4.3 Article

Noun-noun compounds for fictive food products: Experimenting in the borderzone of semantics and pragmatics

Journal

JOURNAL OF PRAGMATICS
Volume 42, Issue 10, Pages 2799-2813

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.011

Keywords

Semantics-pragmatics boundary; Noun-noun compounds; Default interpretation; Sentential context; Producer-consumer communication

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We performed a set of experiments dealing with the interpretation of novel Place-Food noun-noun compounds (NNCs) denoting fictive food products, in Danish. These were used in order to address concerns of linguistic theory, in particular the interrelation between semantics and pragmatics, psycholinguistics-investigating the role of sentential context for the interpretation of noun-noun compounds, and consumer oriented food labeling research. In the first experiment, a significant proportion of the novel NNCs was found to have a pre-contextually biased interpretation, in the majority of the cases conforming to what is usually considered the default interpretation for the studied type of compounds: FOOD ORIGINATING IN PLACE. In a subsequent experiment, this was however found to be easily overturned when sentential context supported what was initially found to be the least preferred interpretation. This contrasts with previous research comparing the role of such context on conventional NNCs. This suggests a qualitative difference between novel pre-contextually biased NNCs and conventional NNCs, and has implications for the semantics-pragmatics boundary, which we discuss. Furthermore, the three types of interpretations offered to the participants: ORIGINATING IN, RECIPE FROM and REMINDS OF, were shown to form an implicational hierarchy, which could explain the asymmetric preferences attributed to them by the participants in the experiments. (C) 2010 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available