy of systematic inventory that an argued by generated influentially have accounts semantic Lexical application rule as polysemy Count-mass 2 approaches. a rule-based through underlying account, arguments pragmatic standard lexical the the of on re-consideration reflected be can polysemy count-mass (13) 1995): Briscoe (12) & (Copestake substance the of portion conventional a denoting and 1995), (Kilgarriff nouns count tree-denoting from senses (Copestake nouns count animal-denoting from nouns mass fur-denoting include, of specific and These rules meat- make nouns. the which few, of a occurrences rules, mention mass the to and of count sub-cases for conventionalised predictions of interpretive set a posit they semantic lexical computational the many polysemy, treat count-mass approaches for account to order In (11) entity. individuated an for denoting appropriate nouns properties mass with turns nouns which count authors), into some substances by packager’ ‘universal the termed would This substance. unindividuated an for appropriate properties with noun mass the called rule general abstract, an posited (1975) Pelletier paper, classic Kilgarriff 1995, Kilgarriff Lascarides , 1999 & 1992, Asher Gillon 2011, 1995, (Asher 1992, lexicon Briscoe mental & Copestake the 2003, in senses predictable of listing a PORTIONING GRINDER h tde h ee togoe ntesevs ...)Tenme of number The ) . . (. shelves. the and on strongboxes seven the studied She U GRINDING FUR GRINDING MEAT hs fetwst raefo on ondntn hsclojc a object physical a denoting noun count a from create to was effect whose , silvers hc ovr od rdikdntn asnusit on nouns count into nouns mass drink-denoting or food- convert which , a considerable. was NVRA GRINDER UNIVERSAL h oe wore model The : hyserve They : ETGRINDING MEAT rsCommander Arms 8 rabbit rabbit 6 ODGRINDING WOOD mink l vrteroad. the over all and tteRvrCafe. River the at golds ntecatwalk. the on and SORTER e ok o oet Associates. Doherty Tom York: New . and U GRINDING FUR NVRA SORTER UNIVERSAL silvers slxclrlso par a on rules lexical as hc rae wood creates which , 7 (11). in FOOD hc form which , UNIVERSAL and .L Falkum L. I. DRINK golds (also early access all over her pencil . all over the world. radio the absence of determiners , please? . and their various convention- ./Susie asked me to move over pine ./The child had this linguistic component contributes a delicious pasta a bench SORTER three beers / what 7 a pencil 9 . to the beach./There is That store sells mink or in the back yard. It evidently caught fire on one of the : Could I have : Karen made us : This table is made of her radio toaster some more bench UNIVERSALGRINDER I love chicken FOOD PORTIONING DRINK PORTIONING WOODGRINDING face. We went to the park andand sat give her down at “Those strawberry pop-tarts are dangerous. Iand came there home was one day from work The child brought a book and That the morpho-syntactic alternation between count and mass occurrences of (19) Susan brought (18) Schubert 2003, Pelletier 2012, Ware 1975). Some illustrations are(17) given below. nouns has important consequences forbeyond how discussion. the nouns The are question interpreted isby is, rather way of of course, interpretation-relevant information. Asappear is to often exhibit pointed out, a mostcount great nouns and degree mass interpretations of (Allan flexibility1980, in Bunt 1985, theirPelletier ability1975, toPelletier & occur with both (20) an utterance of provides the hearer with directrule-based approaches evidence would of claim, the of intended the mass ‘meat’ interpretation or ‘fur’ and, interpretation respectively. the main interpretive work is being done linguistically on the basis of2.1 lexical rules. Senses are linguistically marked Perhaps the most compellingpolysemy argument is for that a the rule-based senses analysis are of formally count-mass marked in languages such as English, polysemy as illustrated above. Into other have words, a the wholly shifts linguistica basis. in Some role meaning authors to are point play assumed out inor, that contributing in pragmatics to some may further cases, have contextual in specification overridingLascarides default of & interpretations the Copestake (Copestake1998), denotation, & but Briscoe it, 1995 merely serves the function of a useful add-on; (15) (16) In this way, computational lexical semanticinference accounts rules take (the there toalised be sub-cases) a in set the of mental lexical lexicon that is responsible for generating count-mass Count-mass polysemy (14) which make a morpho-syntactic distinction between count and mass NPs. So in 9 Example due to Wisniewski et(2003). al. (1985). Bunt to due Example 12 http://www.hobomama.com/2011/01/feeling-fat-during-pregnancy.html 11 http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php?topic=122407.0 10 early access cut r‘as rpris u httepamtcsse srqie ofili the in fill to required is system pragmatic the that but properties, ‘mass’ or ‘count’ expressions count the by described object physical the of ‘grinding’ rqie cesn n’ eea ol nweg bu aisa transmitters as radios about knowledge world general one’s accessing requires (21) (21) lento ewe on n asue fNsyed essta obyn those beyond go that senses linguistic yields the NPs of where uses examples mass items, restricted and drink relatively count and the between food for alternation and Even trees kind. rule-based animals, systematic, of context- traditionally the groups this have of that that be polysemy to also more count-mass taken notice and of been to But instances amount many ‘mass’.) may to and clue applies ‘count’ this sensitivity what notions of the discussion to to return specifically I having3 as Section seen (In be rest. should an out than picks more it no entity is the here whether provides regarding syntax these clue count-mass by interpretive what demonstrated context-sensitivity that of seems degree it high examples, and the face) Given child’s signals). the on radio use of its by left marks the to of occurrences those mass a beyond the by go generated may also be that examples interpretations can The womb. yields that the alternation in count-mass babies the of that development show the about or information flat of of use a mass (i.e. the benches of of understanding properties an real-world And the space). of about expanse knows one what with to NP occurs relative the entity uncountable instance, mass prototypically For with a syntax. occurs describes those count entity that in of countable one interpretation deal prototypically where precise a good or describes the syntax, a that on that noun clear in a also home where is to cases it clue required but important is nouns, an inference provides the pragmatic syntax of mass interpretation or intended count the the above, to examples the of all In (23) (22) h yial an egti e um o orcgieta h extra the that recognize to not tummy her in weight gains typically who akpain Back golds of made is statue woman The a for possible as is it there see bulk of sort just of, stories kind the can of I Some but labor. me, into floor went absolutely they until pregnant were they know back the out it expecting She’s heaved and wall in the was from what cord Guess the door. yanked wife my and kids rmteOlympics. the from is erbepain terrible a baby pencil baby a NVRA GRINDER UNIVERSAL nta ffood.” of instead gold and /IwthteeTCsosaotwmnwodidn’t who women about shows TLC these watch ./“I h toaster the /rti ruh oea mrsienme of number impressive an home brought ./Britain radio oemr bench more some . 12 8 bv a rubyntb eie through derived be not arguably can above 11 .” 10 o ntne h nepeainof interpretation the instance, For . radio hst einterpreted be to has (18) in rfrigt h transmission the to (referring radio or (19) in pencil .L Falkum L. I. (referring baby in early access should Rabbit could be seen as elliptical of . Storey Publishing. in (25) could be an ellipsis for , then I’m done. (‘levels of rabbit 13 the waters John likes chicken on my hands? (‘particles’) 9 cat at the tasting. (‘varietals’) The Aromatherapy Companion was used to heal wounds. (‘bark’) three wines birch given the appropriate linguistic context), which makes it difficult to see how is antiseptic for the respiratory tract and it treats pneumonia, asthma, [Before going home from work,usual the aquarium closing employees routine, go through whichcorrect their includes water checking levels]: Employee thatEmployee A: the B: Have pools I you have just gone the need through to everything? check [Biology teacher]: Now take a lookbe at easy these different to samples. recognise. (‘faeces’) Pine and other respiratory ailments. (‘oil’) water’) But if lexical rules are not required to interpret the italicised nouns in (24)-(29), The intended interpretation of each of the italicised nouns above should be easily 14 However, most (if not all) casesof of NP count-mass ellipsis polysemy (even paradigmatic could, examples in such principle, as be analysed incases terms of ellipsis should be distinguished from cases of polysemy.intended Notice referent also is that identifiable an on utteranceis the of pointing basis(25) to of a extra-linguistic salient cluesbetween exemplar). (e.g. ellipsis See where andHall(2009) the pragmatic for biology enrichment a teacher from comprehensive discussion a of relevance-theoretic perspective. the distinction It has been suggested toanalysed me in that terms at of least syntacticrabbit some ellipsis faeces, of of given the the an NP examples explicitconceptual head discussed linguistic content (e.g., in antecedent of this in the section NP the can could prior be be discourse), recovered and linguistically thus without that appeal to the pragmatic full inference. these cases is something lessbe. specific than the rule-based accountsthen would one have it might to askcases whether or they if are they really can be necessary interpreted in on the the alleged basisby of ‘rule-based’ the the same lexical pragmatic rules mechanism. would have to be cancelled and replaced by the appropriate inferable in context, and the countto or this mass interpretation. use But of the by nouninsufficient; itself provides the this an hearer linguistically important encoded must clue information alsointerpreting is activate his the arguably real-world nouns. or So contextual unless knowledgenot we in posit seem a like new a rule satisfactory for option, each it new appears sense, that which what does is provided linguistically in (28) (29) Jane was offered (26) In the old days, (27) Count-mass polysemy that can be plausibly claimedcome by. to Consider be-(29). (24) generated by lexical rules(24) are not difficult to Will a hamster bite if it senses (25) would arguably be natural in a context where there is no explicit linguistic antecedent but where the (Notice also that on the rule-based account, the default interpretations generated John likes chicken meat 14 13 Example from Edwards, W. D. (1999). 17 (2006). 16 L. Costigan, from Example 15 early access smni’ta h nweg htoie eeo rmflwr,o r huh to thought are or flowers, from develop olives that knowledge the than ‘semantic’ oto h le contexts. blue’ the of ‘out ol eteciei o eemnn,sy htw aet owt eia rule lexical a with do to have we that say, determining, for criteria the be would can wood its tree, a on grows that fruit black or green savoury, small, a is olive An a fepaain hl h oposnatcdsicinbtencutadmass and count between distinction morpho-syntactic the While explanation? of way (of srn rmra-ol nweg bu olives: about knowledge real-world from spring (30) in olive of senses different The Mr u an put Mary a. noun (30) the of of uses illustration various further the a consider As flexibility, in impossible). interpretive costly not this unnecessarily course, be of might although, which terms, step processing a -(29), (24) in interpretations contextual igitckoldeadgnrlwrdkolde n ti o la o o hte)rule-based whether) (or how clear between two. not point the is cut-off between it the distinguish and knowledge, accounts concerning world semantics general lexical and in knowledge linguistic problem well-known idealised a in illustrates possibilities studied interpretive typically This of are range utterances wider verbal much where a assume, alternation to to the rise tend communication) gives accounts verbal nouns rule-based I in of than blue’. situation uses the normal mass the the of and take be count ‘out I to between uttered (and context if circumstances supporting where natural contextual a cases appropriate less of in the be presence Given possible would here: mainly and intuition are reviewer’s referent (24)-(30) the discourse in share salient listed highly uses a the is of some there that out pointed reviewer One seem not does alternations therefore sense linguistically the reflected That are be. polysemy less to count-mass be them in to have involved would seem accounts these rule-based consequences, than interpretive specific important some by has understanding clearly utterance NPs of theory a to part add as they rules do question lexical what A having system: to. for interpretive motivation rise the that give theoretical of interpretations may the of nouns concerns variety of then, the uses arises, of mass that subset and a count for between account alternation to the able be only would exist, more effects? wood healing good have make trees olive that knowledge the makes what words, other In what And on. here? so postulate and semanticist effects, computational healing in the have would used to rules is flower, some lexical scented by many pleasantly thought a is from oil, develops vegetable it making furniture, make to used be ODGRINDING WOOD Ssnsfvuiefarneis fragrance favourite Susan’s is g. left the to bottle The f. e. M urn oorcuhis crush colour current My of made is table This d. have We c. b. xasindet xesv oko study. or work excessive to due exhaustion Olive sue otetapro h ufr rmtrdes aiu and fatigue tiredness, from suffers who person a treat to used is 17 in ) nolive an tsesta h eia ue,ee fte ol esonto shown be could they if even rules, lexical the that seems It nolive an (30c) oe n Healing and Women norgre.(‘tree’) garden. our in u ihapamtclydrvdsnein sense derived pragmatically a with but , nhrdik (‘fruit’) drink. her in olive olive (‘wood’) . 10 olive (‘oil’) . olive (‘hue’) . iUniverse. , (‘flower’) . 