Cover not available
Part of
Building Categories in Interaction: Linguistic resources at work
Edited by Caterina Mauri, Ilaria Fiorentini and Eugenio Goria
[Studies in Language Companion Series 220] 2021
► pp. 373–414

Chapter 14
French type-noun constructions based on genre

From the creation of ad hoc categories to ad hoc categorization

| University of Tübingen
Colloquial French genre is highly polysemous with a variety of functions such as comparison, approximation and the fully pragmaticalized functions as a mitigator, a quotative marker, an exemplifier, a marker of narrative progression, explanation and focussing. So far, the focus has been on the various discourse functions, however, several studies also point out possible paths of pragmaticalization. The aim of this paper is to analyse in greater detail the construction at the root of all these functions, i.e. “X of the same type as Y”, a construction originally used for construing ad hoc categories. This rather learned construction became established in the 19th century for French and transformed into a backgrounded instruction for sloppy categorization and the other derived colloquial functions listed above.
Keywords: pragmaticalization, pragmatic marker, ad hoc categories, approximation, mitigation, colloquial French, 19th century
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Well-established categories and linguistic labels
  • 3.Ad hoc categories
  • 4.Taxonomies and taxonomic nouns
    • 4.1The implicit and explicit reference to subkinds: Taxonomic readings
    • 4.2Preposed and postposed taxonomic nouns and the conflation of type and instance readings
      • 4.2.1Conflation of type and instance readings: Taxonomic nouns supporting adjectival modification
      • 4.2.2Conflation of type and instance readings: Postdeterminer uses
      • 4.2.3From subkind specification to approximative ad hoc categorization
  • 5.Constructions with genre building ad hoc categories
    • 5.1Ce genre de choses and related anaphoric constructions
    • 5.2‘X of the same type as Y’ creating ad hoc categories
  • 6.From ad hoc category to sloppy categorization: 20th and 21st century genre
    • 6.1From ad hoc category to ad hoc categorization
    • 6.2From comparison marker to approximation
    • 6.3From comparison marker to exemplification marker to connecting uses
    • 6.4A tentative semantic map for the pragmatic marker genre
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.220.14mih
References (63)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation. A Relevance-theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 84]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira & Mauri, Caterina. 2018. Why use or? Linguistics 56(5): 939–993. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11(3): 211–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2007. A politeness-theoretic approach to pragmatico-semantic change . Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8(1): 68–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent. 1972. Speculations on the growth of ethnobotanical nomenclature. Language in Society 1: 51–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte & Davidse, Kristin. 2010. The grammaticalization of nominal type noun constructions with kind/sort of: Chronology and paths of change. English Studies 91(2): 180–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Chauveau-Thoumelin, Pierre. 2016. De l’exemplification à la catégorisation approximative: Étude de la construction [[X]SN genre [Y]SN]. Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF 2016), Jul 2016, Tours, France. Actes du Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. <[URL]> (2 May 2017).
. 2018. Exemplification and ad hoc categorization: The genre-construction in French. In Linguistic Strategies for the Construction of Ad Hoc Categories: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, Caterina Mauri & Andrea Sansò (eds). Special issue of Folia Linguistica 52(s39–1):): 177–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny & Secova, Maria. 2018. The origins of new quotative expressions: The case of Paris French. Journal of French Language Studies 28(2): 209–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danon-Boileau, Laurent & Morel, Mary-Annick. 1997. Question, point de vue, genre, style…: Les noms prépositionnels en français contemporain. Faits de Langues 9: 193–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine. 2004. Type specimens and scientific memory. Critical Inquiry 31(1): 153–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smedt, Liesbeth, Brems, Lieselotte & Davidse, Kristin. 2007. NP-internal functions and extended uses of the ‘type’ nouns kind, sort, and type: Towards a comprehensive, corpus-based description. Language & Computers 62(1): 225–255.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole & Stathi, Katerina. 2016. Grammaticalization and prosody: The case of english sort/kind/type of constructions. Language 92(4): 911–946. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David. 2002. History of the sort of construction family. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki, 6–8 September 2002.
