Is the grammaticality of language necessarily tied to the structure of statements or does the semantic content of the lexicon, in terms of its indexicality, contribute just as much to the transmission of meaning from speaker to listener? Do grammaticality and meaning complete each other or simply complement each other? Without taking into account idiomatic expressions, are a native speaker's utterances well-formed even if they lack basic sentence structure, such that well-formedness is carried not by formalistic rules for properly organizing and conveying ideas in speech, i.e. complete sentences, but rather by the content which is being conveyed itself?
As far as I can tell, the ideas encompassed by these questions run counter to the modern notions of grammaticality, that is, the notions of what makes an utterance grammatical. (Though I could be wrong in this assumption). I'd been thinking the opposite of these ideas a few weeks ago--that it's the underlying syntactic framework of language which determines the transmission of meaning--but as of late, have started to turn against this idea of formalism and structuralism and decide that it's all about semantics, baby. These were just lay-thoughts until the other day, Ant told me about Gottlob Frege's Principle of Compositionality, which states that "in a meaningful sentence, if the lexical parts are taken out of the sentence, what remains will be the rules of composition" (Wiki). This is all well and good, but it furthermore means that semantic content is grounded in syntactic structure, with the two playing off of each other. This makes sense, but it makes little to none when one observes the way people actual transmit information to each other. Often, sentences are cut short, erronous prepositions are used, one-worded answers are given, and broken speech and even non-speech is utilized. And yet, the implied meaning is still (usually) successfully conveyed. Context obviously plays a big role in this operation, but nevertheless, none of the utterances would be considered "grammatical" in terms of syntactic structure. We can find utterances such as these in everyday life, especially when one is among friends, where speech is often slurred and not used with great import, and also when one listens to children's speech. Meaning is carried and yet the logical underpinnings of speech are not fully there--or there at all.
I want to enter Temple's Library Research Contest next semester with this as my topic of research.
My Travel Blog
My Poetry
16 comments:
Awesome. What you're dealing with here is more than grammaticality (which is a ridiculous and essentially meaningless word) vs. semantic content. You well damn know that grammaticality and meaning complete each other and are not simply complimentary. Of course the meaning of statements is indelible from their grammar, one's ability to form a THOUGHT is indelible from grammar. What you're on about here (and maybe you were just dumbing it down for us) is traditional grammar vs. generative grammar. Generative grammar being - dare we say it? - theoretical. This is about all that juicy Comsky business that attempts to answer the question: What is this system of knowledge incorporated in the mind-brain of a person who speaks and understands a particular language? The break with Structuralism that "rejected empiricist constraints on concept formation" and "redefined the goal of linguistic theory toward the formal description of a 'possible human language.'" (thank you "INTRODUCING" book series) Anyway, yeah man, rich stuff, good luck with the research contest.
Thanks. But my concern here isn't traditional vs. generative grammar; I probably just didn't explain myself very well and my writing style is a bit clunky, plus, I lack the specialist vocabulary to really get at the things I want to. I just re-read my post and it is very misleading.
Even in a generative approach to grammar, there is the notion that some sentences are "well-formed" and others aren't, based wholly on the intuitions of native speakers of the language. "Pie" is a well-formed, complete sentence in this regard because it is placed within a larger context, such as the answer to "What do you want to eat?", as is "It's OK" to "How's it going?
"
But what about when native speakers misuse or omit words yet the original meaning is still carried? For example, if I say to someone an ungrammatical sentence, how do they still know what I'm talking about? Another example would be when someone says to another, "Goin' ntha thing," the listener automatically knows that the speaker is headed to the store.
I guess my questions have more to do with a theory of mind than anything else. I dunno. I should be doing work.
Completing and complementing are the same thing. I'm a nitpicky asshole.
Len: Dammit! You're right! This is just the traditional vs. generative grammar argument.
Sean: You're wrong. A is the formula "C if and only if D," where the reverse must also be true. If not C, then not D and therefore also not A. A is made complete by the fact that both C and D are true.
On the other hand, B is the formula "E or F." B is true if and only if one of these three variations is true: E is true, F is true, both E and F are true. In this way, E and F only complement each other, since the truth of B only requires either E or F to be true, but not both.
