LINGUIST List 22.781 Wed Feb 16 2011 Qs: 'Means-end' Interpretations of Conjunctives Editor for this issue: Danielle St. Jean <daniellelinguistlist.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.     David Oshima , 'Means-end' Interpretations of Conjunctives Message 1: 'Means-end' Interpretations of Conjunctives Date: 15-Feb-2011 From: David Oshima <davidyogmail.com> Subject: 'Means-end' Interpretations of Conjunctives E-mail this message to a friend 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 Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 16-Feb-2011       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.