22.781, Qs: 'Means-end' Interpretations of Conjunctives

[linguist at LINGUISTLIST.ORG]

LINGUIST List: Vol-22-781. Wed Feb 16 2011. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 22.781, Qs: 'Means-end' Interpretations of Conjunctives

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews: Veronika Drake, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Monica Macaulay, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Eric Raimy, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Joseph Salmons, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
Anja Wanner, U of Wisconsin-Madison  
       <reviews at linguistlist.org> 

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, 
and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Danielle St. Jean <danielle at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

We'd like to remind readers that the responses to queries are usually
best posted to the individual asking the question. That individual is
then strongly encouraged to post a summary to the list. This policy was
instituted to help control the huge volume of mail on LINGUIST; so we
would appreciate your cooperating with it whenever it seems appropriate.

In addition to posting a summary, we'd like to remind people that it
is usually a good idea to personally thank those individuals who have
taken the trouble to respond to the query.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.cfm.

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 15-Feb-2011
From: David Oshima [davidyo at gmail.com]
Subject: 'Means-end' Interpretations of Conjunctives
 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:55:47
From: David Oshima [davidyo at gmail.com]
Subject: 'Means-end' Interpretations of Conjunctives

E-mail this message to a friend:
http://linguistlist.org/issues/emailmessage/verification.cfm?iss=22-781.html&submissionid=4497215&topicid=8&msgnumber=1
  


It is widely recognized that, across languages, coordinate conjunctive 
construction and participial constructions (eg. English free adjuncts) 
both may implicate a wide range of semantic relations, including the 
"means-end" (also referred to as instrumentality, manner, etc.) relation, 
arguably due to Gricean pragmatic enrichment. 

(1a) He pressed the switch and opened the door. (= and thereby 
opened the door) 
(1b) Pressing the switch, he opened the door. (= by means of pressing 
the switch)

(2a) He poured hot water on the ice and melted it. (= and thereby 
melted it) 
(2b) He melted the ice pouring hot water on it. (= by means of pouring 
...)

Let me use the term "subordinate conjunctive construction" to refer to 
structure like English free adjuncts, where one clause is subordinate to 
another and the semantic relation between them is, at the level of 
semantic/literal meaning, (something close to) mere logical conjunction. 

It has been reported that some languages "lack instrumental 
[coordinate] conjunctions" (Kortmann 1991, Free adjuncts and 
absolutes in English: p.164).
 
So in French, only subordinate conjunctive constructions (gérondif) but 
not coordinate conjunctive constructions can be used to indicate the 
means-end relation. 

(3a) ??Il a appuyé sur l'interrupteur et a ouvert la porte. 
(3b) Il a ouvert  la porte en appuyant sur l'interrupteur. 

(4a) ??Il a versé de l'eau chaude sur la glace et l'a fondu.
(4b) Il a fondu la glace en y versant de l'eau chaude.

I also noticed that in English too, there are cases where the means-end 
relation can naturally be expressed only with a subordinate conjunctive 
construction. 

(5a) ??He used chopsticks and ate fried noodles. 
(5b) He ate fried noodles using chopsticks. 
(cf.) He used a lethal weapon and wiped out the enemy.

I suspect that the principle of iconicity is behind the contrasts between 
(3a) & (3b), (4a) & (4b), and (5a) & (5b). My theory is that when two 
events described as a "means" and an "end", they are not 
conceptualized as being on an equal status, but the means-event is 
taken to be something subordinate to, dependent on, or perhaps 
"fused into", the end-event -- therefore a subordinate conjunctive 
construction, where two clauses stand in an asymmetric relation, is 
more appropriate. 
    
And I am curious what cross-linguistic variation can be found regarding 
the availability of means-end interpretations. Tentatively, I put forth the 
following generalization:

If a language has a coordinate conjunctive construction and a 
subordinate conjunctive construction, either of the following holds:   
(A) The means-end relation can be expressed only by the subordinate 
conjunctive construction (as in French). OR 
(B) Some subcases of the means-end relation are compatible both with 
the subordinate and coordinate conjunctive constructions. Some other 
subcases, notably including those that involve a prototypical tool like 
chopsticks, are compatible only with the subordinate conjunctive 
construction (as in English). 

>From conversations I had with my colleagues, I gather that Korean 
belongs to group-A along with French, and that Russian belongs to 
group-B along with English. And I now hope to obtain input from a 
wider range of linguists. 

Can anyone point me to existing work that addresses the contrast in 
question? Can anyone find more languages that pattern like French 
(Group-A) or English (Group-B)? Can anyone find languages that do 
not fit into group-A or group-B?
  
I would appreciate any feedback, and will post a summary if I get a 
good amount of inputs. 

Linguistic Field(s): Pragmatics
                     Semantics




-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-22-781	
----------------------------------------------------------