15 (‘extract’) olive (30). in .L Falkum L. I. 16 (30f) How ? early access is Swib to refer to the tonklet 18 (“Yesterday, Attenborough was swib 11 ; lit. wears pullover, ‘She’s wearing a pullover’ and Lleva jersey in Congo. It’s a huge animal.”), and this was the first time ; lit. he drives car, ‘He’s driving a car’). The literature contains various a swib Han kjører bil There is some experimental evidence that people find such conventionalised uses discussed in this paper.Spanish For and instance, CatalanEspinal (2010) as analyses denotingcorresponding such number-neutral Norwegian properties bare uses of ‘count’ kinds. as nominalsBorthen(2003) being in and analyses singular nonreferentiality. the Although but English ‘type-emphasising’, is implyingin more nonpartitivity restricted internal with argument respect position, touses such it discussed bare in is nominal this an uses paper interesting could question be seen whether as any either of number-neutral, property the of non-individuated kind-denoting or the newly acquired term. While Murphy’s results was taken tomass interpretation support (e.g., the Spanish view Norwegian proposals for how to analyse such uses, but they are typically regarded as distinct from the mass conventional extension was the use ofmeat the of novel the animal animal, term while a novel extension was athe use extended in sense which of it the referred word to was. a Results place showed, not surprisingly, that subjects presence of a productive lexical rule. meaning of a newly acquiredexposed word to (Murphy a1997). novel In word, followed an by experiment, its subjects occurrence were in a context in which its meaning photographed with a following utterance containing thereally novel delicious, noun by used the in way —come a across ‘meat’ you this should sense usage try (“ before. it.”) According although to you rule-based would accounts, never have this suggests the Lexical rule-based accounts offer anity explanation of for count-mass the sense systematicity alternations, and thatnouns is, productiv- whose for denotations the fact involve that a they specificimals, systematically ontological trees, target or food ‘real-world’ and category drinkany (an- items, new and members so of on), that anddiscovered category. can For animal be instance, of extended if the productively someone giraffe to told family you called about a newly as it is manifested inclue, English which and paves other the languages way as for a lexical sort pragmatic of creativity. interpretive pointer or 2.2 Systematicity/productivity of sense alternations Count-mass polysemy to provide a strong argumentapproach, for which the I existence will of explore lexical in3 rules.of this A paper, more is promising to treat the count-mass distinction you heard of this animal, you would probably have no difficulties understanding (allegedly rule-based) sense extensions more acceptable than novel extensions of the was extended, either in a conventional or creative (novel) way. An example ofwhere a the animal lived. Subjects were asked to judgewere how more appropriate likely or to normal accept conventional than novel extensions of the meaning of ‘type-emphasising’. For reasons of space I cannot get into this complex issue here. 18 In some languages, bare ‘count’ nouns can appear in internal argument position without receiving a early access ol o nylpei)koldeo rdcal eain.Sc pragmatic a Such relations. predictable of knowledge encyclopaedic) (or world 1)write: 117) (2002: Lepore Rabagliati & 2002, Fodor non- Lepore 2011). & a al. (Fodor et has regularities sense conventionalised real-world also such reflect how it typically account extensions into — takes ones which ‘unsystematic’, explanation, ‘rule- linguistic novel, conventionalised, for over preference speakers’ interpretations their in explain stored derived’, would rules which productive of — basis lexicon the mental on arises polysemy count-mass that ;frisac,wyaia on uhas such nouns animal why instance, for ‘semi-productive’, 1995); fact and in Briscoe are & they Copestake productive being pragmatic cf. than a to rather be subject why would are (and there alternations constraints that sense in why explaining one of linguistic way the straightforward over advantage general an from have arising would these and explanation of on, productivity dependent being and as systematicity seen the be rules, could lexical alternations of sense the instead product explain So the might extensions. areas), being sense urbanised of novel in over not living conventionalised may individuals for which for observed dwelling, not preference its least and (at animal salient an as between be that more as instance, for such with, relations compared contingent relations encountered frequently inherent, such assumption the of activation concept the the appropriate accessing in instance, concepts fur. representations For specific no their contexts. access has to we or lead when food might activated as relations immediately appropriate such becoming be to instance, exposure plausibly for frequent to not, our small does time, too it the Over is that that question cases infer in certain knowledge, animal in this the and of if instance, basis this the to on applies — can, categories also we these relation of — long-term one say in of animal, (stored instance unfamiliar knowledge new an our world a in general encountering highly to our Upon reflect exposed of memory). repeatedly semantic part on, are form so we they which and and world, lives, servings, the daily in conventional affairs wood, their of their states and and predictable items trees meat/fur, drink their and and animals food between those as such Relations sphinx ih e h oeoei ieyt hn fa xrsinta is that expression an of think to likely is one more the be, might Y / miuu shmnmu ahrta polysemous. than rather homonymous as ambiguous X/Y h rimta,tels n a e htterltosbtenXand X between relations the what just see it’s can no; one But less semantics. the lexical that, of truism fact the deep a like sound itself may the-animal lamb- between from comes just there lamb-the-meat Surely because and the-animal. that’s animal the Surely between meat. polysemous the is ‘lamb’ that right it’s Suppose ont ne omlcrusacs aefrsne while senses fur have circumstances, normal under not, do lamb-the-animal and succotash-the-mixed-vegetable n (say) and UKY R MEAT ARE TURKEYS couldn’t 12 beef-the-meat TURKEY eawr htspolysemous that’s word a be htteecouldn’t there That ? ih meitl eutin result immediately might h ihacsiiiyof accessibility high The . rbetween Or ? lamb- .L Falkum L. I. bear halibut and early access in in (34) is , due to the tree pork ) roast suckling pig , and so on, is thought wood wood . (? , tree beef , ) pork beef , . (? 13 . . veal cow tree is eaten in Chinese or Vietnamese restaurants for do not usually have meat senses, and so on. Such ) pork virus calf/pig/cow and would be odd in this case is that the interdiction concerns only because it is cow-stuff”. The mass use of and therefore blocked from being generated. Similarly, the beef roast suckling pig beef fairy fly glory does not appear in English because it would be synonymous with the Overall, households that display treeshouseholds made that out display of trees plastic made now outnumber out of In Asia, important parties. (? do, why (35) the status of the animalforbidden to in eat the Hindu religion,motivated by and the not fact just that its it is meat: the “Hindus Christmas are tree’s propertiesis as at a stake natural in tree this (but context. As to the use of the derived form Nunberg & Zaenen(1992: 391)reason consider the the use example of in (33) and argue that the happily in English: (33) (34) Hindus are forbidden to eat Such lexicalised forms are analysed as exceptionsexceptions to to the morphological lexical processes. rules, by However, as analogy with some authors have pointed out patterns, which are normally consideredlanguage use, ill-formed it and seems that do derived and not lexicalised occur forms of in mass ordinary expressions co-exist existence of lexicalised forms suchto as block the application of the rules, explaining the(31) oddity of the uses below: (32) ?John likes to eat ?This chair is made out of parallel that might be drawnprocesses; between both lexical appear rules to and be derivational morphological lexical ‘blocked’ forms by (Briscoe the et existence of al. underived1995, synonymous Clark & Clark 1979, Copestake & Briscoe , 1992 existing form semantic account. 2.3 The ‘blocking’ phenomenon Count-mass polysemy rabbit real-world facts would have to induce exceptions to the rules on the computational (35), it is quite conventional and preferable to the lexicalised form (Blutner 1998, Nunberg & Zaenen 1992 ), unlike most exceptions to morphological where its wood properties are only secondary), as opposed to a fake plastic tree, that Another seemingly compelling argument in favour of a rule-based approach is the 1995, Ostler & Atkins 1992). For instance, (1976)Aronoff noted that the form *gloriosity 42). (1995: Briscoe & Copestake to due Example 19 early access blwmgtb the be might below (36) of interpretation accessible most the instance, For 1995). isfra tseslkl htteitrrtv ytmis system interpretive the that likely seems it as insofar Briscoe & Copestake with hslte s scerymr nomtv hnteatraieutrnecontaining utterance alternative the than informative more clearly is use latter This rvd eysrn rueti aoro uebsdacuto count-mass of account rule-based a of favour to in seem not argument does strong phenomenon very ‘blocking’ a the be words, provide may other phenomenon In blocking nature. right the in the that pragmatic under suggests disappears derived thus alternative of lexicalised and just oddity a circumstances, not the exists contextual and that there roasted show where being examples cases is These in that meat. uses animal its whole the of the of portion size usually unspecified small is an the it about that knowledge and our pig with suckling combined modifier the of semantics Smejydbtltrregretted later but enjoyed Sam later but enjoyed (36) ‘Sam that thus (and meat’ ‘rabbit out regretted picks rabbit which in one Pustejovsky , 1995 in 1992, interpretations Briscoe ‘default’ & of Copestake availability 2011 , that the (Asher argue contexts explain uninformative polysemy to required count-mass are to rules approaches lexical rule-based of advocates Finally, senses ‘default’ of availability The 2.4 one. pragmatic mainly their a nature, be in to semantic seems is it phenomenon not for view blocking is explanation restriction the there semantic that in tell, a argue form can they support derived I While to a as either. explanation of far Briscoe’s use As & the form. Copestake on lexicalised in frequent restriction parallel much semantic a more exists a a there to of where due such instead cases be But to form meaning. have additional derived not some a do implicating of effects as use interpreted be the may so one and lexicalised on, (quasi so of and use agree pig/pork I of information. frequency this the to to access sensitive give easily) religion. as Hindu not the least in (at status not its would to which due beef, meat, its concerns just interdiction not the and that whole saw, a we some as as that animal (33), infer the in therefore intended; may hearer is The meaning synonymous”. implication additional strictly (discourse) not among the are from “carries terms form meaning the interpretable that same or the common expressing less of alternative a lexicalised ways of a different exists choice there the where because cases possible in form are derived a of uses that suggest polysemy. 39) ( 1995: Briscoe & Copestake (33) -(35), as such examples of discussion their In eating h rabbit’). the 14 h rabbit the - snnmu om uha cow/beef, as such forms )synonymous . 19 .L Falkum L. I. early access ), : ‘rabbit sense of ENJOY telic role may be highly accessi- meat-grinding EATING DELICIOUS FOOD 15 , among which assumptions along the lines of , which might be activated by the concept RABBIT information, cf. Pustejovsky 1991, 1995). In this way, the RABBIT MEAT IS DELICIOUS TO EAT , qualia provides a telic role which allows the eating interpretation to be constructed. The claim that the availability of ‘default’ interpretations in uninformative con- RABBITS ARE MEAT IS AN ENJOYABLE ACTIVITY may lead to the eating interpretation becoming more accessible than any of the other information about the concept ble. These assumptions, combined withby assumptions that the the sentence other may concepts give encoded access to (for instance that linguistic and extra-linguistic context arehave scarce, to as rely in more (36) onabove,the information the utterance. stored hearer Assuming will in that hisan long-term lexically ordered memory encoded array in concepts of interpreting are encyclopaedicSection3 knowledgefor points more (e.g., of detailWilson access on & this to Carston issue),2006; the see linguistic meaning of (36) would activate 2002, Sperber & Wilson that1986/1995, utterancesWilson are understood & against Sperber of a set2004, the of2012) hearer’s contextual assumptions emphasise assumptions —activated about by the a or subset world derived — from observationknowledge, which of memories may and the beliefs physical include as environment, assumptions well encyclopaedic as the preceding linguistic context (Sperber texts is evidence ofthe a hearer’s use linguistically-mandated of process backgroundlinguistic appears knowledge context in to does the not underestimate interpretation mean process: thatuum. a the Arguably, there lack utterance are of is hardly necessarily anypragmatic understood entirely theories in context-free a of interpretations. vac- utterance Cognitive interpretation such as Relevance Theory (Carston interpretation and goes against arabbit pragmatic analysis: “[T]he However, if the lexicon does notthe propose context such which a allows sense, pragmatic it specialization is of unclear the what interpretation” it (Copestake is about consistent with information stored asnoun part (so-called of the thesemantic lexical processing representation of (36) ofwould the the involve the lexically selection specified of meaning an ofmeat appropriate the is aspect complement for of (in eating’). this The case idea its is that this explains the default character of the eating recent development of this account). TheyNP involve or a VP verb syntactically, that but subcategorises which for semantically an requires a complement ofstructure, the a type coercion operator changes the semantic type of the NP into an event, Count-mass polysemy treated as being interpreted by means of a generative rule of ‘coercion’ (Asher 2011 , Asher & Lascarides 2003, Pustejovsky 1991, ;1995 see also Zarcone 2014 for a & Wilson 1986/1995: 15). When the assumptions that may be derived from the & Briscoe 1995: 42, see also Asher 2011: 93 for a similar argument). Within computational semantic accounts, constructions of this kind are typically ‘event’. In cases where this type requirement is not satisfied by the surface syntactic 0Itaka nnmu eiwrfrti example. this for reviewer anonymous an thank I 20 early access R RTTPCLPETS PROTOTYPICAL ARE nteasneo n ute otxulseicto,tems cesbeinterpreta- accessible most the specification, contextual further any regretted of later absence but the enjoyed In Sam blue’ the of (37) ‘out an accessible: interpretation in another (37) render of real-world instead how interpretation and also context eating Notice an terms. way, exclude pragmatic this would in In character. explained knowledge ‘default’ be a also it can gives availability what its be could and interpretations possible sgetta eia nre a nld ersnain of representations include may entries explain meat- To lexical senses? that the rule-generated suggest is other Briscoe Why its & of Copestake fur’). any this, (‘rabbit not sense and selected fur-grinding meat-grinding sense the the grinding stuff’), and (‘rabbit meat’) sense (‘rabbit ground general sense of the interpretations lexicon: possible & three the Copestake least) by by available (at proposed be account would rule-based there the where on Briscoe, explained properly is (36) in untenable. seems only semantics which lexical non-linguistic) in on — (arguably interpretation based likely hearer’s explanation a an the suggest case when to sufficient words, only are are assumptions other background utterances in knowledge — interpreted blue’ (encyclopaedic) conceptual the be enough of to to the access ‘out where give such they context an when However, that blue’ felicitous interpretation. be the default might clear of a explanation ‘out generate alternative any compositional similar to for fails the And process given to (38). coercion be in input type could computed as explanations is serve interpretation hoc could default ad that that no role argue therefore telic could and a account process have rule-based not the contextual does of further mouse proponents any without course, have Of would of it specification. representation interpretation lexical what the unclear about it is it makes what know regretted to later need but we enjoyed Specifically, Sam (38) (38): of utterance arising blue’ interpretation the ‘default’ of particular ‘out no an arguably also from is would makes there they therefore However, why and explain case. lines) to this these have in along interpretation something ‘default’ or different pets, a as available held be to is for its animals representation by lexical (e.g., the information that this argue includes course of available could account becomes rule-based interpretation This (e.g., this. hamsters about regretted knowledge later encyclopaedic but of activation pet through a as it which having in one be might tion ti loqetoal hte h dfut hrce fteetn interpretation eating the of character ‘default’ the whether questionable also is It , h hamster the HYHV OTCDL FUR CUDDLY SOFT HAVE THEY ei role telic eest h nml n htSmenjoyed Sam that and animal, the to refers 16 h hamster the h mouse the pcfigta h ups fthese of purpose the that specifying . 