Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: Underspecification

From:And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:Saturday, March 11, 2000, 2:29
John Cowan:
> 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.).
I don't quite see where we differ. Change "we infer the pragmatic use of 'dog'" to "we infer that the sense of _dog_ is 'dog'", and I would certainly agree with you. --And.