DHLF = Rey, Alain. 1998. Dictionnaire de la langue française. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.Google Scholar
Dufaye, Lionel. 2016. GENRE ou le scénario d’une grammaticalisation. LINX: Bulletin de Centre de Recherches Linguistiques de Paris-X Nanterre 10: 45–59.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1998. Des jumeaux du discours: Genre et like . La Linguistique 34(2): 31–47.Google Scholar
FRANTEXT = Base textuelle FRANTEXT <[URL]>
FrTenTen12 = French Web 2012 <[URL]>
Gelman, Susan A. & Kalish, Chuck W. 2006. Conceptual development. In Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 2: Cognition, Perception and Language, Deanna Kuhn & Robert S. Siegler (eds), 687–733. New York NY: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Gelman, Susan A. & Brandone, Amanda C. 2010. Fast-mapping placeholders: Using words to talk about kinds. Language Learning and Development 6(3): 223–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godefroy, Frédéric. 1881–1902. Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française et de tous ses dialectes du IXe au XVe siècle. Paris: F. Vieweg.Google Scholar
Hampton, James A. 1997. Conceptual combination. In Knowledge, Concepts and Categories, Koen Lamberts & David R. Shanks (eds), 133–159. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 211–242. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Buchholz, Oda. 1998. Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johan van der Auwera & Dónall Ó Baoill (eds), 277–334. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 49], Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isambert, Paul. 2016. Genre: Une mode récente mais qui vient de loin. Journal of French Language Studies 26(1): 85–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4): 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knittel, Marie-Laurence. 2009. Taxonomic adjectives in French: A syntactic account. <[URL]> (6 March 2019).
Kolyaseva, Alena F. 2018. The ‘new’ Russian quotative tipa: Pragmatic scope and functions. Journal of Pragmatics 128: 82–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfeld, Laura Malena. 2013. Atenuadores en la lengua coloquial argentina. Lingüística 29(2): 17–49.Google Scholar
Lo Baido, Maria Cristina. 2018. Categorization via exemplification: Evidence from Italian. In Linguistic Strategies for the Construction of Ad Hoc Categories: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, Caterina Mauri & Andrea Sansò (eds). Special issue of Folia Linguistica 52(s39–1): 69–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marques, Aldina. 2015. “Tipo”: Référentiation et modalisation dans des interactions verbales orales. In Travaux et documents 60, Maria Helena Araújo Carreira (ed.), 249–260. Paris: Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
Mauri, Caterina. 2017. Building and interpreting ad hoc categories: A linguistic analysis. In Formal Models in the Study of Language: Applications in Interdisciplinary Contexts, Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrlemann-Tame & Christopher Laenzlinger (eds), 297–326. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mihatsch, Wiltrud. 2007. The construction of vagueness: ‘Sort of’ expressions in Romance languages. In Aspects of Meaning Constructing Meaning: From Concepts to Utterances, Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Koepcke, Thomas Berg & Peter Siemund (eds), 225–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The approximators French comme, Italian come, Portuguese como and Spanish como from a grammaticalization perspective. In Grammaticalization and Pragmatics: Facts, Approaches, Theoretical Issues, Corinne Rossari, Claudia Ricci & Adriana Spiridon (eds), 65–91. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
. 2010. „Wird man von Hustensaft wie so ne art bekifft?“ Approximationsmarker in romanischen Sprachen. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
. 2016a. Type-noun binominals in four Romance languages. Language Sciences 53(Part B): 136–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. Collectives, object mass nouns and individual count nouns: nouns between lexical and inflectional plural marking. In Lexical Plurals and Beyond, Peter Lauwers & Marie Lammert (eds). Special issue of Lingvisticæ Investigationes 39(2): 289–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. From ad hoc category to ad hoc categorization: The proceduralization of Argentinian Spanish tipo . In Linguistic Strategies for the Construction of Ad Hoc Categories: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, Caterina Mauri & Andrea Sansò (eds). Special issue of Folia Linguistica 52(s39–1): 147–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennecke, Inga & Mihatsch, Wiltrud (to appear). From taxonomic to pragmatic uses of French genre: Degrees of prosodic prominence as indicators of pragmaticalization. To appear in: Clear versus approximate categorisation: A crosslinguistic perspective, Hélène Vassiliadou & Marie Lammert (eds.) Cambridge Scholars.