20 . t..Avctso the of Advocates etc.). , rabbit HAMSTERS mouse .L Falkum L. I. hamster made that early access , , Again, a simpler Mary loves moose 21 , UNIVERSALGRINDER , the meat-grinding rule should , be three-ways ambiguous (and ) in English speaking adults, Kolkmann rabbit Rabbit is expensive would, given the 17 John’s knife FURGRINDING and MEAT GRINDING is unspecified with respect to its syntactic count/mass properties, but it Finally, as I touched on above, there is the problem of overgeneration, which This is of courserespect an to the empirical ‘default’ question. interpretations Whetherpresuppose, they assign would language in be users out-of-the-blue an are contexts interestinginterpretation as in topic of rule-based for pre-nominal fact accounts possessives experimental as (e.g., investigation. unanimous In with a recent study ofon the the basis of lexical-semantic rules. the rules of there may be other rulesin applying deciding as well). that If one pragmatic ruleindeed considerations has play seems prevalence a over likely, role the it others leaves in us a again given with context, the which question of what role the lexical count-mass alternation may give rise to), it remains for rule-based theoriessystem. to explain is inevitably associated withBriscoe’s (1995) rule-based account, theories. utterances For such as instance, on Copestake & existence of lexical rules, andpragmatic that explanation. each Furthermore, of I themmore have can pragmatics-driven argued than be that is countered count-mass usually byallow acknowledged polysemy a by for is plausible rule-based little theories, flexibility which ofthink interpretation. they If must lexical be, rules given are the defeasible range (which of I context-dependent interpretations that the factor. 2.5 Wrapping up: Lexical rules areI not hope necessary to have shownbased so account far of that count-mass none polysemy of provides decisive the grounds standard for arguments claiming given the for a rule- does not seem like aexplanation good for candidate the for interpretive a preference ‘default’ woulding interpretation. be his one background which or other theinterpretive contextual hearer possibilities knowledge is to (or activat- disambiguate where between only these the most accessible one is activated), and have a higher probability than thegenerated other by rules, default leading and to the providing meatif the interpretation input frequency being to of the use coercion determinesthe mechanism. the However, ‘unground’ probability sense of a might sense,the have it rabbit an is equal not probability impossible in that ,(36) given that the NP Count-mass polysemy the attested lexical rules which have applied to them, and that these are associated (2016) found that ‘default’ interpretations were considerably less principled than might be predicted Reindeer is hard to come by these days what makes them necessary, if we already have defeasibility as part of our pragmatic where information about sense frequency plays a role but is not the only determining with a probability. So in the lexical entry for 21 early access ol aora con ihol n ehns cmie iha con of account an with (combined mechanism one only with account an favour would admn tes.Such others). many and 1985 al. et Quirk 1999, 1992 , Gillon 1998, Chierchia (e.g., h on-asdsicinhsatatdalto teto mn igit,philoso- linguists, among attention of lot a attracted has distinction count-mass The iwo h aueo h on-asdsicini hti sa neetproperty inherent an is it that is distinction count-mass the of nature the of view rgais.A es,cnieain ftertcleooy(f ca’ razor) Occam’s (via (cf. way economy distinct theoretical a deriving in of others by considerations and gained least, rules) be At lexical the to (via pragmatics). by is way adequately anything one done whether in work interpretations is some interpretive then, the question, of The part rules. also would lexical that mechanism handling pragmatic of same capable cases the as be that well likely to as seems polysemy, required it count-mass overgeneration, is of of pragmatics cases lexical context-dependent If most process. the interpretation handle the in playing are rules fnustesle,wihaeseie sete on rms ntelexicon the in mass or count either as specified are which relation themselves, nouns the of for widespread raises A world. it physical issues the and fundamental representation the conceptual grammar, to between due psychologists and phers polysemy count-mass of semantics lexical The 3.1 of 3.2. account section pragmatic in the follow underlie I will will this, that that on polysemy distinction Based count-mass the distinction. count-mass to the approach issues with an psychological connection and suggest in theoretical I raised main subsection, the been next have of the that some In of system? overview pragmatic brief the a with present interact interpretation it the does to answer How contribute must syntax process? count-mass account does pragmatic What A advocates questions: polysemy. for following count-mass argument the plural of key or analysis a determiners provided rule-based of this a absence 2.1, of or Section presence in the discussed linguistically by As are mass morphemes. nouns or feature), count this either containing as languages marked other in (and English In pragmatics as polysemy Count-mass 3 pragmatic lexical a of outline an to devoted is polysemy. paper count-mass of this of of best explanation of account the pragmatic part to a final not, provide The have to data. there attempts this issue), systematic this any on been 1995 , detail knowledge, (Asher more my generally Briscoe for more 2.4 & interpretations Section ‘default’ Copestake (see of 2011) instances (e.g., or polysemy ) 2011 al. systematic et pragmatics Rabagliati of that cases claimed been handle has it cannot While considering. worth approach pragmatic than mechanisms. accessible parallel or two common are there more which are in interpretations one or over others) senses some that fact the ae oehr hn h onsrie nti eto aea lentv,lexical alternative, an make section this in raised points the think I together, Taken 18 .L Falkum L. I. early access , all We and Two rock (e.g., 22 , few much approach is and several structuralist is true of both some individuals cake 19 ) and quantifiers such as cars , That’s a lot of shopping centre for a small town , a car ). A challenge for this view is the existence of ‘double-life’ , etc.), and which are equally natural in both uses (Ware ). 1975 ), while mass expressions appear with quantifiers such as , etc.). In order to account for this flexibility, some theorists appeal to little water / fantasy , approaches take count and mass features to provide selection restrictions on few cars / much love ( , A second, big issue is the relation between the syntactic count-mass distinction It has been argued against lexicalist approaches that if any noun can be either nouns, with corresponding shifts in meaning. and the conceptual representationsthat it the maps syntactic onto. count-massQuine(1960) distinction corresponded famously to argued a culturally constructed mass is seen not asin an the inherent absence property of but count as structure.they arising These account structuralist from well approaches ‘default’ for are interpretations the promising existencethat in of that most ‘double-life’ nouns nouns exhibit as with well respect as to the their flexibility ability to occur as both count and mass bearers of count and massPelletier(2012). properties. He One takes version nouns of to this the have semantic comprehensive denotations, values of containing which theyand are some true stuff). (e.g., Combining a nounone with of a the syntactic determiner features to ‘count’ formis or an to ‘mass’ NP ‘delete’ to involves adding the either NP, the the semantic count effect of or which mass part of the meaning of the noun. Another count or mass, it isdo, unclear when what no syntactic constructions work will theSchubert be count2003). ruled and Thus, out mass another (Borer features line2005, actually ofnotPelletier approach of2012 , takes lexicalPelletier count items and & but massPelletier of to2012, functional be Ware structures properties 1975).Allan ( On1980, thisBorer view,, 2005 itBunt is NPs,, 1985 not nouns as such, that are the Gillon , 1992 1999). It seemsmost that it rule-based is approaches this to kindmarked of count-mass as approach either polysemy: that count implicitly If or underlies the mass, a value the noun of function the of is feature, the syntactically thereby lexical generating rule a would default be sense. to change rope Furthermore, as illustrated inbe, Section2 used it as seems both that counthad most nouns much nouns, and sun if mass last not nouns week waters, with all, please! an can adjustment in meaning ( for instance, that count butindefinite not mass article expressions (e.g., can beseveral pluralized, appear with the little nouns, which sometimes occur as count nouns, sometimes as mass nouns (e.g., Count-mass polysemy lexicalist determiners, accounting for the morpho-syntactic characteristics of the distinction, version is Borer’s (2005) account, on which all noun denotations are mass but where ‘conversion’ rules that transform count nouns into mass nouns and vice versa (e.g., 22 Example due to Nunberg & Zaenen(1992). 23 early access cnttetojcs aeso h niisi hi eoain,tetn hmbt as both them treating denotations, their in entities the of facets objects’ ‘constituent .Hwvr t doae loakoldeta vni hr smuch is there if even that acknowledge also advocates its However, 2003). 1996, to hearer the leads then This 2010). Wisniewski 1988 , Wierzbicka 1984, we conceptual the that evidence empirical much now is there position, this Against .Tesau fthe of status The 1996). al. et (Wisniewski ,ads curn h ytci distinc- syntactic the acquiring 1997, so Gentner and & 1991), Imai al. , 1999 et Soja 1994, languages 1992, Bloom in Soja 2006, 2005 , syntax Snedeker Papafragou count-mass & (Barner of it acquisition language- have the in that present to robustly prior and systems universal is independent mass and two. count the between discriminate distinction to learn children which by that means and the (stuff), was substances syntax and count-mass (individuals) objects between distinction ontological bu tuigtewr tat,ams on oIakyu‘oyuwn oetat’wiethinking while talk toast?’ to more have want I you ‘Do — English you of ask quirk I a So to noun. entity.”. due I mass singular that a a — but doubt ‘toast’, of individual, no word singular have the a “I using as commented, it toast has about of 185) piece 2010 : Wisniewski a result by of a (cited think as Bloom possibly Paul diverge, as instance, may For denotations their of properties about mass intuitions people’s and that count suggest the interpretation experi- their conflicting regarding the However, results 2012). mental and Grimm ‘non-individuated’ see aggregates, the functional both so-called recognises that analysis an (for literature the contiguity in to functional latter and/or the spatial entities, by distinct united more objects or of one group to non-individuated referring a as interpreted being former & superordi- the count Barner of , 2009 referents Barner construe (e.g., subjects nates & that (Bale indicate individuals others 2005); out Snedeker picking as that interpreted suggest studies typically some conflicting: are results experimental as of use based, individuals. mass conceptually to conventional degree refer the large is to example a One to exceptions. is are distinction there count-mass the al. that et Wisniewski evidence , 2004 al. et 1999, Middleton , 1994 , 1991 Bloom McPherson (e.g., 1995, studies Kelemen experimental & of Bloom number a hypothesis in This respectively. support non-individuated, received or has individuated as to referred an entity Mufwene as 1987b, referent Langacker the 1996 , of (Bloom interpretation entity her non-individuated on a depends as reality or of individual aspect some to refer to hypothesis those individuation and entity’), bounded ‘discrete to approximately corresponds individual we of entities conceptual of a kinds to the Several between corresponds categories. distinction syntax ontological count-mass basic that such suggested to have rise psychologists gives than rather presupposes tion furniture perceive vehicles hc pert aeidvdasi hi eoain,adweethe where and denotations, their in individuals have to appear which , snnidvdae niis hsapoc,rfre oas to referred approach, This entities. non-individuated as ifrnl rmtoeo assprriae uhas such superordinates mass of those from differently ) 23 rpssta pae’ s facuto asexpression mass or count a of use speaker’s a that proposes , nte a e‘as ueodnt xrsin such expressions superordinate ‘mass’ be may Another 20 furniture perceive sidvdas(hr h notion the (where individuals as ae ean oi fdebate of topic a remains cases furniture toast h cognitive the construe .L Falkum L. I. nEnglish in on are nouns furniture the , early access , (cf. the procedure ), ‘double-life’ nouns anger , hope , love typically occurs with count syntax and 21 cat to pick out individuated and non-individuated SAND and CAT of count or mass syntax in an NP reflects her interpretation of the use cases discussed above). However, unlike what is assumed by the cognitive with mass syntax) but the primary source of these judgements is taken to be Moreover, assuming that our ability to distinguish conceptually between in- Second, I broadly subscribe to the cognitive individuation hypothesis, assuming In this paper I adopt the following view on the count-mass distinction. First, property. Examples are abstract terms (e.g., conceptual rather than linguistic. We ‘see’individuals cats and out sand in the as world an as unboundedcount-mass bounded entity. distinction countable Thus, has in a many cases, perceptual-experientialother the cases, basis conceptual however, (McPherson there1991). may be In or no what such is count-mass stored relevant may information be stored, compatible with the entities in the denotation having either take concepts such as entities respectively, is groundedOf in course, our our real-life count-mass judgements experiencesmost may with frequent also these uses be of entities. influenced nouns bysand (e.g., the that ‘default’ or the NP in question (i.e. as one that is individuateddividuated or and non-individuated non-individuated respectively). entities doesstrong not intuitions rely about on the count count-mass or syntax,mentally mass stored our properties encyclopaedic of (or many real-world) concepts knowledgeout, may about arise including the from both entities prototypical they pick and imagistic representations. That we typically furniture individuation hypothesis, I see thisnouns. as taking In place this at way, the Blakemore count-mass level1987, of syntax Wilson NPs, can2011 ), not which be individual utterance guides seen the comprehension as hearer by in imposing encoding the a a inferential constraint process on of the entity referred to by use of account of count-mass polysemy that I will propose in thethat next a section. speaker’s entity described by the head noun as either an individual orother a (constrained, non-individuated to entity, some extent, by the real-world properties of denotations, cf. the are syntactically unspecified with respectthat to this their is count determined by andsome the mass cases syntactic properties, by structure and the into wider which context, they as are when inserted they (or are in combinedmass with properties). the This determiner position will have important consequences for the pragmatic concerning its syntactic characteristics, IPelletier(2012), take(2005)Borer a structuralist and approach others,properties along and not with assume of individual thatsyntactic nouns count difference but between and of ‘count mass NPs, nouns’ are and and ‘mass consequently nouns’. that I there take is it no that nouns Count-mass polysemy of linguistic knowledge and real-worldin knowledge influencing different ways people’s judgements in these particular cases. which in turn would lead the hearer to construe this entity in the one way or in the which creates NPs which are syntactically unspecified with regard to their count- early access 6) eeac sdfie saptnilpoet fipt ocognitive to inputs of property potential a as defined is Relevance 260). 