Linguistics

Coercion is defined as the resolution of semantic incompatibility between a construction and a lexical item occurring in it (Michaelis 2005). Coercion plays an important theoretical role in Construction Grammar (CG): it is a theoretical device that accounts for how lexical items can occur in constructions whose semantic specifications they do not fit. For example, the English Caused Motion Construction signifies the motion through space of a subject entity; but it occurs with verbs not entailing motion (kick, sneeze). CG’s claim is that the construction itself provides the meaning of motion in examples like I kicked the ball across the room (Goldberg 1995): the verbal semantics, lacking a motion specification, is here coerced into a motion sense not independently coded by the verbs. Similar accounts are given by Michaelis for other constructions. For such an important theoretical notion, the conceptual foundations of coercion remain surprisingly unexplored. For example, coercion is ...

Corpus-based research into antonyms in English, Sweden and Japanese has gradually brought the lexical relation of antonymy into functional-cognitive linguistics in recent years. When antonymous adjectives are examined in Mandarin corpora, we find that they co-occur in both discontinuous constructions, for example, 既不热也不 冷 ji bure ye buleng, literally not hot also not cold, 'neither hot nor cold', and lexical compounds, often called disyllabic compounds, for example, 大小 da xiao, literally big-small, 'size'. This study is a cognitive account of Mandarin disyllabic compound constructions composed of two antonymous adjective roots, such as 长 短 chang duan, literally long-short, 'length', 左右 zuo you, literally left-right, 'control', and 反正 fan zheng, literally back-face, 'anyway'. With the help of the Lancaster corpus of Mandarin Chinese (LCMC) and the corpus from the Center for Chinese Linguistics (CCL), 51 instances of antonymous adjective compounds were retrieved. When the antonymous adjectives co-occur, there are interactions between the componential semantics and the constructional semantics. While the disyllabic compound constructions may inherit the part of speech from their components, they may also have their own part of speech, functioning as nouns, adverbs and even verbs. The different categories reflect different construals of the same conceptual content. In a nutshell, by adopting a cognitive linguistics approach, we show that the different uses of these compounds are related in a systematic way.

Analytic causative constructions can best be described äs extensions of simpler kinds of expressions, rather than äs reductions from more complex underlying structures. In particular, causatives of intransitive predicates (e.g. I made Mary cryj are viewed äs modelled on simple two-participant clauses (like I ate the cake,), and causatives of transitive predicates (e.g. He had the servant taste the foodj are seen äs modelled on simple threeparticipant clauses (like I gave Mary a flower, or She broke it with a hammer-i.e. mainly ditransitive and instrumental clause types). One especially important advantage of this approach is that it offers an explanatory semantic account of the Variation of case markings found in causative constructions (such äs the rather general alternation of dative, or other non-oblique, with instrumental), itpredicts that such Variation is related systematically to the semantics ofcase markings in simple clauses, which is in fact the case. It is argued that accounts ofcase marking of causees formulated strictly in terms of a formal hierarchy ofcases cannot be adequate, given the semantic factors affecting the choice of case. The marking of the causee is a consequence of conceived differences in its role in the causal event, which relate to such aspects of event structure äs (in)directness of causation and (relatedly) degree of agency and affectedness of participants. Such factors are elements ofcertain general conceptual models of causation. This approach not only has wider empirical coverage than syntactic, hierarchy-based accounts, but is simple, unified, has greater explanatory power both for cross-linguistic Variation andfor intricate intralinguistic distributional facts; finally, it accords with a cognitively-based view oflanguage, in which the knowledge underlying grammar is not qualitatively different from other aspects of human understanding and reasoning.

