Date: 2 Mar 2000 18:31:50 +0200 From: "TAHIR WOOD" <TWOOD-AT-uwc.ac.za> Subject: Re: BHA: More on TD/ID >>> "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gis.net> 03/02 4:20 PM >>> It occurs to me that it may be useful to think of the transitive dimension as a feature of *thought*, since as a couple people have said, thought has to be *about* something, whereas a potato isn't "about" anything--the intransitive dimension is a feature of real existence. I would like to provide an example which shows just how tricky posing it in this way might be. I recently participated in a debate on the cognitive linguistics list which was about whether there was a clear difference between (a) conceptual structure and (b) semantics. Using the distinction that is under discussion here, I suggested that conceptual structure (as object of linguistic inquiry) belongs to the ID, while semantics (as the scientific practice of linguists) belongs to the TD; i.e. the latter is the discourse ABOUT the former. Here is an extract from that posting: 'Conceptual structure' is concerned with all those meanings that ordinary folk have inside their heads and which somehow become operationalised when they communicate or process text. It is the 'black box' of scientific inquiry. 'Semantics' refers to the (metalinguistic) attempts of certain linguists to describe what is inside the black box and explain how it works. I went on to mention of course that the tricky part is how these two would inevitably interpenetrate. For example once a linguist begins to construct or to acquire a semantic theory (i.e. a theory about conceptual structure) it immediately becomes a part of his or her own conceptual structure in some way. Tahir --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005