1986/1995: verbal concerning assumptions whose 2012), 2004, Sperber & Wilson 1986/1995, hc et nteasmtosaottecutms itnto aeabove. make I distinction count-mass the about assumptions the on rests which the (e.g., language one in conventional become have might construal one where (e.g., rpretrflcino h ocpuldsicin oeie h elwrdprop- real-world the Sometimes distinction. conceptual the of reflection perfect or meubles and usage diverge, mass may English properties mass or count their about intuitions our where cases, hnsbigeul h oecgiieefcsa nu ilst nidvda and individual an to yields input an Other effects 608). cognitive 2004: more Sperber the & equal, (Wilson being implication assumption, things contextual held a previously of a derivation involves of cognitive the effect elimination or cognitive ‘positive positive or the revision a perception, and strengthening, where (of warranted it, input, effort a from the derive of process may amount individual to the the takes effects’ of it terms inference) in and assessed memory maxi- be the may to and processes, geared be to “tends it ( that relevance” of is claim mization processing central The information interpretation. human utterance about of account pragmatics cognitive to fundamentally approach a relevance-theoretic is The preliminaries. theoretical some polysemy First count-mass of pragmatics lexical The 3.2 count-mass of interpretation the in by play aided to often role pragmatics, polysemy. constructive that speaker- a show deriving to has of be clues, process will syntactic inferential aim pragmatic The information the meanings. of lexical sources in intended many on of draws one hearer the but the to is clue that it is speaker, important proposal the an main by with My hearer intended interpretation. the interpretation lexical provides syntax of count-mass outcome although the inference that for pragmatic available role and crucial be construed) a (broadly also in context play should involved which account in flexibility approaches the interpretive other of to the gist the tackle However, to polysemy. count-mass suited well are Wilson communication & Sperber , 2002 (Carston Theory Relevance within framed is account My how of indicative is to. syntax referred mass entity or the count conceptualises of she choice speaker’s the (e.g., cases convention of linguistic majority idiosyncratic an with (e.g., do conceptualisation to have possible one than more for leaves allow entity an of erties ial,tesnatcdsicinta agaeuesmk s fi o direct a not is of use make users language that distinction syntactic the Finally, ntenx eto,Iwl uln rgai con fcutms polysemy, count-mass of account pragmatic a outline will I section, next the In rock / uhfoliage much Norwegian , , rope , stone furniture , møbler furniture ,sm lrl (e.g., plurals some ), h ontv rnil fRelevance of Principle Cognitive The ). n nte osra nohrlnugs(..French (e.g. languages other in construal another and ) / meubles .I te ae emay we cases other In ). 2012 Grimm cf. , 22 blues , wares , clothes toast Sebr&Wilson & Sperber ; ,adthe and ), .Hwvr nthe in However, ). .L Falkum L. I. furniture many early access ), the lose ; Sperber & Wilson (2007) directed by David Sington. 23 In the Shadow of the Moon 25 24 spacecraft was destroyed by a fire during a test and training our crew! The Communicative Principle of Relevance Apollo 1 lost To illustrate, consider the following example. On 27 January 1967, the command Another central assumption of Relevance Theory is that ostensive stimuli in Attested example from the documentary For a review ofRelevance, see experimentalVan der evidence Henst & testing Sperber(2004). the For experiments Cognitive testing other and key Communicative tenets of Principles Relevance of his intention to communicate thestill latter. compatible Although with the the contextual first informationand interpretation, was (b) that there (a) had they been couldn’t a locate fire, the the crew hearer inferred,second taking utterance. the According agitation to in Relevance the Theory,by speaker’s he following arrived a at comprehension this heuristic interpretation that is applied automatically to verbal input (39) We Given the ambiguity of thecolleague utterance at (and the more receiving specifically end ofcrew was the were at verb simply first missing unsure — whether thatcarry he they out was had the being been testing told — unable or that tohis if the find he colleague them was continued, in and in fact so an telling couldn’t agitated him voice, that “There they has had all been died. a But fire!”, when he understood exercise, killing the three astronautsployees called aboard. up When another one NASA of colleague the to tell control him centre about em- the incident, he uttered utterance worth processing andachieving avoid those causing effects. the The hearer hearer’s goaltion any in of gratuitous communication the effort is speaker’s in meaning to that findostensive stimulus meets an itself. the interpreta- expectations of relevance raised by the module of the hearer could have been attending tocompatible at with the the time, speaker’s abilities and andspeaker (b) preferences, it might is taking be the into unable most account oreconomical relevant that one unwilling given the the to circumstances make (ibid. herrelevant, 270). utterance the To more speaker make informative should her or achieve utterance at optimally least enough cognitive effects to make the the form of utterancesmally create relevant in ( the addressee a presumption thatenough they to be are worth opti- processing, that is, it is more relevant than other inputs that the Count-mass polysemy the less effort it takesthe to individual process at it, that the time higher (ibid. the 609). degree of relevance of that input to voice into account, the causal-explanatory connection between the first and the Theory, including the presumption of optimal relevance, see Van der Henst et al.(2002a,b) and Noveck & Sperber(2007). (Wilson & Sperber 2004 : 613), by which the hearer (a) follows a path of least (39): 1986/1995: 260). An utterance is optimally relevant if (a) it is at least relevant 25 24 26 early access ,adtems luil lentv ob ipemapping simple a be to alternative plausible most the and 1998), 1981, (Fodor semantics between labour of division specific a quite thus is There 2002). (Carston frrcn esetvs.WieIaotterlvnetertc(ooin position (Fodorian) relevance-theoretic the adopt I While perspectives). recent for 2015 Laurence & .Atog yacuto h rgaiso on-asplsm is polysemy count-mass of pragmatics the of account my Although forthcoming ). 2016, (Carston hoyrgrigtentr fwr enn:oepooa sta usatv od nus verbs, (nouns, words substantive that is proposal one meaning: word of nature the regarding Theory uerneo otxulipiain ocrigtecneune o h crew’s on. the so for and consequences missions, the Apollo concerning future carrying implications families, also contextual but of circumstances other range the the huge in than a accessible relevant highly more only was not killed being been interpretation had colleagues interpretation three the hearer’s behaviour, the agitated contextual speaker’s that available the the including Given (39) , relevance. in of interpretation assumptions expectations the his when satisfies stops at arrives (b) he and hypotheses, interpretive considering in effort ocps tsol lob optbewt hs eettertcldevelopments. theoretical recent these with full-fledged compatible encode be words also most should which to it according concepts, position relevance-theoretic senses orthodox conventional the of on sets based of consisting complexes, polysemy 2012, encode (Carston Relevance they representations within that schematic is debate more Another but on-going 2013). concepts an full-fledged also encode not is do There adjectives) (2017). Hall decompositional, and or (2012) accounts atomic relevance-theoretic Textor plausibly (for & are paper Allott concepts the hoc) concepts, see in (ad mental presented derived (atomic) argument pragmatically and overall whether words the discussing between to mapping crucial simple not a is is this there Margolis which and review, to a according for here, 1999 Margolis & Laurence they (see with Are shortcomings associated and concepts: is advantages of position of Each nature set else? the own something regarding its or science atomic cognitive prototypes, and definitional, philosophy partly repre- in definitional, debate mentally big a a Further, is 2002). There Sperber & (Wilson (‘lionhood’) have concept lions the only the instance, containing For world. utterance the an things of processing form linguistic lexical the the from resulting form concept ical mental the encoding concept. as mental to form lexical from decisive be to meaning lexical of accounts definitional) (specifically, compositional see 2014). distinction, Stojanovic semantics-pragmatics and the drawing 2013 of McNally examples ways (for other arrive meaning of to communicated discussion hearer truth-evaluable), and the (i.e. for propositional required fully as a seen inference at is pragmatic inference pragmatic requires where that pragmatics, process and a — filled be which to propositions, not have possible underspecified, that of highly range slots a a contain linguistic for concepts: ‘schema’ of of or set output ‘template’ structured propositional semantic fully a the — as form seen logical is in form’, — A involved processing ‘logical inference. a processes into pragmatic different material (ii) linguistic to and the corresponding of decoding as (i) seen comprehension: utterance is pragmatics and tics nisve ncnet,RlvneTer ae h ooinciiu fde- of critique Fodorian the takes Theory Relevance concepts, on view its In seman- linguistic between distinction the framework, relevance-theoretic the In lion uhsal etlcnet tn nrfrnilrltosto relations referential in stand concepts mental stable Such . LION 26 hc ol eacntteto h log- the of constituent a be would which , o ntne h eia form lexical the instance, For 24 LION tnsfrtepoet htaland all that property the for stands lion .L Falkum L. I. sseen is early access For LION 27 . lion in cognitive linguistic approaches (e.g., in (5), repeated below as (41) for recently introduced in philosophy lion information connected with the linguistic 25 : , which may be narrower or broader than the mental files lexical conceptual domain LION : [mental image] in distributional semantic approaches (e.g., Clark 2015 ). Notice, for FRICA COLOURED - A ad hoc concepts information associated with the entity that the concept stands vector spaces IS A LARGE CAT IS TAWNY LIVESIN ISASKILLEDHUNTERIS IS VERY STRONGISCOURAGEOUS ISPERSEVERING LOOKSLIKETHIS Encyclopaedic entry a. b. c. i. . . . etc. d. e. f. g. h. encyclopaedic It also has an affinity Langacker with1987a) the and notions of however, that encyclopaedic entries themselves aremerely not associated part with of them. the encoded meaning of words, but encoded concept and its associatedcontextual encyclopaedic assumptions, information, as together input with to a theabout set inferential the of process speaker-intended of meaning constructing on hypotheses illustration, the consider basis the of metaphorical expectations use ofconvenience. of relevance. As an (41) Peter will no doubt make it to the top. He’s a Relevance Theory sees lexical interpretation asof typically occasion-specific involving the construction linguistically encoded concepts (Carston 2002, , 2010 Wilson & Carston 2006, 2007, out, which may be used in inferences involving the(40) concept: broadly equivalent to the notionand of experimental psychology (Fodor 2008, instance, Recanati an2012, encyclopaedicPerner entry et (or al. might mental2015). plausibly file) associated include with some the of concept the following assumptions about the entity it picks form that encodes the concept (i.e. its phonological and syntacticin properties), a and referential relation to,and that beliefs, is, including a stereotypes setmany and cases, of imagistic culture-specific conceptually and/or represented information, sensory-perceptual assumptions representations and (Sperber also, & in Wilson Count-mass polysemy sented concept is seen askinds an of address information, in including: memory (i) that may give access to different (ii) Wilson & Sperber 2012). Lexical broadening and narrowing involve taking the 1986/1995: 86). The idea that concepts are associated with encyclopaedic entries is 27 8B ovnin dhccnet r akdwt nasterisk. an with marked are concepts hoc ad convention, By 28 early access ilpoieacs osoe nylpei nomto bu t ntne.Suppose instances. its about information encyclopaedic stored to access provide will frcneine orfrt nucmotbyhigh uncomfortably an to refer to convenience, for (42) as here repeated above, (4) out picks which etc.’), persevering, courageous, strong, ‘very as (paraphrasable h igitclyecddmaigo h word the of meaning encoded linguistically The eyhg eprtrs ostsyhsocso-pcfi xettoso relevance. of expectations occasion-specific his satisfy to temperatures, high very EYSTRONG VERY should (41) in utterance the might how information about contextual expectations Himalayas This certain the summer. with in hearer the mountain trip the during passionate climbing provide take a a be to about to colleagues planning known he’s his is told that but just sense has literal who any and in climber, lion a not for manifestly referent is salient contextually most the that Mr a ugyand hungry was Mary (44) (1) (43) in (44): case and the (43) be as would here This repeated encoded. above, linguistically (2) one and the than narrower is that to exposed be not should babies that information contextual the by with accessible combination made assumptions broadened encyclopaedic this concepts context at the the arrive to would that adding hearer items The by other hot. but concept uncomfortably boiling as literally are classified It’s that be room. substances can his only in not sleep out concept baby picking hoc the concept, let ad to communicated best the it’s think Here, I (42) 2007): Carston & Wilson (cf. temperature examples). further for 2006 Carston & Wilson trip (see climbing on of so sort and the planning, about is mountains, push Peter climbing to likely when that being risks