Do not speak of Names!
Bill Cleere
<(Mark Kille) writes:
>
> [...deletia]
>
>Question for those who believe that syntax can be completely removed from
>semantics:
>
>1) Bill likes Bob because of the kind of person he is.
>2) Bill astonishes Bob because of the kind of person he is.
>
>In (1) and (2), who does the pronoun "he" refer to?
>Psychological studies have repeatedly shown that in (1), "he" is taken
>to refer to the person who is liked, while in (2), "he" is taken to refer
>to the person who is astonishing.
>Obviously, it is possible to get different interpretations: the syntax
>allows (in fact, requires, if you follow government-binding theory) that
>"he" freely refers to either Bill or Bob in both sentences.
>Yet, in practice, this does not happen.
>Structure is apparently not enough to establish meaning.
>
>Does anyone have an explanation for this linguistic phenomenon which does
>not fall back on semantics?
>
Sure do. I'm willing to bet that one of two processes is going on in
the minds of the people whom the psychologists studied:
(1) The testees create a mental picture of Bill and/or Bob;
(2) The testees identify themselves with Bill or Bob.
Thus, the meaning of the pronoun is determined by the listener's reaction
to the *names* (though the listener probably isn't aware of this process.)
*Who* the listener thinks Bill or Bob is affects his choice in applying
the pronoun.
Jeepers! If that's the case it means not only that names are important,
but that, once we let in the listener, names are intimately connected to
syntax itself.
Here's a classic bit of tactical syntax to illustrate the point. The
philosopher Morris Cohen was once interrupted by a student who said,
"But professor, isn't it true that I can't even prove that *I* exist?"
Cohen replied, "And who is asking?"
...That was a good, thought-provoking post, Mark. Thanks.
-- Bill
Francis Dolarhyde
>> [deletia]
>
>Sure do. I'm willing to bet that one of two processes is going on in
>the minds of the people whom the psychologists studied:
> (1) The testees create a mental picture of Bill and/or Bob;
> (2) The testees identify themselves with Bill or Bob.
>
>Thus, the meaning of the pronoun is determined by the listener's reaction
>to the *names* (though the listener probably isn't aware of this process.)
>*Who* the listener thinks Bill or Bob is affects his choice in applying
>the pronoun.
>
>Jeepers! If that's the case it means not only that names are important,
>but that, once we let in the listener, names are intimately connected to
>syntax itself.
>
context. It is true that names can be connected to the use of syntax in
certain situations. But if you have familiarized yourself with the
subject of *tactical syntax* you will realize that the idea of names
being intrinsically connected with this subject is faulty. In common
speech modes as well as literature and written reports, the use os labels
or names is important. In the use of structural grammar as a weapon,
however, the use of labels are irrelevant. Whatever I call you or myself
is irrelevant. If I use base insults, you will ignore them as easily as
you ignore my use of your name. If I refer to soemone else, you'll know
it whether or not I refer to you or them by name because I have
structured it to do so. Do you see what I mean? There is a
comprehensive difference.
>Here's a classic bit of tactical syntax to illustrate the point. The
>philosopher Morris Cohen was once interrupted by a student who said,
>"But professor, isn't it true that I can't even prove that *I* exist?"
>Cohen replied, "And who is asking?"
>
Cute, but improperly labelled. This is *not* tactical syntax. It is
humourous for a variety of other reasons, but they do not include TS.
>...That was a good, thought-provoking post, Mark. Thanks.
>
I agree.
> -- Bill
Lazarus