The role of exemplification in the construction of categories: the case of Japanese

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine the role of exemplification in categorization processes, that is, how examples can be used in discourse to communicate conceptual categories. Based on data from present-day Japanese and a corpus-driven methodology, it will be shown that exemplifying constructions can be used 1) to refine already explicit categories by contextualizing and actualizing the reference, and 2) to create categories ex novo by triggering associative inferences and abstractive processes. Accordingly, a detailed analysis of the linguistic properties of the examples will be provided in order to identify recurring encoding patterns and correlations with the functions described above. Furthermore, it will be argued that, although any conceptual category can be lexicalized by means of a category label, there exist some interesting correlations between the coding of the examples and the labelling of the category. Finally, we will conclude by showing that the linguistic analysis of exemplification can provide useful insights regarding the modalities in which the human brain categorizes.

Wild words

“…These items are not explicitly mentioned, but just evoked; the overall meaning of the list depends on their identification, which in this case is made easier by the presence of seasonal bounties, that drives the interpretation towards this higher-level category (and not, for instance, towards 'fruit' in general, which could, in principle, be another possible reading). The reference to a higher-level category (of which conjuncts are exemplars) is common in lists (Barotto & Mauri 2018;Goria & Masini forthcoming). These 'categorizing' lists typically correlate with some properties; one such property says that conjuncts should be co-hyponyms.…”

“…Mauri & Sansò 2017, 2018a for the linguistic expression of these categories). Interestingly, lists, too, are a means through which languages build (ad hoc) categories (Barotto & Mauri 2018;Goria & 11 This does not amount to say that word formation processes do not create nonce expressions. They certainly do.…”

Category-building lists between grammar and interaction

“…Based on the previous discussion, every instance of a denotation list corresponds, in a way, to an act of categorization, as all lists pragmatically presuppose that all their listed items belong to the same set (Barotto & Mauri, 2018). However, in our model we distinguish between lists that implicitly rely on some presupposed category and lists whose primary function is to convey at the content level some specific way of categorizing reality in a specific context.…”

“…This example also shows clearly that it is misleading to assume a direct relation between categorization and nonexhaustive lists: in spite of having a finite number of members, the list contained in this example leads nonetheless towards the ad hoc construction of a category. Even if the construction here does not invite to infer possible other members, as is the case with non-exhaustive lists (Barotto & Mauri, 2018), it leads all the same to the construction of a set that is only relevant in a very specific context and grounded in the specific activity performed by…”

“…Ghezzi & Andorno, 2014;Voghera, 2013) or signal the exemplar value of a given referential expression, establishing a paradigmatic relation with other implicit or explicitly verbalized alternatives (e.g. Barotto, 2018;Lo Baido, 2018;Fiorentini, 2018a,b). For what concerns list constructions, a great deal of recent research has been devoted to elements -such as the English etcetera, and things like that, and stuff, and all -that are used in various languages to mark the conclusion of an open list and at the same time to signal the exemplar value of the previous elements, thus inviting the construction of a category based on these exemplars.…”