the take Peter allows and about and limits instance properties, his for these implications, possess further who draw humans to those speaker as well as lions actual by encoded concept the broaden would hearer that processing be might enough of assumptions low relevance encyclopaedic a the accessible case, at to this contribute implications, In which enough cost). achieve and humans, (i.e. to interpretation equally the applied be can that concept the with associated assumptions encyclopaedic The him. to relevance achieve LION h ucm ftepoeso dhccnetcntuto a lob concept a be also may construction concept hoc ad of process the of outcome The of use hyperbolic the be would broadening lexical of example Another wudb those be would (41) interpreting in context the to added be to likely are that aehdadfcl rtya tuiest.Sedd’ e enough get didn’t She university. at year continue. first difficult a had Jane BOILING , COURAGEOUS and OUTSIDE opened , PERSEVERING (e.g., h grapefruit. the 26 BOILING O O OFE COMFORTABLE FEEL TO HOT TOO Peter lion t.S ntebsso hs the these of basis the on So etc. , lion stesekrsclege who colleague, speaker’s the is * oa dhcconcept hoc ad an to ltssy h concept the say) (let’s , sbodrta h encoded the than broader is boiling outside. IN ARE LIONS .L Falkum L. I. boiling LION units LION ,in ), * to 28 in , early access , which ASWEET , OPEN ) in order to (paraphrasable * On the relevance- (both stereotypical 29 , which appear to involve UNITS OPEN UNIVERSITY HASATHICKSKIN , A similar account can be given concepts. But, as she points out, even 30 OPEN is very general — it may involve a range 27 open Everyone opens things sometimes or in (44), although here the hearer may have to rely GRAPEFRUITISAFRUIT units , etc.), warranting the construction of the ad hoc concept (e.g., . below. John came home from thethe restaurant rabbit with a stomach ache. He blamed it on GRAPEFRUIT (paraphrasable as ‘peeled off the skin’). * . This process of conceptual narrowing would involve adding to the context the rabbit Returning now to count-mass polysemy, my proposal in this paper is that even EDIBLE MEAT INSIDEOPEN capable of being physically opened)also than applies the to supposedly a linguistically-encoded concept rangeThat of is, more if abstract this forms level of ofrelevance. opening specificity (e.g., is conferences, required lectures, to accounts, satisfy etc.). the hearer’s context-specific expectations of It may be that somemunicated instances thought. of(2012:Carston opening 614) simply discusses this remain possibility underspecified, on even the at basis thethe of level communication examples of of such com- very as broadthese and general underspecified concepts seem to be narrower (e.g., by being confined to the opening of concrete objects lexical pragmatic process that yieldsprocess the — occasion-specific of senses ad in hoc(41)-(44). conceptflexibility This construction observed — is in also count-mass responsible polysemy forNP (cf. the Section2). interpretive Consider the use of the (45) lexical pragmatic process, which fine-tunesdifferent the directions communicated (either meanings as of broader wordsconcepts) or in in narrower line than with the the linguistically-encoded hearer’s situation-specific expectations of relevance. these apparently systematic sense alternations arise mainly due to the same sort of of the interpretation of more on assumptions made available byencyclopaedic the information wider associated discourse with context the (inarrive at concept particular, the speaker-intended, narrowed down adas hoc ‘university concept credit modules’). Thethe key point ad hoc-concepts here in is(41)-(44) thatare on all the derived pragmatic as account a result of the operation of a single encyclopaedic information made accessible byand the concept more specific waysconcept of opening), together with information activated by the curtains, one’s mouth, a conference, aof word document, use etc.) is — has and on to mosttheoretic undergo occasions account, some the form occasion-specific of sense contextualof in specification. an(43) results ad from hoc the conceptopen construction which is more specific than the general concept encoded by Count-mass polysemy of different activities (e.g., open a book, a dishwasher, a bottle of wine, a pair of The concept encoded by the verb Whenever I open anything I feel anxious 30 29 32 31 early access h npcfiiyo on ihrsett hi ytci on-asproperties count-mass syntactic their to respect with nouns of unspecificity The h xml losre oilsrt o h lento ewe hs osbecon- possible these between alternation the how illustrate to serves also example The fo)wsbdo o ev,adta hsi htcue onssoahah,wihwudb based be would which ache, stomach John’s caused what is this that and heavy, too or bad was (food) onssoahah) emy sarsl facsigeccoadcinformation encyclopaedic accessing of result a as may, he ache), stomach John’s OETMYLA OASOAHACHE STOMACH A TO LEAD MAY EAT TO CUSTOMERS TO Tepat need plants The a. (47) as But properties. mass or count NP its The to ache. stomach regard a offering with with by unspecified hearer up the ended linguistically for John relevance is why achieve to to describes. likely as is explanation it (45) an entity in the utterance of the properties of part real-world the by to extent constrained (object) some conceptualisation, individuated (stuff) non-individuated an a between and polysemous conceptualisation potentially is noun every that entails eacmoae ntepamtcaccount. pragmatic the on ( accommodated as be such assumptions encyclopaedic other of rabbit set the a that of be activation might the Another on (45). for possibilities interpretive the several of on one depending only vary course will of realised is actually This is potential polysemy this often noun. how or whether so And a. (47). and (46) in (46) polysemy systematic of of construction examples the the in Consider system concepts? pragmatic hoc the ad with interact component conceptualisation linguistic mass this or count the polysemy, count-mass is However, of distinction. cases count-mass canonical syntactic the the in to isomorphic not interpretation. is contextual ceptualisations its prag- determining and in mass, play or to count as role constructive conceptualised a be to had was matics it whether specify to sufficient (e.g., relevance of expectation context-specific his satisfies that (e.g., assumptions contextual concept other hoc with ad together entity, the This, (food) to meat’). non-individuated down a it to narrow referring further as and NP the by communicated concept for reason (the concepts implication the of with kind associated particular a for looking be would hearer the SPOILS TMC ACHE IT STOMACH OF RABBIT MUCH MUCH TOO HAS OFTEN ONE EAT TO DELICIOUS RESTAURANTS AT SERVED igitclyseie yanu’ curnei on rms P o does How NP. mass or count a in occurrence noun’s a by specified linguistically nteeapeaoe h ytci nomto rvddb h Pwsnot was NP the by provided information syntactic the above, example the In , AIGSOLDMA ASSSOAHILLNESS STOMACH CAUSES MEAT SPOILED EATING I hn,Itried I China, In b. he dogs Three * t. and etc.) , ). TTERSARN N SARSL EEDDU IHA WITH UP ENDED HE RESULT A AS AND RESTAURANT THE AT 32 a cosm antoday. lawn my across ran RABBIT , ABTMA SDLCOST EAT TO DELICIOUS IS MEAT RABBIT oewater some dog RESTAURANT o h rttime. first the for (e.g., 28 . ABT R MEAT ARE RABBITS t.,wudwrata implication an warrant would etc.), , (e.g., RABBIT t..Ti nepeieflxblt can flexibility interpretive This etc.). , ETUAT EV FOOD SERVE RESTAURANTS * prprsbea ‘rabbit as (paraphrasable ABT R MEAT ARE RABBITS , AIGTOMUCH TOO HAVING , FSMTIGIS SOMETHING IF ABTMA IS MEAT RABBIT J H T TOO ATE OHN 31 ,cntu the construe ), h second The .L Falkum L. I. h rabbit the , MEAT early access , - - ), or WA {non- **** (46a) a water DOG WATER to share, please? is used in a mass is used in a count , combined with an ***, occurs in an NP with dog ). water a water * (paraphrasable as ‘bot- dog ) the hearer may construct WATER DOG WATER WATER IS DRUNK FROM CON WATER HINA **, , the noun , the noun C , where and the other concepts activated by (46a) (47a) WATER (46b) DOG 29 occurs with count syntax in the NP {non-individuated}, both correspond closely to water WATER (paraphrasable as ‘dog meat’), which would be narrower * . The output of the linguistic processing of the NPs, (let’s , where DOG DOG MEAT IS CONSUMED IN (46b) (47b) [To waiter]: Can we have two hamburgers and {individuated} and ), and other contextual assumptions derivable from the utterance situation, b. DOG {individuated}. The pragmatic system would then construct a narrower ad hoc Similarly, in Second, in the less prototypical use in differing in the directionspecificity that involved: the process of narrowing takes, and the degree of say, from the fact thatserved the bottles speaker of and water. hearer The are communicatedtle at of concept, water’), a would restaurant be whereout narrower guests than a are the subset linguistically-specified of concept, thegiven picking set for the of communicated individual senses entities of of water water. in A the similar count analysis NPs could below, each be of which instruction to construe this concept as picking out individuated entities,concept let’s on say the basis ofinformation this associated procedural with instruction, the highly concept activated encyclopaedic itself (e.g., the utterance (e.g., the ad hoc concept than the output resulting fromkind the of linguistic non-individuated processing entity of that the can NP be (specifying classified any as the output of linguistic processing would be the concept mass syntax, the output ofindividuated}, linguistic includes processing, a (let’s procedural say) instruction the tocept concept the to pragmatic be system constructed that picks theassumptions out con- made non-individuated entities. available by Based the on concept encyclopaedic non-individuated say) representations of prototypical exemplars likelyencyclopaedic to information be associated highly with activated as theretrieval part concepts, of of and the the would speaker-intended allow interpretations for (which,utterance, easy depending may on require the some context further of specification). First let’s consider the prototypical uses.NP In to refer to aNP set of to individual refer dogs, to and amass in syntax non-individuated would entity in of both water.to cases On construct provide the a the present hearer concept account, with that count- a picks procedural out instruction entities that are either individuated Count-mass polysemy TER TAINERS would express a different ad hoc concept ( 36 http://cool.conservation-us.org/jaic/articles/jaic31-03-007_2.html 35 34 http://foodal.com/knowledge/paleo/easy-health-lifestyle-changes/ 33 early access (48) ge htti ih eapsil praht oecsso ytmtcplsm (perhaps polysemy systematic of significant. truth-conditionally cases typically some are to e.g., approach kind, cover possible ‘dot-object’ that catching a appears the simply be to While it relevant might communication). that particularly personal this such (McNally, is place that process taken agree has composition interpretation the I interpretation nominal the of in the output change in the a change that like a looks rather what is cases, noun some in the that, of claim to be might possibility Another down-sludge-advice.html https://www.420magazine.com/forums/indoor-soil-cultivation/243242-seedlings-growth-slowed- ‘portioning’, relevant its to regard with unspecific be might speaker’s communicated be the concept of would content narrowing truth-conditional or the interpretation recover utterance. specification the to pragmatic in order play some in would anyway cases, rule required most lexical the general in a thing if, such of possiblity, role process, sort a what whatever clear is not this to is While related it communication). somehow personal (McNally, is denotes that out countable noun except the source denotations exactly is, count what mass) specifying creates (or without that versa, entity rule vice and lexical specificity. interpretive denotations a of mass imagine sort of this could capture we to instance, required not For default are a claim rules could from lexical account result rule-based the would the that noun of version the weaker of rule-based a However, denotation a operation. the on linguistic in capture change to difficult the are where interpretation account, in nuances of Such context). interpretation that waiter’s (the ‘portioning’ its could water to but individuated regard as with specified unspecific been have remain would speaker communicate the to if intended instance, she is For that above. requested concept (47)-(50) just a in be outlined had would ones processing the pragmatic than of specific output less the that such are context (50) (49) tmyb hti oecssteepcain frlvnerie naparticular a in raised relevance of expectations the cases some in that be may It scmuiaig‘n utbesrigo ae’mgtb eeateog in enough relevant be might water’ of serving suitable ‘any communicating as ‘oto fwater’) of (‘portion nutilzdae nSadnva( )”. . . (. condi- Scandinavia redox in area indicates industrialized areas hatched the for through tions (e) line diagonal “The often how 70’s, both the them in give room I the them? keep water “I I care]: should plant of discussion a for [From soda as one drink substituting don’t of they challenge and that soda water them of gave lot I a so water drink friends much my of most now “Right 36 ,Itiki sulkl owr o on-asplsm hr h es alternations sense the where polysemy count-mass for work to unlikely is it think I ), o ntne nteeapeof example the in instance, For a n hyral ie it.” liked really they and day a eiso waters of series a water a adntone not (and ape rmabaks,sann odi an in pond stagnant brackish, a from sampled 30 oshare to hsbo a nitrsigpo n neye- an and plot interesting an has book This 33 water a n water one ‘rn fwater’) of (‘drink 35 in ) ‘ape fwater’) of (‘samples in (47b) (47b) a hnIwk up.” wake I when day a the , bv,atog the although above, WATER .L Falkum L. I. concept one 34 a early access 37 should be easy Rabbit , then I’m done. (‘levels of in your home to reach minimal levels, may be removed more quickly by using cat cat the waters on my hands? (‘particles’) in the following passage from an article entitled 31 cat cat at the tasting. (‘varietals’) was used to heal wounds. (‘bark’) three wines birch is antiseptic for the respiratory tract and it treats pneumonia, asthma, to recognize. (‘faeces’) Pine and other respiratory ailments. [Before going home from work,usual the aquarium closing employees routine, go through whichcorrect their includes water checking levels]: Employee thatEmployee A: the B: Have pools I you have just gone the need through to everything? check [Biology teacher]: Now take a look at these samples. water’) There are several advantages to a pragmatic account of count-mass polysemy (56) most effective way to avoid cats is to get ridsince of cat them, allergen but degrades even that slowlya over isn’t time. 100 damp Fortunately, percent. mop, If and wet you vacuum removed carpet cleaner.” (53) In the old days, (55) Jane was offered Consider also similar non-individuated uses of (54) flexibility that is missing in rule-based accounts. For instance, allinformation of provided the at examples the in level ofconcepts NPs to specifies be the constructed, count combined oron with mass the a basis properties process of of of the the ad encodedassumptions hoc concept, and associated concept situation-specific encyclopaedic construction expectations knowledge, of contextual relevance: (51) Will a hamster bite if it smells the utterance or the widerdistinguish discourse from context, a this lexical would pragmatic make process. the