Re: CHAT: THEORY/CHAT: Re: Jackendoff's "Semantic (?) Structures"

Philippe Caquant said:

> So, again: what is the difference between semantics
> and cognition ? As I understand it, semantics refers
> to one particular language (just like lexicon and
> syntax), and cognition to the way every human's brain
> works ? In that case, clearly my concern is cognition,
> and not semantics.
I don't believe that any part of language can be usefully separated from
neuropsychology.

I do believe that most linguists (but very few psychologists) would
disagree with me. As far as I'm concerned, though, the problem has more to
do with academic turf machismo than with any kind of tenable criteria for
treating language as though it were something separate.

Meanings of verbal utterances reverberate through the hearer/reader's
entire mind. Requiring that an arbitrary cut-off point be established that
delimits a purported "language" part of these meanings from a purported
"cognitive" part merely delays scientific progress towards understanding
how human language works.

You probably don't need to worry too much about "encoding". On my view,
the effects of an utterance on a hearer/reader are no more "encoded" in
that utterance than the effects of a gust of wind on a surfboarder are
"encoded" in the atmosphere. Speakers produce utterances that are expected
to cause certain effects in the hearer/reader -- what actually gets
"encoded" (i.e. processed into a stream of sounds or letters) may be at
right angles to the speaker's intentions.


> a. Sue hit Fred.
> b. The car hit the tree.
> c. Pete hit the ball into the field.
>
> first of all, if I translate them into French, I will
> probably say:
> a. Sue a frappe Fred.
> b. La voiture a heurte l'arbre.
> c. Pete a projete le ballon dans le champ.
> so it's not the same verb any more ! What happened to
> "the verb 'hit'" ? There are three of them !
I think there are three of them in English, too. They just look the same.


> The same for "The sodium emitted electrons",
> reformulated: "What the sodium did was emit
> electrons". The sodium did not "do" anything at all,
> there just was a natural phenomenon of emitting
> electrons coming from a sodium source...
Some people use 'do' to refer to events that do not entail intentionality.

"Is the sodium doing anything?" "No, we haven't picked up any electrons."

It seems mildly animistic when you think about it.


-- Mark

Reply