37.3495, Reviews: Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use: Benoît Leclercq (2026)

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-3495. Fri 23 Oct 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.3495, Reviews: Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use: Benoît Leclercq (2026)

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Valeriia Vyshnevetska <valeriia at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 23-Oct-2026
From: Wiebke Richter [wiebke.richter at fu-berlin.de]
Subject: Benoît Leclercq (2026)


Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/37-762

Title: Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use
Subtitle: Bridging Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory
Publication Year: 2026

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
           http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics
Book URL:
https://www.cambridge.org/ch/universitypress/subjects/languages-linguistics/semantics-and-pragmatics/linguistic-knowledge-and-language-use-bridging-construction-grammar-and-relevance-theory?format=PB&isbn=9781009273220

Author(s): Benoît Leclercq

Reviewer: Wiebke Richter

The book “Linguistic Knowledge and Language Use” was written by Benoît
Leclercq. The aim of the book is a new evaluation of the semantic
pragmatic interface by combining insights from Construction Grammar
(CxG) and Relevance Theory (RT). It is a very interesting approach
because both theoretical frameworks are considered incompatible and
usually lead to different interpretations of the same linguistic
expressions. Leclercq critically examines CxG and RT, identifying the
contributions and limitations of both theories. This comprehensive
analysis and exploration of discourses within both theories forms the
basis for developing a new theoretical model that transcends the
explanatory limits of CxG and RT. This new approach is a further
development of the concept of lexically regulated saturation
(Depraetere 2014). Based on this concept, aspects of CxG and RT are
not just combined but integrated into a new and promising approach
that takes into account factors such as language change and
psycholinguistic plausibility. Leclercq’s contribution to defining the
interface between semantics and pragmatics lies in developing a
theoretical model that focuses on the close connection between
semantics and pragmatics in language processing. In his book he also
addresses further topics, such as the nature of lexical and
grammatical concepts, procedural meaning, coercion and the processing
of idiomatic expressions. These topics are incorporated into and
explained by the proposed model. “Linguistic Knowledge and Language
Use” draws upon the theoretical section of the author's doctoral
thesis and is thus a purely theoretical work. This means it contains
no case studies. Nevertheless, frequent reference is made—particularly
to experimental studies—and concepts are illustrated using linguistic
examples.
SUMMARY
The book consists of three main chapters (Chapter 2, 3 and 4), in
which the argumentation is developed, as well as an introduction and a
conclusion.
In Chapter 2 the author discusses the fundamental aspects of CxG and
RT in a clear and concise manner, setting out what each framework is
capable of achieving. In doing so, he highlights the strengths and
limitations of both theories’ explanatory power:
Chapter 2.1 is about the fundamental concepts of CxG such as the
unpredictability of constructions, frequency and entrenchment, and
coercion (i.e. the reinterpretation of a lexeme caused by a mismatch
between lexeme and construction). CxG is presented as a model that is
particularly well-suited to representing the structure of linguistic
knowledge in a plausible way. According to this framework, speakers’
vocabulary is stored in a conceptual network (called construct-i-con)
and enriched with encyclopedic knowledge. One weakness of CxG that has
been highlighted is its primary focus on conventional meaning.
However, this is said to represent only part of linguistic reality.
What CxG lacks is a clearer consideration of (non-conventionalized)
pragmatic processes.
Chapter 2.2 is devoted to RT. In contrast to CxG, this theoretical
framework is described as a model that provides a detailed analysis of
pragmatic processes. A fundamental assumption of this approach is the
principle of relevance, developed as a counter-proposal to Grice's
maxims (Grice 1975: 45-46). It is based on general assumptions about
cognitive processes and states that individuals primarily process
cognitively those stimuli that are maximally relevant. An input is
relevant if it triggers cognitive effects, for example, if it does not
correspond to an individual's expectations. Based on the work of
Sperber and Wilson (1995) it is shown how this principle of relevance
can be applied to linguistic processing. It is assumed that speakers