Mihatsch, Wiltrud (to appear a). Germanic, Romance and Slavic taxonomic nouns and their functions: An overview. To appear in Type Noun Constructions in Slavic, Germanic and Romance Languages – Semantics and pragmatics on the move. Lieselotte Brems, Kristin Davidse, Inga Hennecke, Anna Kisiel, Alena Kolyaseva & Wiltrud Mihatsch (eds.) De Gruyter Series Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM], 352. De Gruyter Mouton, URL: [URL]
(to appear b). A panoramic view of Romance taxonomic nouns and their derivatives. To appear in Type Noun Constructions in Slavic, Germanic and Romance Languages – Semantics and pragmatics on the move. Lieselotte Brems, Kristin Davidse, Inga Hennecke, Anna Kisiel, Alena Kolyaseva & Wiltrud Mihatsch (eds.) De Gruyter Series Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs [TiLSM], 352. De Gruyter Mouton, URL: [URL]
OED = Murray, James. 1884. Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: OUP. <[URL]> (2 May 2017).
Pereira Lima-Hernandes, Maria Célia. 2005. A interface sociolingüística / gramaticalização: Estratificação de usos de tipo, feito, igual e como. Sincronia e diacronia. PhD dissertation, University of Campinas.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, Mervis, Carolyn, Gray, Wayne, Johnson, David W. & Braem Penny Boyes. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenkvist, Henrik & Skärlund, Sanna. 2013. Grammaticalization in the present – The changes of modern Swedish typ . In Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 133], Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds), 313–338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosier, Laurence. 2002. Genre: Le nuancier de la grammaticalisation. Travaux de Linguistique 44(1): 79–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rouget, Christine. 1997. Espèce de, genre de, sorte de: Approximatifs ou sous-catégorisateurs? In Psychomécanique du langage. Problèmes et perspectives. Actes du 7e Colloque International de Psychomécanique du langage (Cordoue, 2–4 June 1994), Paulo de Carvalho & Olivier Soutet (eds), 289–298. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Sloutsky, Vladimir M. 2010. From perceptual categories to concepts: What develops? Cognitive Science 34: 1244–1286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Edward E. 1995. Concepts and categorization. In Thinking. An Invitation to Cognitive Science, Vol. 3, Edward E. Smith & D. N. Osherson (eds), 3–33. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
TLFi = Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé <[URL]>
Ullman, Michael T. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative / procedural model. Cognition 92(1–2): 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 2013. Semantic maps, for synchronic and diachronic typology. In Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 133], Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds), 153–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vladimirska, Elena. 2016. Entre le dire et le monde: Le cas du marqueur discursif genre. In Nouveaux regards sur l’approximation et la précision, Silvia Adler, Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot & Maria Asnes (eds), 195–209. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Voghera, Miriam. 2013. A case study on the relationship between grammatical change and synchronic variation: The emergence of tipo[-N] in Italian. In In Synchrony and Diachrony: A Dynamic Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 133], Anna Giacalone Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds), 283–312. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory & Birner, Betty. 1995. Definiteness and the English existential. Language 71(4): 722–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waxman, Sandra R. & Gelman, Susan A. 2010. Different kinds of concepts and different kinds of words: What words do for human cognition. In The Making of Human Concepts [Oxford Series in Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience], Denis Mareschal, Paul C. Quinn & Stephen E. G. Lea (eds), 99–129. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto. 2000. Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Mihatsch, Wiltrud & Ana Vazeilles
2024. Chapter 4. Diatopic variation as evidence for diachronic changes in the 20th and 21st centuries. In Language Change in the 20th Century [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 340], ► pp. 120 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.