rule difficult to compared with a standard rule-based account. First, it provides the interpretive operation of such a lexicalthe rule presence in or a absence given context. of Ifthe determiners), it count the is or rule the would mass structure arguably relevant information be of redundant, is the since already NP (say, provided by the construction itself. (52) Count-mass polysemy its denotation would haveenough, to etc., so be some restricted pragmatic to narrowing would water arguably still that’s be drinkable, required. clean, Had the cold your cat today, it would take six months for the level of (51)-(56) (repeated from (24)-(29) above) could be analysed as cases where linguistic And if the trigger is supposed to be some conceptual representation(s) activated by waiter returned with a glasswhat of the dirty speaker water intended he to could order. not Moreover, be it said is to not have clear understood what would trigger the “Cat Allergy” written by a medical doctor on his blog): (http://www.changingspots.net “By far the 37 early access above, (47) and (46) in cases ‘systematic’ standard the and hand, one the on (51)-(56) concept the of narrowing pragmatic via at arrived be would (56) (57b) hs nierl-ae cons tgvsauie con ftedt.Consider data. the of account unified a gives it accounts, rule-based unlike Thus, lrsr fctsufta ean noeshnsatrptigact ol eformed be would the cat, by a activated petting assumptions after concept encyclopaedic hands one’s taking on narrowing, remains pragmatic that through stuff concept would cat hoc that of ad entity sort communicated non-individuated ular the any to stuff’, refer ‘cat to as used count be could (51) of processing the that assuming instance, For hn trmisfravctso uebsdacut oepanwa ae h rules the makes what explain to I accounts this, rule-based Given of both. advocates for single for senses a remains appropriate it with the think parsimonious yield more can theoretically that be mechanism is would pragmatic asymmetry it interpretive but This possible, noun. course the of of denotation individuated the adjusting ordered ‘John this e.g., (though context, meat in different its sense a of in portion turkey interpretation individual a accessible an an not be roasted, might being is that animal in to instance, hearer For the implications. in lead reference would in individuated reference syntax non-individuated an count-mass a with the concept that a construct being difference concept, linguistically-specified main the the of (narrowing) adjustment of pragmatic senses of meat result the account, present preparing the is On John a. (57) (57). others. in pair than the processing also pragmatic more require may some although other, the between on difference interpretive the no on be would, principle there cases, in these here, explain proposed to account pragmatics pragmatic to appeal also may concept accounts hoc ad the of struction encyclopaedic the of by activated basis (e.g., assumptions the situation contextual utterance on and concept which this water), by of activated information entities individual out picking to NP the by communicated concept the Similarly, process. inferential HC H AE EESI H IFRN POOLS DIFFERENT THE IN LEVELS WATER THE CHECK ANIMALS OTHER BY DETECTED BE MAY PARTICLES CAT ol aet edrvdvasm rgai ehns hti aal of capable is that mechanism pragmatic some via derived be to have would CAT Jh spreparing is John b. (57a) n ayordered Mary and (e.g. ol edrvdvaarl fma-rnig u h etsnein sense meat the but meat-grinding, of rule a via derived be would ETN A A EV A ATCE NONE ON PARTICLES CAT LEAVE MAY CAT A PETTING AL AKO H CURU MLYEI TO IS EMPLOYEE ACQUARIUM THE OF TASK DAILY A pasta a (57b) (57b) turkey a turkey WATER CAT hc a iers odfeetcontextual different to rise give may which , ) nsadr uebsdacut,temeat the accounts, rule-based standard On ’). nipiainmgtb hti stewhole the is it that be might implication an , ocp osre sarsl ftelinguistic the of result a as construed concept . ***** . 32 turkey ‘eeso ae’.Wierule-based While water’). of (‘levels wudbt edrvda a as derived be both would (57) in CAT (57a) ,wudeal h con- the enable would ), * ikn u h partic- the out picking , t. siptt the to input as etc.) , WATER n ocp with concept a and h waters the (constrained ’ .L Falkum L. I. HANDS S in , early access 33 would, given the universal grinder and the rules of Finally, overgeneration should be less of a problem on the pragmatic account, that count-mass syntax, being a property of NPs rather than of individual nouns, In the pragmatic account thatrole I in have proposed, the count-mass hearer’s derivation syntax of plays speaker-intended an senses, important and in giving rise to the to capture this fact. Inpragmatic this final account section, that I I discussthe how have standard this just can arguments outlined. be underlying reflected Thisdiscussed rule-based on in accounts includes the Section2. of a count-mass re-consideration polysemy of 4.1 The contribution of the linguistic component presented in this paper isa that case-by-case specific interpretive basis, predictions taking can theof only wider relevance be context into made and account. on situation-specific Theare general expectations derived prediction, in however, accordance is with that hearers’ interpretations situation-specific expectations of relevance. and productive to some important extent, and postulating lexical rules is one way for more interpretive flexibility than isreason, acknowledged I by have existing argued accounts. thatto For the this phenomenon the should workings be of explained theobserved. mainly pragmatic by While system, reference one which might canpredictive power accommodate see (in the the favour flexibility of abandonment descriptive accuracy), of the view lexical underlying rules the account as sacrificing guided by expectations of relevance, theintended hearer meaning. forms a hypothesis about the speaker- 4 Discussion: The rule-based arguments revisited animal meat-grinding and animal fur-grinding,not be three-ways clear ambiguous how and hearers it determineambiguity is when does one arguably rule not has arise prevalenceinterpretation over on the of the others. the pragmatic This account, noun where isseveral the arrived sources at appropriate — through linguistic, consideration encyclopaedic, of situation-specific information — from and on this basis, relevance will be computed (i.e.enough those processing that cost). achieve Recall enough that implications, on at the a rule-based account, low an utterance such as Count-mass polysemy necessary, and what is to belexical rules) gained and by others deriving some in a interpretations distinct in way one (via way pragmatics). (via The main proposal of this paper has been that cases of count-mass polysemy allow Rabbit is expensive these days At the same time, the fact remains that count-mass polysemy appears systematic where only interpretations that are consistent with the hearer’s expectations of ‘systematic’ patterns of polysemy observed. More specifically, the proposal was early access hswudb oee fte ol esont epr four of part be to shown be could they if even so be would this — 2002) Lepore & ecniuul rwo hi ai,mgtcuerpeettoso hmt become to them of representations inferences cause the might and basis, lives their daily on our draw in regularities continuously real-world we such to exposed are we a iers to rise give may 3.1) Section in discussion the see exceptions, be may there (though eibywt itnto ewe niiutdadnnidvdae denotations non-individuated paired and individuated being between distinction distinction count-mass a the with about process. reliably knowledge broadening) linguistic (or our narrowing the way, conceptual this of conse- the In use has of by turn outcomes possible in to for which referred — quences respectively entity non-individuated, the vs. utterance on individuated of — constraint process NP inferential a the imposing in by hearer the comprehension, guides which procedure a encodes o ntne facsiga nmlcnetcue h eainbtenteanimal the between relation the causes polysemy. concept count-mass animal in an observe accessing we if partly that instance, be systematicity For could of and sense communication, the is in for This exploit responsible accessed. might is users concepts language constituent that their something of one when activated immediately which with frequency the that suggested I above, 2.2 Fodor Section (cf. In world system. real linguistic the in affairs of states regular between highly associations reflect predictable count-mass etc.) and of food-portion, cases tree-wood, standard animal-meat, the (e.g., in polysemy involved relations sense the that controversial come it does where systematicity’, ‘pragmatic of systematicity? sort of some sense with this from? of do as source to rules, the have lexical is we productive what of If paper, existence this the of throughout from members argued stem new have not I to does productively it extended if be But can category. referents and that category whose specific nouns target a reliably to belong which polysemy, the count-mass in of involved cases systematicity interpretive standard considerable doubt no is there Nevertheless, systematicity? Pragmatic 4.2 others. than work their pragmatic for more provided evidence require linguistic would the some ‘systematic’ concerns though more as interpretations, the paper and this these in discussed as cases such cases creative food between not difference baby, principled is stomach her illustrated on as as interpretations, such context-dependent by examples creativity of pragmatic variety by lexical a for for way basis syntactic the the the paving providing alternations, as sense seen is stored distinction linguistically count-mass of set than process restricted rather inferential a Moreover, pragmatic meanings. indicating many the speaker-intended of in about one on hypotheses but draws constructing is hearer of syntax the count-mass that argued, information have of I sources as But, systematicity. of sense a is,wehro o n uprsapamtcapoc tsesqieun- quite seems it approach pragmatic a supports one not or whether First, oeoe n iem oemr bench more some me give and over Move ntepamtcacut hr ol eno be would there account, pragmatic the On . 34 or h xr bulk extra The .L Falkum L. I. early access ), TURKEY TURKEYS ARE MEAT ’, etc., and the intended ‘dwelling’ ’, a hole in the flower bed and say 38 mole deer 35 by some authors) as a result of frequency of use (Geis & ’, a heap of earth on the lawn and say ‘That’s fossilisation rabbit Second, particular senses may stabilise or become conventional (a process also One example may be acould discussion of point what to types a of certain animals type live in of the dropping speaker’s garden,interpretations and would where say be she ‘That’s highly accessible toexample the also hearer. illustrates (I the thank Deirdre close Wilsonby affinity for many between the authors systematic example.) (see polysemy The e.g., andApresjan metonymy, as1974 observed and Dölling ). forthcoming increase the accessibility of certainprocessing interpretations, thereby effort. saving However, hearers’ having overall athere pragmatic is basis, strong contextual they information will making be another suppressed interpretation if more accessible conventional over time for individual speakersresult or of within frequent a adjustment language of community the as lexical a meaning of aad word hoc in concept a may specific become direction a progressively ‘pragmatic more routine’ automatised (Vega-Moreno and2007), attain whosea the presence sense status would of of also interpretive give systematicity. rise Such to automated pragmatic inferences would termed Zwicky 1971, Traugott & Dasher 2002 , linguists, Blutner the2007, main2010). driving According force tospeaker-hearer in historical interactions semantic and change communicative is strategies pragmatics; (TraugottEckardt it &2006). is Dasher What motivated2002, may by start out as an ad hoc concept may become stabilised or could be due to considerationserally of highly relevance. relevant Knowing given that our something lifestyles,activated is and upon meat this processing is knowledge gen- an might animalaccessible be noun, to immediately making the the hearer. However, meat-interpretation activatingmay easily knowledge require about some an additional animal’s contextual dwelling information. seems redundant. From a relevance-theoretic point of view, such immediately acti- by contributing to cognitive efficiency and saving hearers’ overall processing effort. nouns, but not so frequently between ‘animal’ and ‘dwelling’ (cf. Murphy 1997), this should also make theoccurs meat with sense mass highly syntax accessible in whenever theactivated the independently animal appropriate of noun context. whether However, the the relation noun examples might(45) occursand be with(57) countabove). or If massaccessible representations syntax bits of (cf. of such general relations world are knowledge, already their highly inclusion as part of the grammar Count-mass polysemy and its meat to becomeimmediately immediately available activates (e.g., the accessing encyclopaedic the assumption concept that vated bits of encyclopaedic knowledge might be useful in utterance comprehension, That we typically find an alternation between ‘animal’ and ‘meat’ senses of animal (and relevant). (Wilson & Carston 2007). In such a case, the inferential process of constructing an ‘That’s 38 39 early access bok’rl plcto.Oewyt drs hs ae ntecretpragmatic current the on cases these address to way One application. rule ‘blocks’ aoe pae iiga optimal at aiming speaker A above. 