make their contributions relevant enough to justify the processing
effort involved. Hearers, on the other hand, are assumed to process
the interpretation of linguistic utterances that yields the greatest
cognitive effects. In this context the author explains further topics
such as the underdeterminacy thesis and explicatures, and discusses
the understanding of concepts and the formation of ad hoc concepts as
well as the notion of procedural meaning. He takes a critical view of
the fact that RT’s argumentation is weakened by its internal
theoretical assumptions regarding linguistic knowledge: In RT, it is
frequently assumed that linguistic concepts are atomic, which is
incompatible with the assumption regarding the derivation of ad hoc
concepts.
Chapter 3 is the argumentative core of the book. By combining insights
from both CxG and RT, the author seeks to achieve a better
understanding of lexical semantics and pragmatics and develops a new
theoretical approach that should be able to overcome the limits of the
explanatory power of CxG and RT. To this end, he examines the terms
‘concept’ and ‘ad hoc concept’ in more detail and provides an analysis
of the debates within RT surrounding these controversial terms
(Chapter 3.1). Eventually he argues in favor of the constructional
perspective on concepts (as rich conceptual networks) as an
alternative to the approaches discussed in RT (Chapter 3.2). If one
chooses to understand concepts as described in CxG, one faces a
theoretical contradiction from the perspective of RT (Chapter 3.3): In
RT, the formation of ad hoc concepts is based on the rejection of the
‘encoded-first’ hypothesis. This means that it is assumed that the
relevance of the encoded concept is not first tested and then modified
in context if it is not relevant enough, but rather that ad hoc
concepts are derived directly. The dilemma, however, lies in the fact
that it seems more relevant to test the encoded meaning first before
deriving an ad hoc concept. It is discussed how Wilson (2011, 2016)
and Carston (2013) address this problem. According to Carston lexical
items contain the encoded concept and trigger the derivation of an ad
hoc concept. This would mean that all lexical items have procedural
meaning, which is not considered a valid assumption in either CxG or
RT. Carston’s solution is to assume that words always lead to
conceptual schemas or patterns that must be enriched within a context.
Thus, the ‘encoded-first’ hypothesis dissolves because there is no
concept in the first place. However, this view contradicts Carston's
idea of concepts as atomic objects. Chapter 3.4 is then devoted to
resolving this dilemma. The aim of this section is to develop an
approach to lexical pragmatics that can explain how semantics, with
rich conceptual networks of encyclopedic knowledge, can be exploited
in communication. To explain this, the author introduces the notion
‘lexically regulated saturation’, which was developed by Depraetere
(2014) to explain the interpretation of modal expressions in English.
She claims that interpreting modal expressions is not simply a matter
of retrieving stored meanings. Rather, it is a complex process in
which the (context-independent) core meaning of modal verbs is
contextually enriched. The author now applies these considerations to
the semantics-pragmatics interface as a whole and presents it as an
integral component of lexical pragmatics. He argues that the words
used, with their rich conceptual networks, provide lexical constraints
for the comprehension process, which operates according to the
principle of relevance. This means, he assumes that lexical units
provide conceptual networks that organize related bodies of knowledge
around a prototype, and regards these networks as the starting point
for a process of saturation. In other words, depending on the context,
different aspects of a lexeme’s meaning are activated, which enable
listeners to construct a relevant interpretation (the one intended by
the speaker). And it is precisely for this interpretation process that
RT offers a plausible explanation: “That is, in accordance with their
expectations of relevance, individuals follow a step-by-step
inferential procedure and test various interpretations for relevance
in order of accessibility” (Leclercq 2024: 111). Chapter 3.5
summarizes what this model of ‘lexically regulated saturation’ means
for the understanding of semantics and pragmatics and the nature of
linguistic knowledge. It is emphasized that both areas of language
should not be viewed as opposites, or as two extremes on a scale of
understanding. Rather, the two processes of meaning construction are
closely interwoven. Furthermore, the key to the argument for a rich
semantics and a rich pragmatics at once lies in the assumption that
linguistic knowledge is not conceived as something to which
individuals have consciously and fully access. Rather, linguistic
