RT list: Procedure and intersubstitutability

Dear All,
   
  Could someone clear up my mind please?
   
  Underlying the discussions of BUT, HOWEVER, NEVERTHELESS, is the disputable assumption that there are situations where these expressions are 'inter-substitutable'. Indeed, as Blakemore (2006) states in her recent revisit to these expressions, 'The objective is to find an analysis which is compatible both with the uses in which they are inter-substituable and the range of uses in which they are not.' As far as I can understand, when words are said to be 'inter-substitutable' they can be used in place of one another without any change in meaning hence their contributions (be it conceptual or procedural) to the interpretation of the host utterance are one and the same. Otherwise, it would amount to saying everyword is intersubstitutable (as one would easily say BUT and UNFORTUNATELY in (3-4) are intersubstitutable!) The following examples are due to Blakemore (2003: 116).
   
  (1) I am sure he is honest. Nevertheless the papers are missing.
  (2) I am sure he is honest. However, the papers are missing.
  (3) I am sure he is honest, but the papers are missing.
  (4) I am sure he is honest. Unfortunately, the papers are missing.
   
  Under the inter-substitutability assumption, (1), (2), and (3) are claimed to coincide in meaning: they receive the same interpretation. That means in the situations in question BUT, HOWEVER, NEVERTHELESS have the same/identical procedural information (B = H = N).
   
  But it is also generally accepted that there are situations where these expressions are not intersubstitutable.
   
  (5) A: We had a very nice lunch. I had an excellent lobster.
        B: But/*However/*Nevertheless what about the money?
   
  (6) She is not my sister but/*however/*nevertheless my mother.
   
  The fact that HOWEVER and NEVERTHELESS cannot be used in (5) or (6) can be seen as evidence that these three expressions do differ in meaning, or in relevance-theoretic terms, they do encode different procedures.
   
  The inevitable conclusion is that the meanings, or in relevance-theoretic terms, the procedures encoded by BUT, HOWEVER, and NEVERTHELESS are context-sensitive. This, I think, is unfortunate for a procedure which is supposed to guide the interpretation process. For a procedure to be a procedure, I would expect its 'guidance' to be constant regardless of the context in which it appears. A context-sensitive procedure would cause confusion rather than offer guidance. A context-sensitive/elusive procedure will be like a traffic sign (say, a STOP sign) the colour and shape of which varies according to the condition of the road! Even more seriously, it would also mean that it is the context which constrains the meaning of the procedural expresssions, not the other way round. And if a procedure is elusive/context-senitive, how are you ever going to get hold of it?
   
  If this is true, then we have to make a choice. Either it is necessary to drop the conceptual/procedural distinction to save the intersubstitutability assumption or to drop the intersubstitutabilty to save the conceptual/procedural distinction. They do not seem to be able to coexist! If we drop the intersubstitutability assumption, we must treat each expression (But, However, Nevertheless) as encoding a different procedure, and once one procedure is replaced by another a different interpretation (with different effects) is derived, hence (1-3) above would have different interpretations. However, I am afraid that this choice is against intuition, mine at least. If we drop the conceptual/procedural distinction, we must be ready to accept that every word/expression is conceptual and procedural at the same time, and it seems that Bach's claim that every word is procedural in some way or another turns out to be right!
   
  Thank you for reading.
   
  Minh Dang
   
   
   
   

 
---------------------------------
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
Received on Wed Dec 6 16:45:38 2006