Chapter 3 focuses on lexical semantics–pragmatics. Drawing on the views adopted in Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory, it provides an in-depth analysis aimed at exploring the nature of conceptual content and its use in context. It is argued that lexical concepts are best characterized by means of rich networks of encyclopedic knowledge, an approach that enables Relevance Theory to resolve a number of conflicting assumptions (including the presumed paradox discussed in Leclercq, 2022). At the same time, the case is made that this knowledge constitutes an intrinsically context-sensitive semantic potential that serves as the foundation of an inferential process guided by strong pragmatic principles. This process is addressed in terms of lexically regulated saturation, which forms the cornerstone of the integrated model outlined in this book.

Chapter 4 examines how the direct linguistic environment of a lexeme affects its interpretation. In keeping with the constructionist approach, this means looking into the interaction between lexemes and the various types of constructions in which they are found. First, examples of coercion are considered. Though semantically triggered, it is argued that such examples are pragmatically resolved and do not require a process distinct from lexically regulated saturation (Leclercq, 2019). The pragmatic roots of coercion are related to the “procedural function” of the “grammatical constructions” involved, two concepts whose definitions are carefully reviewed. It is argued that grammatical constructions serve only to assist the interpretation process. Second, attention is given to more idiomatic constructions in which lexemes are also found. The interpretation of these constructions is said to follow from a parallel, context-sensitive process guided by considerations of relevance that may suspend lexically regulated saturation. Overall, Chapter 4 sheds light on the complex ways in which lexical meaning comes about.

This chapter offers a very brief introduction to the topic addressed in this book and presents a general outline.

Chapter 2 contains a detailed overview of Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. Special attention is given to identifying their respective strengths and weaknesses, particularly with regard to questions about the semantics–pragmatics interface. This will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand and pave the way for a genuine integration of the two theories.

Chapter 5 concludes that combining Construction Grammar with Relevance Theory is advantageous. Merging these two frameworks amplifies their respective strengths, resulting in more precise and accurate descriptions of language use as well as a deeper understanding of the cognitive processes involved in verbal communication. It is shown how English modals serve as an effective testing ground of the new theoretical model that arises from this integration (Leclercq, 2023), and future research prospects are suggested.

This chapter focuses on abbreviations, elements that were almost a byword for a written document from the Antiquity through the Middle Ages right until the early modern period: notwithstanding the language, text type and genre, script type, purpose and audience, these ideographic elements were nearly always to be found in a written document. For the medieval litteratus, abbreviations embodied the inextricable link between logos and imago; for the contemporary reader, they may well have a familiar feel of the multimodality we have grown accustomed to that informs digital textuality. The author outlines the origins, typology and visuality of Latin abbreviations used in medieval and early modern Europe, adding a postscript on the transition from script to print, which ultimately spelled the end of such ideograms in the modern era. This chapter, however, should not be read as a note on ‘the days of yore’ in the history of orthography in the Latin West: abbreviations do have a longue durée in Latin-based textuality and remain a feature of modern writing, if sometimes in a different guise.

This chapter is intended to offer assistance for the linguistic description of writing systems throughout the history of one or, especially, several languages and provide a comparative description of the different units of writing systems. The first section establishes the definitions of the concepts of grapheme, graph, allograph and suprasegmental grapheme. The application of these concepts to English and Romance languages is exemplified by three models and methods of diachronic and comparative description of writing systems: Romance scriptology, cultural history of European orthographies, and comparative graphematics of punctuation. The second section discusses biscriptality, the phenomenon of employing two or more writing systems for the same language, not rare in the history of languages from different families, and related to different aspects of society and language users. With examples mainly from Russian and other Slavic languages, biscriptality is shown to be present on several levels of written language, and various applications of biscriptality are characterized with the help of dichotomies such as synchronic vs. diachronic biscriptality, monocentric vs. pluricentric biscriptality, and societal vs. individual biscriptality.

This chapter discusses from three perspectives the stages of the hybridity of writing systems in the period of the formation of various alphabets as well as their adaptations to the requirements of specific languages. Firstly, the chapter draws attention to the role of borrowings and intersystemic influences at the early stage of the formation of the ‘grand’ alphabets, including the Greek, Latin Cyrillic and Arabic alphabets. These are forms of writing of a long tradition, which later became the basis for numerous national alphabets. Adaptations which adjust a certain alphabetic system (the base alphabet) to the needs of writing the phones of a different language constitute the second – narrower – perspective on contacts between alphabets and the transformations within them. The reflections in this part are exemplified by references to the Latin alphabet in its Polish edition. The chapter then focuses on the narrowest perspective, drawing readers’ attention to alphabet adaptations that did not achieve the status of national writing. This is exemplified by two – entirely different – models of adaptation, comprising the Polish graždanka (Polish Cyrillic alphabet) and the Polish and Belarusian Arabic-graphic writing (aljamiado). Additionally, the author briefly discusses Polish texts written in the Armenian alphabet.

This chapter discusses selected studies of orthography that focus on the spelling practices by mere users of the language (in crucial opposition to actors from the literate elite – norm makers), concentrating on what they reveal about processes of language change as exemplified by spelling variation. The chapter supports the idea that, within the field of historical sociolinguistics, orthographic variables are now considered a type of linguistic variables. The author shows, on the basis of specific historical sociolinguistic studies, that writers’ variable choices of orthography can inform us about broader mechanisms of language change, but always alongside other types of variation or linguistic information. This chapter examines almost exclusively material from the French language, with the studies under consideration addressing either regional French in France or different varieties of French in Canada. The author situates French orthographic variables within the broader language evolution context, explicating what information spelling variation discloses about the writer’s attitudes toward the (written or spoken) norm, toward the written form, and toward the writer’s linguistic community as a whole. The author also considers how spelling variation compares to other types of language variation in order to contribute to a greater understanding of language change.