Question

From: LuisCReyes@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 11 2002 - 17:41:25 GMT

  • Next message: J L Speranza: "Re: Question"

    Hello:

    I have been discussing the issue of implicit information with a person who
    holds the code model of communication as a sole reliable source for utterance
    interpretation. I have already pointed out to him some problems with this
    model when it involves implicit information.

    However, the issue now 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 placed in total vacuum). This
    person presented an English example such as "can't." He then states that
    this, "has implicit in it the missing 'n' and 'o' to make the linguistically
    valid expression "cannot." While this is true, I pointed out that these
    phonemes in this instance do not convey implicit information, as morphemes
    would seem to possibly do in a very restricted case. While many linguists
    differ on the exact definition of a morpheme, they all generally agree and
    consider it to be the minimal unit of speech conveying a specific meaning in
    a language.

    Here is my question: Is there such a thing as an elliptical morpheme in
    grammatical ellipses in an entirely isolated word? If there is, then it would
    seem that this person can form an argument that implicit information (however
    restricted it may be) can be recovered from purely linguistic decoding. I
    will consider any example of an elliptical prefix, infix, or suffix to an
    isolated word whether it be a contraction or inflected linguistic item.

    Hope I have explained myself clearly

    Luis



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 11 2002 - 17:43:07 GMT