liuaiil <>l Aihiwn filiton l Allwood (Gothcnburg), H Arndl (Pulheim), S Blum Kulka (Jerusalem), A Boguslawski (Warsaw) B Comnc (Los Angeles) F Coulmas (lokyo) W U Dressler (Vienna) C Fillmore (Beikeley), T Frctheim (Trond heim), F Gregersen (Copenhagen) Υ Gu (Beijmg) E Hajicova (Piague) A Hakuhnen (Helsinki) P Harder (Copenhagen) R M Harmsh (Tucson), R Hasan (Sidncy), H l laverkalc (Amsterdam), D Hymes (Charlottesville), S Ide (Tokyo), A Kasher (Tel Aviv) G Kasper (Honolulu) R I akolf (Berkeley) A Luke (Brisbane) Yoshiko Matsumoto (Stanford), A McHoul (Murdoch). J Nuyts (Antwerp), H Parrel (Brüssels), T Pavhdou (rhessaloniki) U Quastholf (Dortmund) M Sbisa ((ncsle) E Schegloff (Los Angeles), D Schiflnn (Washington, DC), D Tannen (Washington, DC) J Thomas (Lancaster), S Fhompson (Santa Barbara). J van der Auwera (Antwerp), J Wagner (Odense), D Wilson (London) Linguistic pragmatics has bcen able to formulate a nurnbcr of questions ovcr the ycars (hat are esscntial to oui understanding öl language äs people s mam Instrument öl natural and societal' mteraclion By providmg possiblc theoretical foundations loi thc study of linguistic practice linguistic pragmatics has helped to extend our knowledge of the loims, iunclions and toundations ot human intcraction The Inuinal of Ριαν,ηιιιΐιι s idenlifies with the above general scope and aims of piagmatics The Journal wclcomes authontative, innovative pragmalic scholarship from all practice oncnted hnguistic standpomts It provides a forum for pragmatic studies in sociolmguistics, gcncial linguistics, conversation analysis discourse analysis, cogmtive hnguistics computational linguistics apphed linguistics and other areas öl linguistic rcsearch In addition it endcavois to narrow the distance belween linguistics and such neighbonng disciphnes äs cominumcation science (mcludmg the study of faceto-face interaction and nonverbal commumcation), Information science (mcludmg arlificial intelhgcnce rcsearch and in general the theory and practice of machme-human interaction) psychiatiy (mcludmg thc study ot schi/ophiemc spcech) and neuropsychology (mcludmg the study of speakmg and readmg disorders) The luuinal wclcomes both those contributions onginatmg m linguistics proper and those takmg neighbonng related fields äs their pomt of departure All manuscnpts and correspondence conceinmg cditonal matters, should be sent to the Chiel Editor Books lor ic-view and unsolicited book reviews should be sent to the Review Editor, books sent for revicw will not be icturncd All contributions, mcludmg reviews, are expected to comply with the nnln« ΐιυιΐΊ lo mulion pnnted on the mside hack cover of cach issue 'iiihunption mjoiinution louinul oj Ριαφηιιιιι\ (ISSN 0178-2166) For 1997 volumes 27-28 are scheduled tor publication Subscnption prices are available upon request from the puhhsher Subscriptions are acccpted on a prepaid basis only and aie entered on a calendar year basis Issucs are sent by suifacc mail except to the tollowing countnes wherc air dchvery via SAL is ensured Aigcntma,

Companies dealing in colors (e.g., paint companies, the cosmetic industry) spend enormous amounts of time and money selecting names to accompany their various product lines in an attempt to maximally appeal to and lure in consumers. In two experiments, the current research examines the extent to which such naming strategies have an impact on consumer behavior. Across both experiments, participants rated either color swatches (Experiment 1) or products (Experiment 2) that had either generic names (e.g., brown) or fancy names (e.g., mocha) attached to them. The results of each experiment revealed that names significantly influence how colors are perceived, and that fancy names result in significantly more favorable ratings than do generic names. Both theoretical and applied implications of this phenomenon are discussed.

Usage-based models of language are theories that seek to ground language structure in the actual instances of language—the usage-event. Language structure emerges from language use. This means that even the more abstract theoretical notions posited to describe language have a direct link to the actual utterance. With this emphasis for models of language, underlying representations that lack phonetic or lexical content are nonexistent. Furthermore, creativity in the usage-event is accounted for as an ongoing expansion and extension of the already existent structures or units. Language structures result from language use and novel uses shape the future structure of the linguistic system.

Usage-based models of language are theories that seek to ground language structure in the actual instances of language—the usage-event. Language structure emerges from language use. This means that even the more abstract theoretical notions posited to describe language have a direct link to the actual utterance. With this emphasis for models of language, underlying representations that lack phonetic or lexical content are nonexistent. Furthermore, creativity in the usage-event is accounted for as an ongoing expansion and extension of the already existent structures or units. Language structures result from language use and novel uses shape the future structure of the linguistic system.