3.2 Section in discussed 270), 1986/1995: od,terlto ewe h nmladtema esso hsepeso may expression this of senses meat the and animal the between relation the words, ol o aebe civdb s famr ietutrne nti approach, this On utterance. direct more a of use by achieved been have not would effort gratuitous or unjustifiable any hearer the causing avoid and processing, worth o leepandaa salpeo h ato h pae) nohrwrs the words, other In speaker). the of part the on lapse a as away explained else (or hspamtcacuto h ytmtct adpsil eatccag that change semantic possible (and systematicity the of account pragmatic This fison n ieacs oisonsto nylpei assumptions. encyclopaedic of address set conceptual own a its to acquired access have give may and it own, its that a of extent such noun the of the to example of conventional occurrence An with seems mass 2006). the associated Eckardt be meaning 2002, may conventional change Dasher the semantic cases, & of some (Traugott part in item finally, as lexical and reanalysed the derived, be concepts to hoc come ad they the of stabilisation further to eetpooa htsbtniewrsecd pleycmlxs is complexes’ ‘polsemy encode words more substantive that a proposal relevant. above, recent highly yielding 2.3 (2016) Carston’s by Section case instance this in for In acceptable, discussed use I same as effects the cognitive But, make different) might them. (or context extra from informative any derive by may offset he not is that hearer the of require they ? tree as such effects examples cognitive why different) reason (or extra of derivation the in result should question, in (e.g., (e.g., form alternative non-lexicalised a which of effects, any use different) the by (or extra demanded by effort offset extra be the should utterance consequence, an a in utterance As indirectness her effects. make those achieving to in effects Wilson cognitive & enough (Sperber achieve relevance to optimal try of should relevance notion the to reference by is account (e.g., forms lexicalised of accounts existence rule-based the by where described cases phenomenon, as blocking so-called the now Consider blocking? Pragmatic 4.3 the standard on than perspective diachronic picture a fuller and a synchronic phenomenon. gives a integrating polysemy by count-mass accounts of rule-based it) from result may frequent of of sense result a mass as general place the taken has of present reanalysis narrowing the this On pragmatic that extension. be sense would than claim rather the account, ambiguity of one into developed have rqetatvto fpamtcruie nlxclitrrtto ih lead might interpretation lexical in routines pragmatic of activation Frequent on d sta,wtotamr pcfi otx,teetapoesn effort processing extra the context, specific more a without that, is odd sound beef hc paeswudcnetoal s orfrt h entity the to refer to use conventionally would speakers which ) onlkst a cow eat to likes John cow 36 ncssweeteeeit lexicalised a exists there where cases in ) chicken r? or veal chicken hscari aeotof out made is chair This , naseicdirection. specific a in beef hs meat-sense whose , , wood 39 .L Falkum L. I. n oon) so and nother In early access cow RABBIT (cf. (33) above) , and so on). The ) Sam enjoyed the rabbit wood . Although this use might . (? beef tree 37 Hindus are forbidden to eat cow RABBIT MEAT IS DELICIOUS TO EAT , Overall, households that display treeshouseholds made that out display of trees plastic made now outnumber out of RABBITS ARE MEAT Similarly, in an example such as as a stereotypical event (at least in certain parts of the world) which could be stored from immediately activated real-world knowledge activated by the concept processing of this utterance ininstance an of ‘out hearers of favouring the the blue’ least context effort-consuming could conceivable then interpretation be seen as an same time, there is notin much claiming doubt that that advocates certain of interpretationsuninformative rule-based come contexts. approaches As more are we readily right have to seen, mind an than utterance others of in the absence of any specificinterpretation contextual could, constraints. But rather the than ‘default’ arising character from of the this operation of a lexical rule, stem fact that hearers rarely come toare the not interpretation process understood ‘empty-handed’; utterances inproposed here, a a vacuum. crucial task Ona for the the set relevance-theoretic hearer of in pragmatic contextual utterancethis assumptions account comprehension also against is happens to which when choose the the utterance utterance occurs is in to an ‘out be of understood; the blue’ context. At the tendencies in uninformative contexts —been so-called taken ‘default’ to interpretations — provide has analysis. a For instance, strongAsher(2011: 93) argumentsay writes, against “[p]ragmatic anything the approaches relevant . possibility about . . failHowever, . of as . to . a I cases also pragmatic of argued coercion in this . . section, . in this claim out considerably of underestimates the the blue contexts”. described as a form oflinguistic ‘pragmatic constraint blocking’ (see rather than also blockingClark in & the Clark sense1979 ofon a this issue). 4.4 The availability of ‘default’ sensesFinally, reconsidered I discussed in Section 2.4 above how the existence of clear interpretive instead of the more conventional,demand lexicalised an form extra (but possiblyhearer relatively minor) to effort draw of implications processing, about it the allows status the of thethe cow lexicalised in form. Hindu In religion, which this way, the phenomenon could be more appropriately there is sufficient contextual information to license the use of the derived form Count-mass polysemy different cognitive effects than would aas use in of(58) the(repeated corresponding from conventional(34) form above): (58) (e.g., (Sperber & Wilson 1986/1995: 185). Also, a person eating rabbit may be regarded would probably most often be interpreted as ‘Sam enjoyed eating the rabbit-meat’ in would not have been achieved as easily by use of the alternative utterance containing early access ihu en omte oteve htteeaewol igitclygnrtdby generated linguistically wholly are these that view the to committed being without hspprhsage htteitrrtv eiiiyta sosre nlexical in observed is that flexibility interpretive the that argued has paper This rvd nacuto h eti nepeain r fe aordoe others over favoured often are interpretations can certain here why proposed approach of pragmatic account the an way, more this provide be In hence terms. and rabbit- processing information with in of playing costly units or several rabbit-fur, accessing the involve wearing would e.g., the-animal, enjoyed, interpretation Sam an which deriving to whereas effort, according processing of little interpretation information. require the of would during unit utterance single memory the encyclopaedic a as from accessed information and this chunk Retrieving a as memory encyclopaedic in la,Kih 90 on n countability. and Nouns 1980. Keith. Allan, References concept task. hoc promising this ad a for as of candidate framework, process relevance-theoretic pragmatic the lexical rule- within the that developed proposed work construction, constraint interpretive have procedural the I a of referents, as part NP syntax the to on count-mass do able Treating to is adequately. able that do be mechanism accounts also pragmatic based should single it a ‘default’ work, is overriding this there do if and clearly that was argued noun, have interpretation a I ‘non-default’ intended. another of a where senses contexts on mass in speaker of interpretations and the cases context-dependent by count most intended between the was handling alternation that both involves interpretation This the occasion. finding given in do to system pragmatic words. of individual application of the level from the arising at as rule-based processes meaning by in acknowledged alternations usually the is and the leaving than theories, argued, as output analysed semantic is be underspecified it should more Therefore, syntax a polysemy. count-mass by count-mass provided of there) component cited cases linguistic references many and to (1)-(5) applies in examples also the (cf. generally quite interpretation Conclusion 5 knowledge encyclopaedic of organisation result concepts. a or with as type associated 2016), the (Kolkmann in hearers differences between individual interpretations diverge ‘default’ of may that utterance predicts also same It the 2014). of Wilson & Kolaiti also (see default //doi.org/10.2307/414449. oet aesonta uebsdacut ev uhwr o h pragmatic the for work much leave accounts rule-based that shown have to hope I 38 Language https: 541–567. 56(3). .L Falkum L. I. early access 26. , 67–89. Current Di- . Cambridge: 4(2). 185–208. 14(2). 5–32. 15(2). 115–162. . Cambridge, Mas- Pragmatics . Oxford: Blackwell. Language, Logic and Linguistische Berichte Journal of Semantics Linguistics , 285–310. Cambridge, Mas- . Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- 97(1). 41–66. https://doi.org/https: Journal of Semantics Logics of Conversation 2(3). 163–194. https://doi.org/https: 92(1-4). 297–329. https://doi.org/https: 39 5(3). 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467- Cognition Lingua 56. 1–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/ International Review of Pragmatics Semantic Constraints on Relevance Lexical Meaning in Context Word Formation in Generative Grammar Cognition ture/implicature distinction. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), . https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/15.2.115 sachusetts: MIT Press. collective nouns. 0010-0277(94)00648-5. rections in Psychological Science 8721.ep10772823. In Ray Jackendoff, Paul Bloom & Karen Wynn (eds.), the acquisition of nominals. 217–252. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffp003 Evidence that mass nouns count. syntax: Individuation, lexical content, and the number asymmetry hypothesis. Cambridge University Press. comparatives to explore the mass/count distinction. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00040204. sachusetts: The MIT Press. nature of ad hoc concepts. versity Press. //doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)90345-X. Language Learning and. //doi.org/10.1207/s15473341lld0203_2 Development . //doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.06.009 Concepts: Essays in Memory of John Macnamara 10. 27–58. Blutner, Reinhard. 1998. Lexical pragmatics. Blutner, Reinhard. 2002. Lexical semantics and pragmatics. Blutner, Reinhard. 2007. Opimality theoretic pragmatics and the explica- Bloom, Paul & Deborah Kelemen. 1995. Syntactic cues in the acquisition of Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Bloom, Paul. 1996. Possible individuals in language and cognition. Bloom, Paul. 1999. The role of semantics in solving the bootstrapping problem. Bloom, Paul. 1994. Possible names: The role of syntax-semantics mappings in Barner, David & Jesse Snedeker. 2005. Quantity judgments and individuation: Barner, David & Jesse Snedeker. 2006. Children’s early understanding of mass-count Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2003. Bale, Alan C. & David Barner. 2009. The interpretation of functional heads: Using Apresjan, Iurii Derenikovich. 1974. RegularAronoff, polysemy. Mark. 1976. Asher, Nicholas. 2011. Count-mass polysemy Allott, Nicholas & Mark Textor. 2012. Lexical pragmatic adjustment and the early access oea em,SbsinPd ao t.21.Rglrplsm:Adistribu- A polysemy: Regular 2012. Utt. Jason & Padó Sebastian Gemma, Boleda, prag- optimality-theoretic of aspects experimental Some 2010. Reinhard. Blutner, aso,Rbn 00 xlctcmuiainad’re rgai nihet In enrichment. pragmatic ’free’ and communication Explicit 2010. Robyn. Carston, 2002. Robyn. in Carston, processes Complementary loosening: and Enrichment 1997. Robyn. Carston, semantics. truth-theoretic and explicature, Implicature, 1988. Robyn. Carston, 1985. C. Harry Bunt, Saint- Patrick In Blocking. 1995. Lascarides. Alex & Copestake Ann Ted, Briscoe, In indexicality. predicate and polysemy Productivity, 2007. Peter. Bosch, In concepts. contextual and Meanings 1994. Peter. Bosch, & Ballmer T. Thomas In context-dependence. is "Vagueness" 1983. Peter. Bosch, 2003. Kaja. Borthen, 2005. Hagit. Borer, oue1 rceig fteMi ofrneadteSae ak and Task, Shared the and Conference Main the of Proceedings 1: Volume - pi 1994 April Evalua- Semantic on Workshop International Sixth the of Proceedings 2: Volume nweg:Ppr rmaJitWrso fteMxPakArbeitsgruppe Plank Max the of Workshop Joint a from Papers Knowledge: Pragmatics agaeadReality and Language eatc-rgaisInterface Semantics-Pragmatics nentoa biiSmoimo agae oi n Computation and Logic Language, on Symposium Tblisi International inlmdl In model. tional (eds.), Bibok Károli & Németh Enikö In matics. Palgrave. London: eé oi shrRmr (eds.), Romero Esther & Soria Belén munication expressed. proposition the deriving (ed.), Kempson M. Ruth In Press. University Cambridge CBO9780511527227.018. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/ Press. University Cambridge (eds.), Cambridge: Viegas Evelyn & Dizier Springer. Berlin: 71. Vol. 21-23 340, Linguistics, and Logic for Institute IBM the and Grammatik" "Strukturelle Series. Linguistic Holland (eds.), Pinkal Manfred http://hdl.handle.net/11250/242756. dissertation. Technology and http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2387636.2387663. Linguistics. tion eEa 1,1110 todbr,P:AscainfrComputational for Association PA: Stroudsburg, 151–160. ’12, SemEval üign&Bri:Abisaie e Sonderforschungsbereichs des Arbeitspapirer Berlin: & Tübingen , xod lcwl Publishers. Blackwell Oxford: . 1–8.Bsnsoe agaeMacmillan. Palgrave Basingstoke: 217–286. , is on ofrneo eia n opttoa Semantics Computational and Lexical on Conference Joint First nNm Only Name In owga aeSingulars Bare Norwegian asTrsadMdlTertcSemantics Model-Theoretic and Terms Mass huhsadUtrne:TePamtc fEpii Com- Explicit of Pragmatics The Utterances: and Thoughts 5–8.Cmrde abig nvriyPress. University Cambridge Cambridge: 155–181. , prahn Vagueness Approaching etlRpeettos h nefc between Interface The Representations: Mental xod xodUiest Press. University Oxford Oxford: . 6–0.Bri:d Gryuter. de Berlin: 161–204. , opttoa eia Semantics Lexical Computational igitsh Berichte Linguistische 40 xlctCmuiain oy Carston’s Robyn Communication: Explicit owga nvriyo Science of University Norwegian : 8–1.Asedm North Amsterdam: 189–210. , h oeo aaa the at Data of Role The eatcadConceptual and Semantic .103–127. 8. Cambridge: . 273–302. , .L Falkum L. I. 58–71. , Sixth early access , 175-176. Language The Black- Natural Lan- Lingua , 493–522. Chich- Lexical Semantics The Linguistic Review 6(10). 635–653. https://doi.org/10. What is Said and What is Not. The Seman- 41 , Oxford: Blackwell. 12(1). 15–67. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ , 175–204. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 120(4). 984–1009. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/ . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into 6(4). 339–405. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1023/A: Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory Lingua Language and Linguistics Compass Journal of Semantics survey. and meaning. j.lingua.2009.06.002. Lisa Matthewson, Cécile Meier &well Thomas Companion Ede to Zimmermann Semantics (eds.), and Knowledge Representation. Proceedings of the First SIGLEX Workshop sion. jos/12.1.15. Fashioned Lexical Semantics? IWCS 2013butional Workshop: Semantics. Towards a. http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-0602 Formal Distri- framework. In James Pustejovsky & Sabine Bergler (eds.), 55(4). 767–811. . https://doi.org/10.2307/412745 Chris Fox (eds.), ester, UK: John Wiley &ch16. Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139. ms. guage Semantics Penco & Filippo Domaneschi (eds.), tics/Pragmatics Interface 29(4). 607–623. https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0022. Semantic Reanalysis 1002/lnco.362. 101–119. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 1008324218506. 154–166. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.12.010 Espinal, M. Teresa. 2010. Bare nominals in Catalan and Spanish. Their structure Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Erk, Katrin. 2012. Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: A Copestake, Ann & Ted Briscoe. 1995. Semi-productive polysemy and sense exten- Dölling, Johannes. forthcoming. Systematic polysemy. In Hotze Rullmann Copestake, Ann. 2015. Can distributional approaches improve onCopestake, Good Ann Old- & Ted Briscoe. 1992. Lexical operations in a unification-based Clark, Eve V. & Herbert H. Clark. 1979. When nounsClark, surface as Stephen. verbs. 2015. Vector space models of lexical meaning. In Shalom Lappin & Carston, Robyn. forthcoming. Polysemy, pragmatics and the lexicon. Unpublished Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across language. Carston, Robyn. 2013. Word meaning, what is said and explicature.Carston, Robyn. 2016. In The Carlo heterogeneity of procedural meaning. Count-mass polysemy Carston, Robyn. 2012. Word meaning and concept expressed. early access rm,Sot 2012. Scott. Grimm, 1998. A. Jerry Fodor, In controversy. innateness the of status present The 1981. A. Jerry Fodor, 2011. Lossius. Ingrid Falkum, mi usm er ete.19.Acoslnusi td feryword early of study cross-linguistic A 1997. Gentner. Dedre & Mutsumi Imai, 1993/2003. Traugott. C. Elizabeth & J. Paul Hopper, Monitoring 2015. Geeraerts. Dirk & Speelman Dirk Wielfaert, Thomas Kris, Heylen, Ilse In concepts. hoc ad and explicature pragmatics, Lexical 2017. Alison. enrichment. Hall, pragmatic and ellipsis, utterances, Subsentential 2009. Alison. Hall, nouns. mass and count english of semantics lexical The 1999. S. and Brendan Gillon, count English for semantics common a Towards 1992. S. Brendan Gillon, 1994. inferences. W. invited Raymond On Gibbs, 1971. Zwicky. M. Arnold & L. Michael Geis, and Portioning meaning: word up Carving 2005. Frazier. Lyn & Steven Frisson, 2002. Lepore. Ernie & A. Jerry Fodor, 2008. A. Jerry Fodor, eeac-hoei Account Relevance-Theoretic rgais&Cognition & Pragmatics Lingua . //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0952-1_2 //doi.org/10.1007/BF00628112. //doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2005.03.004. