Advertisement

Processing Coercion in Brazilian Portuguese: Grinding Objects and Packaging Substances

  • Suzi LimaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 48)

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the interpretation of mass to count and count to mass coercion in Brazilian Portuguese. One interesting feature of Brazilian Portuguese (as opposed to other dialects of Portuguese and other Romance languages) is the productive use of bare singulars in argument position (that is, count nouns that are not preceded by a determiner as in Eu comprei livro ‘I bought book(s)’). The goal of this paper is twofold. The first goal is to explore the interpretation of bare singulars. In a reading time task, I investigated whether the grinding interpretation of bare singulars (João viu camisa rasgada no chão ‘João saw (a/some) shirt(s) torn on the floor’) is costlier than a non-grinding interpretation (João viu camisa dobrada no chão ‘João saw shirt folded on the floor’). This is predicted by rule-based lexical shifts hypotheses according to which the non-grinding interpretation is the basic interpretation and the grinding interpretation is derived from it. The second goal is to investigate whether mass nouns in count contexts (packaging) such as Eu comprei três cervejas ontem ‘I bought three beers yesterday’ are costlier than count nouns in the same syntactic environment (Eu comprei três laranjas ontem ‘I bought three oranges yesterday’). In both studies, no significant effect was found when contrasting coerced and non-coerced uses of count and mass nouns. I suggest that this provides supporting evidence in favor of lexical pragmatics approaches over lexical rule-based theories.

Keywords

Grinding Packaging Brazilian Portuguese Count/mass distinction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Cristiane Oliveira (for technical support and for her help in the process of running this experiment) and Steven Frisson and Lyn Frazier, for the inspiration for this work.

References

  1. Barner, D., & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: Evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97(1), 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(1), 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beviláqua, K., Lima, S., & Pires de Oliveira, R. (2016). Bare nouns in Brazilian Portuguese: An experimental study on grinding. Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 11(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beviláqua, K., & Pires de Oliveira, R. (2014). Brazilian bare phrases and referentiality: Evidences from an experiment. Revista Letras, 90(2), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brocher, A., Foraker, S., & Koenig, J. P. (2016). Processing of irregular polysemes in sentence reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(11), 1798–1813.Google Scholar
  6. Bunt, H. C. (1985). Mass terms and model-theoretic semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1995). Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. Journal of Semantics, 12(1), 15–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copestake, A. (1992). The representation of lexical semantic information (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex).Google Scholar
  9. Doetjes, J. S. (1997). Quantifiers and selection: on the distribution of quantifying expressions in French, Dutch and English. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
  10. Falkum, I. L. (2017). The lexical pragmatics of count-mass polysemy. Semantics and Pragmatics, 10(20), 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frisson, S., & Frazier, L. (2005). Carving up word meaning: Portioning and grinding. Journal of Memory and Language, 53(2), 277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1990). Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(2), 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frisson, S. (2009). Semantic underspecification in language processing. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frisson, S., & Pickering, M. J. (1999). The processing of metonymy: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(6), 1366–1383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gleason, H. A. (1965). Linguistics and English grammar. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Lima, S. O., & Gomes, A. P. Q. (2016). The interpretation of Brazilian Portuguese bare singulars in neutral contexts. Revista Letras, 93, 193–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Menuzzi, S., Silva, M. C. F., & Doetjes, J. (2015). Subject bare singulars in Brazilian Portuguese and information structure. Journal of Portuguese Linguistics, 14(1), 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pires de Oliveira, R., & Rothstein, S. (2011). Bare singular noun phrases are mass in Brazilian Portuguese. Lingua, 121(15), 2153–2175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pelletier, F. J. (1975). Non-singular reference: some preliminaries. Philosophia, 5, 451–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pylkkänen, L., Llinás, R., & Murphy, G. L. (2006). The representation of polysemy: MEG evidence. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(1), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rabagliati, H., & Snedeker, J. (2013). The truth about chickens and bats: Ambiguity avoidance distinguishes types of polysemy. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1354–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Samuelson, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (1999). Early noun vocabularies: do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? Cognition, 73(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Srinivasan, M., & Snedeker, J. (2011). Judging a book by its cover and its contents: The representation of polysemous and homophonous meanings in four-year-old children. Cognitive Psychology, 62(4), 245–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wiese, H., & Maling, J. (2005). Beers, kaffi, and schnaps: Different grammatical options for restaurant talk coercions in three Germanic languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 17(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations