RT list,
Many thanks to all who have replied with helpful comments. I just wanted to follow up one comment here:
Stephen Pattemore wrote:
[snip]
>I would want to add to the list (or perhaps refine and
>explicate no.3) that, RT being thoroughly pragmatic,
>it depends just as much, perhaps more, on "to whom"
>the statement is made - i.e. the cognitive environment
>of the audience. The speaker, working instinctively
>within the principle of relevance, chooses words that
>optimise the relevance of his/her intended meaning for
>the audience in the audience's cognitive environment.
[snip]
This is very helpful. [Somewhat related]: Has anyone worked with ancient texts and attempted to reconstruct a cognitive environment? My question is simply, how much evidence of a concept's existence would convince you that it was there? The occasional localized example does not seem to be sufficient to demonstrate it was part of the general cognitive environment. However, widespread attestation in inscriptions, papyri, etc., would seem to suggest its existence. Of course, I am assuming there exists no direct discussion of the concept, merely incidental mentions such as the use of a title (e.g., savior, lord, god, etc.) for an emperor. Given an imperfect state of preservation of sources, what would you need to see to conclude it existed? In other words, to demonstrate that the concept of "Caesar as savior" existed in the first century as part of the general cognitive environment, would you need to find a certain amount of certain types of sources calling him this in wide!
spread areas? I know this quest
ion is far too simplistic and a bit off-topic. However, it seems relevant due to the desire to understand the cognitive environment.
Joe Fantin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 29 2001 - 23:05:31 GMT