Re: THEORY: Underspecification

And Rosta scripsit:

> I know you claim not to understand this other sense, but I can't
> understand your claim. Surely it is part of the specification of English
> that _dog_ means 'dog'? Else how do we hear [dOg] and understand 'dog'?
In my view, we infer the pragmatic use of "dog" from analyzing
originally holophrastic sentences like "See the dog" and "That is a dog".
In the majority of sentences involving _dog_, we see that something
canine is referred to; however, a minority of sentences do not
refer to anything canine ("She's a real dog", e.g.).

--
John Cowan                                   cowan@ccil.org
       I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin