From Semantic Underdetermination to Contextual Resolution: A Layered Framework for the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface in English
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65405/fh2a2894Keywords:
semantic underdetermination; contextual enrichment; semantics–pragmatics interface; semantic minimalism; contextualism; truth-conditional pragmatics; lexical pragmatics; occasion meaning; pragmatic inference; English semanticsAbstract
The relation between linguistically encoded meaning and contextually interpreted content remains a central problem at the semantics–pragmatics interface. English utterances routinely communicate contents that are more determinate, contextually restricted, or conceptually adjusted than their overt lexical and syntactic forms alone appear to specify. The difficulty is not simply that context matters, but that competing theories assign context different representational roles: value assignment to encoded parameters, completion of underspecified structure, optional enrichment, lexical modulation, implicature, or selection among conventional senses. This article develops a critical conceptual analysis, supported by a concept-led review of foundational and recent scholarship, to clarify these operations and their evidential consequences. It proposes a Layered Contextual Resolution Framework (LCRF) comprising six analytical layers: encoded semantic content, linguistic under specification, contextual parameter resolution, pragmatic enrichment or modulation, inferential stabilization, and occasion meaning. The framework is applied to English cases involving predicative incompleteness, weather predicates, gradable adjectives, possessives, temporal interpretation, scalar strengthening, loose use, and polysemy. Its contribution is diagnostic rather than merely taxonomic: each layer is associated with distinct evidential questions concerning linguistic mandate, conventionality, contextual value assignment, conceptual adjustment, alternative structure, and processing. The analysis argues that context dependence is heterogeneous and that no single semantics–pragmatics boundary is likely to explain all cases. A constrained layered account preserves a substantive role for semantic structure while allowing pragmatically developed explicit content where independent evidence supports it. The article concludes with testable predictions for experimental, corpus, and cross-linguistic work and identifies conditions under which a phenomenon should be reclassified across layers as evidence changes.
Downloads
References
1. Almotahari, M. (2024). Generic cognition: A neglected source of context sensitivity. Mind & Language, 39(4), 472–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12491
2. BACH, K. (1994). Conversational Impliciture. Mind & Language, 9(2), 124–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.1994.tb00220.x
3. Bade, N., Chung, W., Picat, L., Dudley, R., & Mascarenhas, S. (2025). Shared mechanisms in pragmatic enrichment with contextual and lexical alternatives. Journal of Memory and Language, 142, 104607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2024.104607
4. Beevers, T. (2024). Vagueness, Conditionals and Context Sensitivity. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 105(3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12461
5. Belligh, T., & Willems, K. (2021). What’s in a code? The code-inference distinction in Neo-Gricean Pragmatics, Relevance Theory, and Integral Linguistics. Language Sciences, 83, 101310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2020.101310
6. Borg, E. (2004). Minimal Semantics. Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199270252.001.0001
7. Borg, E. (2012). Pursuing Meaning. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588374.001.0001
8. Bowker, M. (2024). Keeping context in mind: a non-semantic explanation of apparent context-sensitivity. Linguistics and Philosophy, 47(1), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-023-09396-z
9. Cappelen, Herma., & Lepore, Ernest. (2008). Insensitive Semantics.
10. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and Utterances (R. Carston, Ed.). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603
11. Carston, R. (2010). Lexical pragmatics, ad hoc concepts and metaphor: A Relevance Theory perspective.
12. del Pinal, G. (2022). The Logicality of Language: Contextualism versus Semantic Minimalism. Mind, 131(522), 381–427. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzab020
13. Devitt, M. (2021). Semantic polysemy and psycholinguistics. Mind & Language, 36(1), 134–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12327
14. Devitt, M. (2024). Demonstratives, context-sensitivity, and coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy, 47(2), 317–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-023-09398-x
15. Dobler, T. (2023). Pragmatic enrichment, issues and domain goals. Mind & Language, 38(3), 669–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12434
16. Drożdżowicz, A. (2022). Making it precise—Imprecision and underdetermination in linguistic communication. Synthese, 200(3), 219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03544-x
17. Fisher, S. A. (2021). Reassessing truth-evaluability in the Minimalism-Contextualism debate. Synthese, 198(3), 2765–2782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02245-2
18. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
19. HALL, A. (2008). Free Enrichment or Hidden Indexicals? Mind & Language, 23(4), 426–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.00350.x
20. Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
21. Jaszczolt, K. M. (2016). Meaning in Linguistic Interaction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199602469.001.0001
22. Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford University Press.
23. Leclercq, B. (2023). Ad hoc concepts and the relevance heuristics. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 33(3), 324–342. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21057.lec
24. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
25. Liu, M. (2023). X-Phi and the challenge from ad hoc concepts. Synthese, 201(5), 166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04149-8
26. Löhr, G. (2024). Does polysemy support radical contextualism? On the relation between minimalism, contextualism and polysemy. Inquiry, 67(1), 68–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1868329
27. Moeschler, J. (2022). Truth-conditional pragmatics (pp. 1427–1452). https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.m2.tru3
28. Noveck, I. (2018). Experimental Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316027073
29. Nys, B. L., Wong, W., & Schaeken, W. (2024). Some scales require cognitive effort: A systematic review on the role of working memory in scalar implicature derivation. Cognition, 242, 105623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105623
30. Padilla Cruz, M. (2022). Is free enrichment always free? Revisiting ad hoc-concept construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 187, 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.11.006
31. Padilla Cruz, M. (2023). Paralanguage and ad hoc concepts. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 33(3), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21059.pad
32. Piskorska, A., & Padilla Cruz, M. (2023). Concepts and context in relevance-theoretic pragmatics. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 33(3), 313–323. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.22064.pad
33. Rahman, A., & Xu, W. (2023). Moderate semantic minimalism: an eclectic approach to trichotomy of meaning. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 244. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01701-2
34. Récanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge University Press.
35. Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001
36. Ronai, E., & Xiang, M. (2024). What could have been said? Alternatives and variability in pragmatic inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 136, 104507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2024.104507
37. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
38. Sperber, Dan., & Wilson, Deirdre. (1995). Relevance : communication and cognition. Blackwell Publishers.
39. Stanley, J. (2000). Context and Logical Form. Linguistics and Philosophy, 23(4), 391–434. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005599312747
40. Travis, C. (2008). Occasion-Sensitivity. Oxford University PressOxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230334.001.0001
41. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2012). Meaning and Relevance. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370
