Er, I think And is pointing out that the word "encoding" is indeed
flexible enough to encompass the process I just described. And I am
fine with that.
Ed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
edheil@postmark.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
John Cowan wrote:
> And Rosta scripsit:
> >
> > Ed Heil
>
> >
> > > That's just one of my favorite cogsci/linguistics topics. The
way
> > > that language is not so much an encoding of meaning as a device
> > > intended to elicit meaning in a suitably prepared brain. It
doesn't
> > > "contain" meaning any more than a rider's spurs "contain" a
horse's
> > > speed.
> >
> > While accepting the first three paragraphs and the spuriousness of
the
> > container metaphor, I would content the implication that a
language is
> > not an encoding of meaning. I think that's exactly what it is: a
set
> > of sentences, where a sentence is pairing of a meaning (an
underspecified
> > proposition) and an underspecified sound (or gesture). Modulo a
> > certain amount of polysemy in the word "language", language is a
> > code, not metaphorically but literally.
>
> I think that Ed is using "meaning" in its pragmatic sense (the
meaning
> of a message is just its effect on the listener) whereas And is
using
> it in some other sense, which perhaps is more common, but which I
cannot
> clearly understand.
>
> --
> John Cowan cowan@ccil.org
> I am a member of a civilization.