Abstract
The aim of this paper is to examine in a systematic way the linguistic expression of a particular type of categorization process, namely the construction of ad hoc categories. Based on a 60 language-sample and corpus data from English and Italian, it will be shown that the strategies used to refer to ad hoc categories are mobilized from a variety of different grammatical areas, ranging from connectives to special plural forms and derivational affixes. We will first provide a detailed semantic analysis of the constructions under exam, and then move to the examination of the morphosyntactic and functional patterns of variation attested in our data. Though highly differentiated, the pool of strategies employed to make reference to ad hoc categories shows systematic correlations between specific morphosyntactic features, different degrees of context dependency and different types of abstraction processes (e.g., leading to the construction of a set, a frame or a class). We will conclude with a preliminary analysis of how ad hoc categories are built and used in discourse. Corpus data will lead us to propose a shift of attention from ad hoc categories themselves to on line categorization, namely the process through which categories are abstracted from specific exemplars in context, regardless of their common or ad hoc nature.
I would like to thank Andrea Sansò, Mira Ariel, Alessandra Barotto and Cristina Lo Baido for crucial discussions on data and their interpretation, and Giorgio Francesco Arcodia for helping me with the glosses of Chinese and Japanese examples.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The research described in this paper has been possible thanks to a Grant provided by the Italian Ministry of Research and University (MIUR) within the SIR program (SIR project “LEAdhoC: The linguistic expression of ad hoc categories”, prot. RBSI14IIG0, coordinated by Caterina Mauri.
- 2.
The selection of languages has been driven by two criteria: genealogic diversity and the availability of descriptive grammars containing relevant information for our study. The following languages have been selected (in alphabetical order): Cavinena, Central Pomo, Chemeuevi, Comanche, Cupeno, Czech, Classical Japanese, Darma, Diu, Diyrbal, Dogon, Dom, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, Galo, Georgian, German, Haitian Creole, Hakha Lai, Hausa, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Hup, Italian, Jamsay, Japanese, Kannada, Koasati, Kokota, Kuuk Thayorre, Lao, Lavukaleve, Lezgian, Malayalam, Makalero, Mandarin Chinese, Mani, Maori, Marthutunira, Mongsen Ao, Nenets, Nootkan, Paumarì, Russian, Scolt Saami, Skou, South Efate, Spanish, Ughele, Tagalog, Tahitian, Tamil, Tokelauan, Tongan, Turkish, West Greenlandic, Yurakare.
- 3.
Examples (15)–(17) do not have glosses, because glosses are not relevant for the discussion, centered around the interpretation of the derived forms.
- 4.
Again, examples in (18) do not have glosses, because they were not available in the source.
- 5.
For example (30) glosses are not provided in the source.
- 6.
For example (32) glosses are missing in the source.
Abbreviations
- ABL:
-
Ablative
- ACC:
-
Accusative
- AOR:
-
Aorist
- ASSOC:
-
Associative plural marker
- AUX:
-
Auxiliary
- CJEC:
-
Conjectural
- CLIT:
-
Clitic
- CMPL:
-
Complement clause
- COLL:
-
Collective
- CONN:
-
Connective element
- COP:
-
Copula
- DAT:
-
Dative
- DEF:
-
Definite
- DET:
-
Determiner
- DEM:
-
Demonstrative
- DIR:
-
Directional
- DM:
-
Discourse marker
- DST:
-
Distal
- EMPH:
-
Emphatic
- ERG:
-
Ergative
- EX:
-
Exemplary conjunction
- EXCL:
-
Exclusive
- F:
-
Feminine
- GUES:
-
Guess
- HON:
-
Honorific
- IMP:
-
Imperative
- IMPERS:
-
Impersonal
- INAN:
-
Inanimate
- INDEF:
-
Indefinite
- INF:
-
Infinitive
- IPFV:
-
Imperfective
- LOC:
-
Locative
- M:
-
Masculine
- NEG:
-
Negative
- NF:
-
Non finite
- NPST:
-
Non-past
- NZR:
-
Nominalizer
- OBJ:
-
Object
- PF:
-
Perfect
- PL:
-
Plural
- POL:
-
Polite
- PROG:
-
Progressive
- PRX:
-
Proximal
- PST:
-
Past
- PURP:
-
Purposive
- Q:
-
Question marker
- QUOT:
-
Quotative
- REPR:
-
Representative plural
- RLS:
-
Realis
- SG:
-
Singular
- SIML:
-
Similative
- SLEV:
-
Same topographic level
- SUB:
-
Subject
- SUBJ:
-
Subjunctive
- SUPERL:
-
Superlative
- SUSP:
-
Suspensive form
- TOP:
-
Topic
References
Aijmer K (1985) What happens at the end of our utterances?—The use of utterance-final tags introduced by ‘and’ and ‘or’. In: Papers from the 8th Scandinavian conference of linguistics. Institut for Philologie, Kopenhaven University, Copenhagen, pp 366–389
Ariel M, Mauri C (to appear) Why use or? Submitted
Barotto A (2016) Exemplification and categorization: the case of Japanese. Dissertation, University of Bergamo
Barsalou LW (1983) Ad hoc categories. Memory Cogn 11(3):211–227
Barsalou LW (1991) Deriving categories to achieve goals. In: Bower GH (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 1–64. [Reprinted in: Ram A, Leake D (1995) (eds) Goal-driven learning. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA, pp 121–176]
Barsalou LW (2003) Situated simulation in the human conceptual system. Lang Cogn Process 18:513–562 [Reprinted in: Moss H, Hampton J (eds) Conceptual representation. Psychology Press, East Sussex, UK, pp 513–566]
Barsalou LW (2010) Ad hoc categories. In: Hogan PC (ed) The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 87–88
Bazzanella C, Cristofoli M (1998) Piuttosto che e le alternative non preferenziali: un mutamento in atto? Cuadernos de filologia italiana 5:267–278
