Re: RT list: Fwd: On the c-p distinction (totally however)

   (8) Sue likes red wine. *Totally however, Mary drinks beer.
  

                                                                         (Blakemore 2006: 564)
  

  Notice that in (8) totally (a conceptual expression) and however (a procedural expression) are forced into the ‘semantic marriage’ which does not work. Examples like (8) are frequently projected as strong evidence for the non-semantic compositionality of procedural expressions. However, if (8) is argued as evidence against the impossibility of semantic complexity of however, it is not clear why it cannot be argued as evidence against the possibility of semantic complexity of totally as well. In other words, if the ‘semantic marriage’ of totally and however does not work, the blame must be on both parties! Why does only ‘however’ carry the burden of blame? Why the bias? This sort of examples is invalid for both the claim that conceptual expressions can be semantically complex and that procedural expressions cannot. To dismiss the possibility of semantic compositionality of procedural expressions, it has to be shown that they (procedural expressions) cannot combine to form
 another complex procedure.
   
  More to come soon...

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Received on Wed Dec 5 15:59:13 2007