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- Springer. Berlin: 85–100. 11, vol. Technology Language and Speech Inquiry xodUiest Press. University Oxford Press. MIT Science The Cognitive Massachusetts: of Foundations Cambridge, the on Essays Philosophical tations: enn:Uieslotlg n igitcinfluence. linguistic and ontology Universal meaning: Press. University Cambridge bridge: analysis. 001. semantic lexical large-scale for tool a as models space Word polysemy: . 319-32247-6_6 (eds.), Salkie Raphael & Depraetere (ed.), Viegas Evelyne In nouns. mass Press. grinding. Press. Clarendon Press. University https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.12. 153–172. 157. () 561–566. 2(4). ora fMmr n Language and Memory of Journal igitc n Philosophy and Linguistics ubradIndividuation and Number o2 h agaeo huh Revisited Thought of Language The Lot2: ocps hr ontv cec etWrong Went Science Cognitive Where Concepts: h otc fMind of Poetics The https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.02hal . 222–250. 17(2). h rat n et fSmni eios Text, Lexicons. Semantic of Depth and Breadth The nvriyCleeLno dissertation. London College University : h eatc n rgaiso oyey A Polysemy: of Pragmatics and Semantics The https: Springer. Dordrecht: 19–37. 10, vol. , eatc n rgais rwn Line a Drawing Pragmatics: and Semantics 42 h opstoaiyPapers Compositionality The https://doi.org/https: 597–639. 15(6). abig:CmrdeUniversity Cambridge Cambridge: . tnodUiest dissertation. University Stanford : https://doi.org/https: 277–291. 53. Grammaticalization Cognition xod Oxford Oxford: . 2 169–200. 62. .L Falkum L. I. Linguistic Oxford: . 257–316. , Oxford: . Represen- Cam- . , early access , 3–81. , 1–25. Journal Journal of 81(1-3). 205–223. . Harmondsworth: 63(1). 53–94. https: 22. 99–132. 6(2). 211–239. https://doi. The Conceptual Mind. New Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Language goes a long way: Evidence for a Concepts: Core Readings interpretation? Considerations from , 319–335. Cambridge: Cambridge Brain and Language A little 43 default . Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Linguistische Berichte Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: . Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Semantics: The Study of Meaning 4(3). 285–297. . https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1227 18(2). 315–338. . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900011089 International Review of Pragmatics 34. 387–414. 174(1). 79–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009- Computational Lexical Semantics Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honour of Sir John Lyons Separating the chaff from the oats: Evidence for a conceptual distinction between perceptual basis of learning for the noun categories Count and Mass. of Linguistics Eric Margolis & StephenCambridge, Massachusetts: Laurence The (eds.), MIT Press. Penguin. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2001.2518 org/10.1163/18773109-00602002. English attributive possession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and polysemy in the mental lexicon. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00784-6. 9685-7. University Press. Synthese . //doi.org/10.2307/415384 Cognitive Science Child Language Conversational Implicature (ed.), (eds.), Directions in the Study of Concepts An overview. Theoretical Prerequisites McPherson, Leslie Maggie Perrin. 1991. Middleton, Erica L., Edward J. Wisniewski, Kelly A. Trindel & Mutsumi Imai. 2004. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Margolis, Eric & Stephen Laurence (eds.). 2015. McNally, Louise. 2013. Semantics and pragmatics. Laurence, Stephen & Eric Margolis. 1999. Concepts and cognitive science.Leech, In Geoffrey N. 1981. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987a. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987b. Nouns and verbs. Lascarides, Alex & Ann Copestake. 1998. Pragmatics and word meaning. Kolaiti, Patricia & Deirdre Wilson. 2014. Corpus analysis and lexical pragmatics: Kolkmann, Julia. 2016. What makes a Kilgarriff, Adam & Gerald Gazdar. 1995. Polysemous relations. In Frank Palmer Klepousniotou, Ekaterini. 2002. The processing of lexical ambiguity: Homonymy Kilgarriff, Adam. 1995. Inheriting polysemy. In Patrick St. Dizier & Evelyne Viegas Count-mass polysemy Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2010. Color, context, and compositionality. early access upy rgr .19.Plsm n h raino oe odmaig.In meanings. word novel of creation the and Polysemy 1997. L. Gregory Murphy, lexicon. English the and distinction count/mass The 1984. Salikoko. Mufwene, enr oe,McalHee ra eh.21.Mna lsadble:A belief: and files Mental 2015. Leahy. Brian & Huemer Michael Josef, Perner, M. Dov In expressions. Mass 2003. Schubert. K. Lenhart & Jeffry Francis Pelletier, + both are nouns Lexical 2012. preliminaries. Jeffry. Francis Some Pelletier, reference: Non-singular 1975. Jeffry. Francis Pelletier, and Individuation thought: and language between Relations 2005. Anna. Papafragou, linguistic Some shift: meaning Predictable 1992. Atkins. T. Beryl & Nicholas Ostler, and lexicology in polysemy Systematic 1992. Zaenen. Annie & Geoffrey Nunberg, pragmatics: experimental of how and why The 2007. Sperber. Dan & A. Ira Noveck, 2002. L. Gregory Murphy, cosLanguages Across Processes and Structures Conceptual of Investigation An . 4110-5_1 oe nCmue,Sine(etr oe nAtfiilIntelligence) Artificial in Notes (Lecture Science Computer, in Notes (eds.), h I Press. MIT The (eds.), Vaid Jyotsna & Smith M. Steven Ward, B. Thomas Philosophia . //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044612-7/50066-4 0–2.Ciao hcg igitc Society. (eds.), Linguistics Chicago Mishra Chicago: Veena 200–221. & Testen David In https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.02.005 . aggregates.371–394. nouns mass and noun count ontv hoyo o hlrnrpeetble n t intensionality. its and belief represent children how of theory cognitive . 017-4524-6_6 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94- Springer. Dordrecht: 249–335. (eds.), Guenthner Franz & Gabbay + neither are they (eds.), Science Lefebre Cognitive Claire in & Categorization Cohen of Henri In distinction. count/mass the . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/3- 540-55801-2_29 Springer. Heidelberg: & Berlin 87–100. Bergler Sabine & Pustejovsky James In rules. implication lexical of properties YIiopisto. Tampereen Finland: In lexicography. 018. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370. (ed.), Macmillan. Burton-Roberts Palgrave Noel london: In 212. inferences’. ’scalar of case the Association. Psychological American DC: eia eatc n nweg ersnain ILX19.Lecture 1991. SIGLEX Representation. Knowledge and Semantics Lexical https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020- 451–465. 5(4). MASS –6 xod xodUiest Press. University Oxford Oxford: 9–26. , t UAE nentoa Congress International EURALEX 5th h i oko Concepts of Book Big The o + nor COUNT adoko hlspia Logic Philosophical of Handbook 44 nDaeMsa (ed.), Massam Diane In . https: Elsevier. Amsterdam: 256–277. , ora fMmr n Language and Memory of Journal aaeso nLxclSemantics Lexical on Parasession abig,Massachusetts: Cambridge, . MASS 3–6.Washington 235–265. , 8–9.Tampere, 386–396. , raieThought: Creative n + and Pragmatics on n Mass and Count COUNT Handbook .L Falkum L. I. o.627, vol. , Cognition o.10, vol. , 184– , but , 50. , early access A 17(4). . Cam- Cognitive 28. 485–512. Mind & Language 7. 29–45. https://doi. Psychological Science . Oxford: Oxford University . New York: Longman. . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Computational Linguistics . Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Journal of Semantics 117. 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Relevance: Communication and Cog- . Cambridge: Cambridge University 45 . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cognitive Development Word and Object Cognition Literal Meaning The Generative Lexicon Mental Files Truth-Conditional Pragmatics Intentionality: An Essay in The Philosophy of Mind 38. 179–211. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0010- 19. 207–232. . https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1902_2 Cognition . Oxford: Blackwell. nition guide young children’s inductions of wordterms. meanings: Object terms and substance 0277(91)90051-5. bridge: Cambridge University Press. between perception and syntax. org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2014(92)90003-A. Press. 24(4). 467–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2009.01371.x. Press. matics and restrictions on regular. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffr005 polysemy. 24. 1354–1360. . https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612472205 lexical semantic development. cognition.2010.06.007. MIT Press. Science . //www.academia.edu/23413719/Contextualism_and_Polysemy The MIT Press. Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language 409–441. Ambiguity avoidance distinguishes types of polysemy. 145. 77 – 88. . https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.08.006 Soja, Nancy N., Susan Carey & Elizabeth S. Spelke. 1991. Ontological categories Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Searle, John R. 1983. Soja, Nancy N. 1992. Inferences about the meanings of nouns: The relationship Recanati, François. 2012. Recanati, François. 2016. Contextualism and polysemy. Unpublished ms. Rothschild, Danielhttps: & Gabriel Segal. 2009. Indexical predicates. Recanati, François. 1995. The alleged priority of literal interpretation. Recanati, François. 2004. Recanati, François. 2010. Rabagliati, Hugh, Gary F. Marcus & Liina Pylkkänen. 2011. Rules, radical prag- Rabagliati, Hugh & Jesse Snedeker. 2013. The truth about chickens and bats: Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & JanRabagliati, Svartvik. Hugh, 1985. Gary F. Marcus & Liina Pylkkänen. 2010. Shifting senses in Pustejovsky, James. 1995. Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1960. Count-mass polysemy Pustejovsky, James. 1991. The generative lexicon. early access alr onR 2003. R. John Taylor, bound- semantics/pragmatics the Widening Prepragmatics: 2014. In Isidora. Stojanovic, metaphor. of account deflationary A 2008. Wilson. Deirdre & Dan Sperber, the and mental the between mapping The 1998. Wilson. Deirdre & Dan Sperber, isn err.21.Tecneta-rcdrldsicin at rsn and present Past, distinction: conceptual-procedural The 2011. Deirdre. Wilson, 1988. Anna. pieces. Wierzbicka, and bits Some 1975. X. Robert Ware, 2007. Rosa. Vega-Moreno, Truthfulness 2002b. Sperber. Dan & Carles Laure Jean–Baptiste, Henst, der Van a is When 2002a. Politzer. Guy & Sperber Dan Jean-Baptiste, Henst, der Van and Cognitive the Testing 2004. Sperber. Dan & Jean-Baptiste Henst, der Van 2008. Charles. Travis, true. speaking strictly is what On 1985. Charles. Travis, 2002. Dasher. B. & Richard & Kenesei C. István Elizabeth Traugott, In context. in Adjectives 2001. Gendler. Zoltán Szabó, 13546780143000071. 1985.10716416. Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: 184–200. iuaieSpeech Figurative Kiefer Ferenc for Festschrift A (eds.), Philosophy rcdrlMaig rbesadPerspectives and Problems Meaning: Procedural //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00485210. . //doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00207 //doi.org/10.1057/9780230524125_7. 418 abig:CmrdeUiest Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: 84–108. (ed.), Gibbs W. Raymond (eds.), Boucher Jill & Carruthers Peter In lexicon. public uue nMne entiVcoi sadl-ia of hr (eds.), Ahern Aoife & Escandell-Vidal Victoria Leonetti Manuel In future. time. the telling in relevance and rela- indeterminate of problems. analysis relevance-based tional a deriving? worth conclusion Sperber Dan & Noveck A. Ira In Relevance. of Principles Communicative Press. University Press. University Cambridge Cambridge: (eds.), Harnish M. Robert Meaning https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199669592.003.0013. (eds.), of Sherman Foundations Brett the & on Burgess Alexis In ary. xeietlPragmatics Experimental https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091. 187–229. 15(2). mtra:Jh Benjamins. John Amsterdam: . hnig&Reasoning & Thinking igitcCategorization Linguistic cainSniiiy eetdEssays Selected Occasion-Sensitivity: h eatc fGrammar of Semantics The raiiyadCneto:TePamtc fEveryday of Pragmatics The Convention: and Creativity esetvso eatc,Pamtc n Discourse: and Pragmatics Semantics, on Perspectives h abig adoko eahradThought and Metaphor of Handbook Cambridge The 1–4.Asedm onBenjamins. John Amsterdam: 119–146. , https: Macmillan. Palgrave London: 141–171. , 1–2.Ofr:Ofr nvriyPress. University Oxford Oxford: 311–326. , id&Language & Mind 46 https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1–20. 8(1). xod xodUiest Press. University Oxford Oxford: . Synthese euaiyi eatcChange Semantic in Regularity –1 ige:EeadGroup Emerald Bingley: 3–31. , mtra:Jh Benjamins. John Amsterdam: . eaeatc:NwEssays New Metasemantics: https: 379–393. 31(3). https: 457–466. 17(5). agaeadThought and Language aainJunlof Journal Canadian xod Oxford Oxford: . .L Falkum L. I. , , . early access 111(443). . Cambridge: Language and Mind , 607–632. Oxford: Kinds, Things, and Meaning and Relevance 47 21(3). 404–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 60. 269–298. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ , 166–190. Oxford University Press: Oxford. The Handbook of Pragmatics Event Knowledge and Models of Logical Metonymy Cognition 18(5-6). 583–624. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/ Mind & Language : Universität Stuttgart dissertation. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/ , 230–259. London: Palgrave. 01690960344000044. superordinate concepts. conceptual basis for the count and mass noun distinction. Cambridge University Press. tantum: What counts? In Francis Jeffry. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382891.003.0009 Pelletier (ed.), 583–632. . https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/111.443.583 Blackwell. Publishing Limited. property’ issue. ics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Interpretation Stuff: Mass Terms and Generics Pragmatics Cognitive Processes & Gregory L. Ward (eds.), 10.18419/opus-3391. 10.1016/0010-0277(96)00707-X. 1468-0017.2006.00284.x. Zarcone, Alessandra. 2014. Ingrid Lossius Falkum Centre for the Study ofP. Mind O. in Box Nature 1020 (CSMN) Blindern 0315 Oslo, Norway i.l.falkum@ifikk.uio.no Wisniewski, Edward J., Mutsumi Imai & Lyman Casey. 1996. On the equivalence of Wisniewski, Edward J., Christopher Lamb & Erica Middleton. 2003. On the Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2012. Wisniewski, Edward J. 2010. On using count nouns, mass nouns, and pluralia Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2002. Truthfulness and relevance. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Laurence R. Horn Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston. 2007. A unitary approach to lexical pragmat- Count-mass polysemy Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston. 2006. Metaphor, relevance and the ’emergent