Brucale L (2012) L’uso non canonico di piuttosto che coordinativo in italiano contemporaneo. In: Bianchi P, De Blasi N, De Caprio C, Montuori F (eds) La variazione nell’italiano e nella sua storia. Varietà e varianti linguistiche e testuali, Cesati, Firenze, pp 483–493
Cardoso HC (2009) The Indo-Portuguese language of Diu. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam
Carston R (2010) Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Proc Aristotelian Soc 110(3.3):295–321
Channell J (1994) Vague language. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Chino N (2001) All about particles: a handbook of Japanese function words. Kodansha, Tokyo
Corbett G (2000) Number. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Croft W, Allan Cruse (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Daniel M (2000) Tipologija associativnoj množestvennosti (The typology of associative plurals). Russian State University for Humanities
Daniel M, Moravcsik E (2005) Associative plurals. In: Dryer M, Haspelmath M, Gil D, Comrie B (eds) World atlas of language structures. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 150–153
Delbrück B (1893) Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Trübner, Strassburg
Dines E (1980) Variation in discourse—and stuff like that. Lang Soc 1:13–31
DuBois S (1993) Extension particles, etc. Lang Var Change 4:179–203
Enfield N (2007) A grammar of Lao. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York
Gaby A (2006) A Grammar of Kuuk Thaayorre. Dissertation, University of Melbourne
Göksel A, Kerslake C (2005) [Third reprint 2010] Turkish, a comprehensive grammar. Routledge, London
Haspelmath M (2003) The geometry of grammatical meaning: semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In: Tomasello M (ed) The new psychology of language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, New York, pp 211–243
Haspelmath M (2007) Coordination. In: Shopen T (ed) Language typology and syntactic description, vol 2. Complex constructions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–51
Hsieh F (2003) Mandarin Chinese Shenme in interaction. Language, information and computation. In: Proceedings of the 17th Pacific Asia conference, 1–3 Oct, 2003, Sentosa, Singapore, pp 106–114
Jaggar P (2001) Hausa, London oriental and African languages library. John Benjamins, Amsterdam
Jespersen O (1965) The philosophy of language. Bantam, New York
Joosten F (2010) Collective nouns, aggregate nouns, and superordinates: when ‘part of’ and ‘kind of’ meet. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 33(1):25–49
Keane EL (2005) Phrasal reduplication and dual description. In: Hurch B (ed) Studies on reduplication. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 237–259
Kuno S (1973) The structure of the Japanese language. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, MA
Lo Baido C (2016) Roads to exemplification in Italian: cognition and discourse. Submitted
Mauri C, Giacalone A (2015) Piuttosto che: dalla preferenza all’esemplificazione di alternative. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 20:49–72
Mauri C, Sansò A (in press) Strategie linguistiche per la costruzione online di categorie: uno quadro tipologico. In: Caruana S (ed) Atti del XLIX Convegno della Società di Linguistica Italiana
Moravcsik E (2003) A semantic analysis of associative plurals. Stud Lang 27:469–503
Overstreet M (1999) Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that: general extenders in English discourse. Oxford University Press, New York
Overstreet M (2014) The role of pragmatic function in the grammaticalization of English general extenders. Pragmatics 24(1):105–129
Peterson DA, Vanbik K (2004) Coordination in Hakha Lai (Tibeto-Burman). In: Haspelmath M (ed) Coordinating constructions. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp 333–356
Post M (2007) A grammar of Galo. Dissertation, RCLT, La Trobe University
Poletto C, Penello N (2006) Propagazione di suffissi derivazionali nel linguaggio giovanile. In: Marcato G (ed) Giovani, lingue e dialetti. Atti del Convegno (Sappada—Plodn, 29 giugno—3 luglio 2005). Unipress, Padova
Ramat P (1992) Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics 30:549–560
Recanati F (2004) Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Samuelson L, Smith L (1999) Early noun vocabularies: do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? Cognition 73:1–33
Stassen L (2000) AND-languages and WITH-languages. Linguist Typol 4:1–54
Taylor JR (2003) Linguistic categorization. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tanimori M (1994) Handbook of Japanese grammar. Tuttle Publishing Vermont, Tokyo
Voghera M (2012) Chitarre, violino, banjo e cose del genere. In: Thornton AM, Voghera M (eds) Per Tullio De Mauro. Studi offerti dalle allieve in occasione del suo 80° compleanno. Aracne, Roma, pp 341–364
Vovin A (2003) A reference grammar of classical Japanese prose. Routledge, Curzon
Wilson D, Carston R (2007) A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In: Burton-Roberts N (ed) Pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, pp 230–259
Zhang NN (2008) Encoding exhaustivity. USTWPL 4:133–143
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mauri, C. (2017). Building and Interpreting Ad Hoc Categories: A Linguistic Analysis. In: Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrleman, S., Laenzlinger, C. (eds) Formal Models in the Study of Language. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48831-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48832-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)