Re: RT list: Non-sentential utterances, logical form, explicatures (e.g. in poetry)

I can't help but sense that we are slightly leaving the initial topic
and delving into one which is immensely more complex and foundational.
Either way, as far as I understand Chomsky's account in relation to
parsing (and there is a big chance that I don't properly), the
suggestion is that syntax is encapsulated and meaning comes in at
another level. The example you mentioned could in principle be
approached this way, but considering poetic language and the fact that
there are no verbs present, things are more complicated in my view:

Seven stars in the still water,
And seven in the sky;
Seven sins on the the King's daughter,
Deep in her soul to lie.

If you don't have access to the meaning of the words here, how can you
reach a syntactic representation which would assume that the implied
verb is something like 'there are' as opposed to any other verb, hence
that there is no subject present. I hope my previous comment didn't
hint at the conclusion that syntax is not necessary for decoding or
whatever have you. I merely suggested that syntax cannot always
provide us with some full template to which we will then assign
meaning. It might be preferable to have syntax and semantics working
together, and what I had in mind is categorial frameworks like HPSG or
Dynamic Syntax. I hope this clarifies things a bit further.

Best,
Stavros

On 13 February 2011 10:43, Jose Luis Guijarro Morales
<joseluis.guijarro@uca.es> wrote:
> Yes, you are right. Like Sperber and Wilson, I believe that the chomskyan
> frame is quite adequate to clarify things. And to those that would question
> the basic syntactic level, as you seem to be claiming, I propose this quiz.
>
> What meaning do you think the following chain has?
>
> That that is is that that is not is not that that is is not that that is not
> nor is that that is not that that is is that it?
>
> Believe it or not, I have written it without the slightless hesitation,
> which you would also be able to do had you heard it pronounced it just once
> (as I did).
>
> As soon as we hear it, we immediately map the appropriate intonation of the
> expression with a phrase structure. It is only AFTER we have easily done
> that apparently difficult feat that we are able to go on along the other
> steps that I pointed to yesterday until we complete the whole interpretation
> process.
>
> Do you have a better description of it?
>
> I'd be mighty interested in reading it!
>
> José Luis Guijarro
> Facultad de Filosofía y Letras
> Universidad de Cádiz
> 11002 Cádiz, España (Spain)
> tlf: (34) 956-011.613
> fax: (34) 956-015.505

-- 
Stavros Assimakopoulos
Postdoctoral Investigator
Department of Philosophy I
University of Granada
------------------------------------
http://www.ugr.es/~stavros/