1) linguistics is sexy. this is sex.
2) Semantic content necessitates structure, yet structure plays a part in dictating diction, thus meaning. Doesn't it? So when we ask, "Why do we understand the non-grammatical and in fact sometimes even the non-meaningful? ('Goin' ntha thing,')" that leads me, at least, to further ask, "how much of either, or both, do we need in order to extract understanding?"
Semantics and grammar seem to rely on each other inextricably, and join together to create meaning when a lack of one or the other would desimate any chance of it. So when a native speaker says "Goin' ntha thing," we do not extract just content or just word-order, but pull in meaning comprehensively, cohesively, unifiedly, indivisibly.
The difficulty for me, thus, lies not in asking whether the two complement or complete each other, but whether they exist at all, in any meaningful way, separate from each other.
But that might just be me, ms. english-lit-major. Tell me the answer!
Chomsky, in his Syntactic Structures, elucidates the difference between semantic content and the syntactic structure of a sentence, showing that grammaticality is not necessarily pinned down by meaning. The sentence he used was, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." This sentence makes absolutely no sense, yet it is understood by any native speaker of English to be a grammatical sentence--that is, our intuition about what does or does not constitute sentential well-formedness marks this sentence as A-OK. My question concerns the opposite: how is meaning carried in ungrammatical sentences? What are the trappings of our mind that make us at once register a sentence as ungrammatical and yet still able to be understood as meaningful?
Don't give me that Logical shit, Al. Look at a dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complement
standard usage notwithstanding, you're wrong within the context of my argument.
So within this context, a word that means "to complete" does not mean "to complete"?
i've already defined my terms. complete means "each entity within must be present." complement means "at least one entity within must be present." doi.
Would you like to invent any other meanings, or can I assume standard definitions for the rest of the argument?
you can assume standard definitions for the rest.
however, i'd like to point out that your case against my misuse of certain words is completely illogical. not only did i implicitly define the terms in the first place--the way i used them automatically betrayed some other meaning than that of their standard usage--but then i explicitly defined them using very logical examples. your last suggestion, that it is now uncertain as to whether or not any of the words i utilize can be trusted to make use of their standard definitions, is the same type upon which superstition is built--something happened once, and therefore everything similar will happen likewise. if you know i tell you a lie, that doesn't give you reason to suspect that everything else i've said or will say is a lie; it simply means that i told you a lie.
It is not my job to decipher your intentions in word usage. I favor the standard usage of all terms in order to avoid this kind of ambiguity. By deviating from the standard use of words, you in effect create your own language in which to argue (a language which I and others may not necessarily understand). This lexical liberty you've taken forces me to question the implications of any and all other terms you've used which may be subject to your whimsical redefinitions. It may not be strictly logical to do so, but it's necessary in order for me to accurately receive your message. This ties in interestingly with this whole concept of semantic and grammatical content, doesn't it?
Also, you eat poop and I can't trust a poop eater.
Although it's true that the burden of definition should not be placed on you, the reader, the context in which the words appeared should have made apparent their change in meaning. "Person" and "human" are generally thought of as the same thing, but if someone makes an argument which sets each of them into separate categories, even if only implicitly, then it can be well understood that the person making the argument doesn't perceive the two words to consist of the same definition. I could have used better words than the ones I chose, yes, but those were the words that first came to me and, as I've already shown, their definitions were never up in the air. I used many words which relied on the reader's prior understanding of the concepts that they index, but none were used in the same fashion as "complete" and "complement." Given there is no other situation in which there is comparable lexical ambiguity, there is no reason for one to assume that the rest of my words are used idiomatically.
This is less a case of my definitions being not understandable, as awkward as they might be, and more a case of you refusing to allow for an expanded definition of two words. The first case was only more true before I logically defined each term. After that point, any inability to grasp the concepts in those two words as I used them was your fault and your fault alone.
also, you are a moldy dick on a plate.
Yeah, Alex, you're right.
...
...
...
...
...
...
PSYCH NAH YOU GAAAAY!!!
WHAT! YOU TAKE THAT BACK, YOU STINKY PIECE OF SHIIIIII~~~~~~!!!
Post a Comment