Usage-based models of language are theories that seek to ground language structure in the actual instances of language—the usage-event. Language structure emerges from language use. This means that even the more abstract theoretical notions posited to describe language have a direct link to the actual utterance. With this emphasis for models of language, underlying representations that lack phonetic or lexical content are nonexistent. Furthermore, creativity in the usage-event is accounted for as an ongoing expansion and extension of the already existent structures or units. Language structures result from language use and novel uses shape the future structure of the linguistic system.

Identifiers-*Stratification& Crammar The type of network treated in this paper is a network of relationships. The author shows how linguistic data and cognitional data can be accounted for by means of such networks. He begins by looking at some linguistic data. with particular concern for identifying the relationships which they exhibit. That is. the emphasis is on their interrelationships rather than directly upon the items of data themselves2As he proceeds. he observes how the individual relationships are organized into larger ! configurations forming networks of relationships. and he finds that the types of g relations and configurations of relations observable in linguistic data are also present in cognitional data. It then becomes interesting to view such linguistic and cognitive networks as models of the knowledge. or of some of the knowledge. that a typical human being has stored in his brain. This paper will appear in 'Cognition: A

THIS paper is concerned with possibilities of using the digital computer as an aid in syntactic analysis. Since there is some variety of opinion regarding syntax and its position in linguistic structure, I should perhaps start by giving my opinion, so that you will know what I am talking about when I refer to syntactic analysis.

S PART of the justification for their existence, languages have an intimate A but only partially understood relationship to a vague entity which we call meaning. There is no general agreement as to just how initimate this relationship is: that is, as to whether meaning is or is not included within language, partly or wholly, in one of its aspects or levels or more than one (if indeed there are more than one). But many linguists have thought it would be very desirable, and perhaps also possible, to set up or discover some structural units which would either be units of meaning itself or in some other way would help us to systematize our treatment of that vague entity. A name for such a unit, Sememe, has been available for a long time. It was provided by Bloomfield (1926). We are not constrained, of course, to use his definition in order to use the term. Just as with the morpheme and other concepts of his and others, we may refine our understanding of the unit without adding a new name to an already formidable collection of terminology. For Bloomfield, the sememe was the meaning of a morpheme. This concept would seem to put seniemes and morphemes in a one-to-one correspondence with each other-that is, a sememe for every morpheme and a morpheme for every sememe. Such a view of the relationship ought to make it unnecessary for there to be two kinds of units, and one is led to wonder why, in this case, Bloomfield bothered to have sememes in his system a t all. But the reason becomes clear when we recall that for Bloomfield a morpheme was composed of phonemes. Certainly, sequences of phonemes could not themselves be units of meaning as well; so it was necessary to adopt an alternative, namely that these sequences, the morphemes, have meanings; and these meanings were the sememes. Nowadays, on the other hand, many linguists view morphemes not as composed of phonemes but as represented by phonemes and combinations of phonemes. For those of us who hold this view, morphemes are not units of expression so the notion of a one-to-one correspondence between morphemes and sememes would amount to the same thing as making the sememes quite useless, except for those who take pleasure in multiplying entities praeter necessitalem. Now, of course, the fact that a name exists, even one given by Bloomfield, does not compel us to go out and find something to use it for. Nor should we be unduly influenced by its suffix, so that we suppose we must find an "emic" type of entity in the area of content, having those same important properties as other "emes" we have come to know. Of course, there is no objection to anyone's setting out to look for such an entity, provided he maintains the proper degree of caution. On the other hand, this was not the approach that I used. It

Sather's comment on David Sopher's text, The Sea Nomads (AA 69:lll-112) stands in distinct contrast to the highly laudatory review of this work by Barbara Ward in Man (1:587, 1966, n.s.). Readers of this journal will find Ward's views of Sopher's fundamental contribution to Southeast Asian culture history a more accurate appraisal than Sather's. Sopher's work merits considerably more attention than Sather's review indicates.

This paper is concerned with discovering the system that lies behind linguistic productions and is responsible for them. To be considered realistic, a theory of this system has to meet certain requirements of plausibility: (1) It must be able to be put into operation, for (i) speaking and otherwise producing linguistic texts and (ii) comprehending (to a greater or lesser extent) the linguistic productions of others; (2) it must be able to develop during childhood and to continue changing in later years; (3) it has to be compatible with what is known about brain structure, since that system resides in the brains of humans. Such a theory, while based on linguistic evidence, turns out to be not only compatible with what is known from neuroscience about the brain, it also contributes new understanding about how the brain operates in processing information.