Making connections - linguistic or pragmatic?

In (1), the talking event described in the matrix clause is elaborated on in the following adjunct: the arguing about the data and the theories makes up the content of the talking referred to in the matrix clause. In (2), on the other hand, the events (or sub-events of a single complex event) described are in a causeconsequence relation, a result of the action described in the matrix clause being that the porcelain vase breaks. These two examples illustrate a central issue for the interpretation of -ing adjuncts: the relation holding between the event described in the adjunct and the event described in the matrix clause is not always the same – in fact, as we’ll see, there is quite a range of possibilities. So the question is: how is the particular relation arrived at?

[1]  S. Glucksberg.  Mental Representations: The Interface Between Language and Reality. , 1990 .

[2]  Kate Kearns,et al.  Durative Achievements and Individual-Level Predicates on Events , 2003 .

[3]  Gregory T. Stump.  The semantic variability of absolute constructions , 1984 .

[4]  Jan Svartvik,et al.  A __ comprehensive grammar of the English language , 1988 .

[5]  Kjell Johan Saeboe.  Anaphoric presuppositions and zero anaphora , 1996 .

[6]  F. J. Pelletier.  The Principle of Semantic Compositionality , 1994 .

[7]  Bernd Kortmann,et al.  Free Adjuncts and Absolutes in English: Problems of Control and Interpretation , 1991 .

[8]  D. Sperber,et al.  Truthfulness and Relevance , 2002 .

[9]  Beth Levin,et al.  A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English , 1994 .

[10]  Stephen Pulman,et al.  Lexical Decomposition: For and Against , 2005 .

[11]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[12]  Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen,et al.  The relation accompanying circumstance across languages: Conflict between linguistic expression and discourse subordination? , 2009 .

[13]  J. King,et al.  Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Role of Semantic Content , 2005 .

[14]  A. Avramides.  Studies in the Way of Words , 1992 .

[15]  L. Vieu,et al.  Subordinating and coordinating discourse relations , 2005 .

[16]  J. Stanley.  Context and Logical Form , 2000 .

[17]  ter Meulen,et al.  Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation , 2007 .

[18]  Steven Davis.  Pragmatics : a reader , 1991 .

[19]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Concepts, propositions, and schemata: what are the cognitive units? , 1980, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation.

[20]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[21]  HANS KAMP,et al.  REMARKS ON LEXICAL STRUCTURE AND DRS CONSTRUCTION , 1994 .

[22]  R. Carston.  Conjunction, explanation and relevance , 1993 .

[23]  Isabel Gómez Txurruka.  The Natural Language Conjunction And , 2003 .

[24]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication , 2002 .

[25]  Hans Kamp,et al.  Semantics Versus Pragmatics , 1978 .

[26]  Michel Aurnague,et al.  Semantics of Time, Space, Movement and spatio-temporal reasoning , 1993 .

[27]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[28]  Diane Brockway,et al.  Semantic constraints on relevance , 1981 .

[29]  Deirdre Wilson,et al.  Relevance theory: A tutorial , 2002 .

[30]  Henk Zeevat.  Explaining Presupposition Triggers , 2002 .

[31]  Robyn Carston,et al.  Implicature, explicature and truth-theoretic semantics , 1998 .

[32]  D. Sperber,et al.  Linguistic form and relevance , 1993 .

[33]  Tomek Strzalkowski,et al.  From Discourse to Logic , 1991 .

[34]  Robyn Carston,et al.  The pragmatics of sentential coordination with and. , 2005 .

[35]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Logics of Conversation , 2005, Studies in natural language processing.

[36]  Dan Sperber,et al.  Pragmatics, modularity and mindreading , 2002 .

[37]  Nat Hansen,et al.  Literal Meaning: Introduction , 2003 .