Dear Ernst-August,
Had I capitalized Gutt in a "gutt translation", it probably wouldn't have
triggered the much anticipated response from you (and it's an adjective too).
Interestingly enough, you seem to have skipped processing my (for what
it's worth) informative intention, but went straight for the
communicative/phatic one. Does this prove the supremacy of
having to recognize one's communicative/phatic intention before deciding
whether to process the (alleged) informativeness of one's message...
An addition to the direct access hypothesis?
Regarding "a Sperber and Wilson way of communicating", well, there
have been precedents when people used something very closely
resembling this expression: cf. "a discourse may be "S&W"
relevant" and "S&W irrelevant" (Wilson 1998a).
Best wishes,
Andre
Tuesday, November 9, 2004, 8:36:26 PM, you wrote:
(It seems about as appropriate to talk about a "gutt way of translating" as it would be to
talk about "a Sperber and Wilson way of communicating".)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 21:45:01 GMT