knowledge is stored unconsciously and therefore represents more of a
potential for meaning that is only ever retrieved in a given context
according to the principle of relevance.
Chapter 4 is concerned with extending the approach presented. Whilst
the argument has so far focused on lexical semantics and pragmatics,
this section aims to take into account larger linguistic structures.
To this end, the author returns to the topic coercion and embeds it
within his theoretical model of lexically regulated saturation
(Chapter 4.1). Coercion is a process in which the meaning of a
construction is imposed upon a word that is not typically used in that
construction. Leclercq argues that this process is merely a special
case of lexically regulated saturation. The interpretation process
differs from other cases only in that constraints on comprehension are
imposed not only by the individual lexemes but also by the
construction in which they are embedded. The following chapter (4.2)
addresses the question how procedural meaning can be integrated into
the model and what is its contribution to interpretation processes.
The author hypothesizes that the procedural meaning, which is
primarily associated with grammatical constructions, tends to provide
background information that helps to derive concepts. Chapter 4.3 is
devoted to idiomatic patterns. It is assumed that the process of
lexically regulated saturation runs parallel to the recognition of
fixed expressions and is stopped when the interpretation of an idiom
seems more relevant.
EVALUATION
One challenge in current research is the question of the division of
labor between semantics and pragmatics (Finkbeiner 2025: 113). The
exact nature of this functional differentiation is the subject of
heated debate. In this context, the book represents a very interesting
and truly well-conceived contribution. By combining insights from CxG
and RT, the author succeeds in devising a new model and providing
satisfactory answers to a number of theoretical problems. In doing so,
he provides the reader with an overview of Construction Grammar and
Relevance Theory, summarizing the most important aspects of both
theories and introducing into important debates. Although CxG and RT
are both extensive and widely cited concepts the author succeeds in
presenting the key fundamental ideas of both theories concisely and
very clearly. The development of his own new approach also follows a
complex and detailed line of reasoning. Nevertheless, the text is very
easy to follow due to its exceptionally clear presentation and
excellent examples. Each chapter begins with the author outlining his
specific objectives for the respective section and providing a brief
summary of previous findings. Although this seems somewhat redundant
at times, it is particularly helpful for following the argumentation.
Furthermore, there are frequent cross-references to other parts of the
text, enabling readers to engage in more selective reading or to look
up specific terms or concepts even at a later point.
I learned a lot about the frameworks presented and recommend the book
to every researcher who is interested in the semantic pragmatic
interface.
The book is available as Open Access.
REFERENCES
Carston, Robyn. 2013. Word meaning, what is said and explicature. In
What is said and what is not, 175–203. Stanford, CA: CSLI
Publications.
Depraetere, Ilse. 2014. Modals and lexically-regulated saturation.
Journal of Pragmatics 7. 160–177.
Finkbeiner, Rita. 2025. Einführung in die Pragmatik. Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin, Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-70642-8.
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntacs and
semantics 3: speech acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Leclercq, Benoît. 2024. Linguistic knowledge and language use:
bridging construction grammar and relevance theory. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and
cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. The conceptual-procedural distinction: Past,
present and future. In Procedural meaning: Problems and perspectives,
3–31. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2016. Reassessing the conceptual-procedural
distinction. Lingua 175. 5–19.
ABOUT THE REVIEWER
Wiebke Richter holds a master’s degree in German linguistics from
Leipzig University. She is a PhD student at Freie Universität Berlin
and teaches at Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg. In her
dissertation she focuses on markers of approximation in German.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Australian Linguistics Society https://als.asn.au/Home

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

MDPI Languages https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications

University of Toronto Press https://utppublishing.com


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-3495
----------------------------------------------------------