L. C. Reyes refers a discussant of his who
>presented [the] English example [of]
>"can't."
The discussant had
>[stated] that this "has [in it] implicit [...]
>the missing 'n' and 'o'. I pointed out that these
>phonemes in this instance do not convey
>implicit information, as morphemes would [...]
An unhappy example 'can't' is, perhaps? I say this on two counts: one
orthographic, one semantico-cum-pragmatic:
* L. Carroll (orthographic)
L. Carroll used to (famously) say that the strict (correct) abbreviation of
'can not' should be 'ca'n't' -- and I agree! (See e.g.
http://www.hoboes.com/html/FireBlade/Carroll/Sylvie/Concluded/preface.html
"[C]ritics have objected to certain innovations
in spelling, such as "ca'n't" [...]. In reply, I
can only plead my firm conviction that the popular
usage is wrong. [... I]t will not be disputed that,
in all other words ending in "n’t", these letters
are an abbreviation of "not"; and it is surely absurd
to suppose that, in this solitary instance, "not" is
represented by "'t"!")
* A. Zwicky (semantico-cum-pragmatic)
"can't" vs. "cannot" vs. "can not"
A. Zwicky has (famously) said that 'can't' does not equal (at least
non-truth-conditionally) 'can not' (if 'cannot'). '-n't' is, on this
implicature-based view, more of 'inflexion' (if not a tense/aspect) proper
than a simple 'abbreviation'. It is e.g. argued that the 'inflected'
negative "[He] can't [go]" -- or the orthographic lexicalisation "[He]
cannot [go]" -- only allows wide scope (E vertex) negation, while the
unlexicalised counterpart "[He] can not [go]" is [at least] ambiguous on
this respect.
I'm not sure I understand the concept of an 'elliptical morpheme'.
For what it's worth, the phonemic string /kant/ -- let's forget graphemics
-- can, in the Gricean parlance of WOW (p.128) constitute a vehicle for
"applied timeless meaning for unstructured utterance-types", as the three
examples below testify:
A: i. Name the philosopher who wrote
the Critique of Pure Reason.
ii. How would you describe his style?
("cant")
iii. Won't you or can't you?
B: /kant/
But then I'm not sure I understand the notion of 'implicit information' you
mention, either. (But then I'm not feeling particularly perspicacious today).
Cheers,
JL
L. C. Reyes writes:
>I have been discussing the issue of implicit information
>with a person who holds the code model of communication
>as the sole reliable source for utterance interpretation.
>I pointed out to him some problems with this model when
>it involves implicit information. The issue is whether
>an isolated linguistic item (such as an inflected word)
>that is extracted from a context can on its own convey
>implicit information (i.e., the word on its own
>in a total vacuum). This person presented the example
>of "can't." He states that "can't" "has implicit
>in it the missing 'n' and 'o' to make the
>expression "cannot." I pointed out that the phonemes
>in this instance do not convey implicit information,
>as morphemes would. While many linguists differ
>on the exact definition of "morpheme", they
>generally agree on it being the minimal unit of
>speech conveying a "meaning". My question: is there
>such thing as an _elliptical_ morpheme? If there is,
>then it would seem that this person can form an argument
>that implicit information (however restricted) can be
>recovered from purely linguistic decoding. I consider
>any example of an elliptical prefix, infix, or suffix
>or a word whether a contraction or an inflection.
==
J L Speranza, Esq
Country Town
St Michael's Hall Suite 5/8
Calle 58, No 611 Calle Arenales 2021
La Plata CP 1900 Recoleta CP 1124
Tel 00541148241050 Tel 00542214257817
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina
Telefax 00542214259205
http://www.netverk.com.ar/~jls/
jls@netverk.com.ar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 13 2002 - 07:16:32 GMT