Jim,
[[ How would you account for the fact that word such as conjunctions and
prepositions can stand by themselves as sentences? ]]
I don't believe that's true. A single-word "sentence" can sometimes be
understood as a sign, but the understanding depends on a situational
context -- which means that the word does not really "stand by itself"
even though it may be the only audible part of the utterance.
I recall reading an anecdotal example of such an utterance -- i'm pretty
sure it was in Peirce, but can't remember where, and i don't have a
keyword with which to search for it.
[[ I'll grant you they serve primarily to indicate structural
relationships among the various parts of sentences (and are so
frequently employed that it is not surprising they would be short and
few in number) but I still think they function as signs. They represent
meaning and this is preeminently the domain of signs. ]]
Yes, my previous message said (at the end) that they function
semantically as well as syntactically. But i'd prefer to say that
semiosis -- at least in the case of language -- includes both semantics
and syntax. So these words function semiotically, but not as complete
signs in themselves; so i question whether they denote or signify
anything separable from what the complete sign (*in* which they
function) denotes or signifies.
I think the question here is closely related to one addressed by Peirce
in "New Elements" III.4 -- in the discussion of "fragmentary signs"
starting near the bottom of p. 309 in EP2.
[[ On the other hand I think an agrument can be made that syntax is a
form of representation and not merely a collection structural features
that serve to hold the parts of a sentence together. ]]
That's pretty close to Talmy's argument in his work on "cognitive
semantics". Or as you put it later in your message, " syntax is a form
of structural semantics -- semantics embedded in structure." I'm with
you on that.
[[ In fact it is my view that all syntax is really just a short cut for
expressing common meanings
(such as who is the agent and who the patient) that are embedded in
nearly all sentences. ]]
Yes. I'd say that agency is (a name for) one of those core concepts
represented in syntax itself.
gary F.
}The meaning of a word is its use in the language. [Wittgenstein]{
gnusystems }{ Pam Jackson & Gary Fuhrman }{ Manitoulin University
}{ [EMAIL PROTECTED] }{ http://users.vianet.ca/gnox/ }{
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
