Dan, List: Peirce was first and foremost a *logician*, not a linguist; and from a strictly *logical/semeiotic* standpoint, the *relation *that we call "giving" in English is *irreducibly triadic*. In fact, Peirce repeatedly held it up as a *paradigmatic example* of just such a relation. Moreover, according to his classification of the sciences, the *principles *of the Normative Sciences--including Logic as Semeiotic--are *more fundamental* than those of *any *Special Science, including linguistics. Hence the triadicity of the relation that we call "giving" is independent of its *expression *in English, or in any other particular language or Sign System.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 1:31 AM Dan Everett <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks, > > Lexical semantics is a large field and there are various positions > specialists take on exactly how word-meanings are best to be characterized. > For example, most scholars (not all), argue that there is no simple verb > 'to give' but that this English verb is characterized by a representation > along the lines of: > > Anna gave Max a book. > > give: lambda z lambda y lambda x lamba e act(x) & become poss(y,z)(e) > > ('lambda' is of course the lambda operator) > In other words, any verb, in this case 'give' is broken down into more > basic components. No language is required to have a verb that is exactly > like the English verb 'to give' but if it does, it must be composed of > these finer predicates, so that the triadic semantics of 'to give' > (English) is derivative, not basic (though the combinations of these basic > predicates in this form will in fact produce a di-transitive or "triadic" > syntax). > > Some linguists would refer to the number of lexical arguments as the > valency of the verb and the number of syntactic arguments as the > transitivity of the verb (noun, etc). > > And this can vary radically across languages. > > For example, in the Piraha language that I have worked on for decades, > there are only about 90 or so distinct verb roots (which are not to be > confused with verb stems, in turn not to be confused with verbs, and not to > be confused with lexical representations). So to produce a verb like 'bring > back' (corresponding roughly to a single verb such as 'return', as in > 'return the screwdriver when you're finished') in Piraha the actual verb > might be: 'go-turn-carry-aspectual distinction affixes...' (i.e. a verb > stem composed of several verb roots plus a number of affixes playing > derivative semantic roles). > > In a language like English with an extremely simple verbal morphology > (maximum of five forms - sing, sang, sung, sings, singing) this is > deceptively easy. In Spanish a verb would have 30-50 forms. But in Piraha > (not uncommon for polysynthetic languages of the Americas) each verb can > have as many as 65,000 forms (sixty-five thousand). And there simply is no > way to compare predicates ilke "give" one-to-one with any Piraha verb. > > If we consider a basic English-conceived/interpreted predicate like 'give' > then of course it is difficult to imagine that it wouldn't have three > arguments, e.g. a giver, a thing given, and a recipient. But this simple > conception does not manifest itself in all languages. So for example, > abstracting away from the much greater complexity of Piraha verbal > morphology, there simply is no simple verb 'to give' in the language. There > is a combination of verb roots that means, roughly, 'x transfers y to z > with the expectation that z will transfer b to x' That is, the concept of > giving requires reciprocity in Piraha (a hunter-gatherer culture). > > In the case of Amele that I mentioned earlier, there is NO verb 'to give.' > One can find, for example, 'John apple Bill' with no verb and in the right > context imply that 'John gave an apple to Bill.' But there is no actual > verb translated 'give' in the language. > > All languages are severely *underdetermined* meaning that the predicates > of the language do not fully specify meanings or even literally specify > meanings. Full meanings are supplied by the cultural act of interpretation. > > These are reasons that I favor the triadic system of semiotics of CSP to > the dyadic system of Saussure. But the argumentation is subtle and > detailed. And the semiotics has to fit the linguistics - it does not > substitute for the linguistics. > > As far as syntax goes, syntax never, ever fully specifies all the > imaginable connections between predicates and arguments. Syntax acts as a > filter on potential meanings, guiding the interpretation process to avoid > certain interpretations. This active, dynamic role of interpretation is why > the Saussurian system cannot work and why I favor Peirce's work. > > Now to the syntax. If we were to assume that there are three symbols > (without worrying about lexical decomposition), e.g. "John," "give," > "apple", "Mary," we can think of various ways of combining them. The > simplest way would be simple linear concatenation: "John give Mary apple." > Another would be hierarchy + concatenation, e.g. "[John [[give Mary] > apple]]" and the final would be hierarchy + recursion. > > Peirce's semiotics is semantically recursive, though the syntax is of > almost no concern to that work. Chomsky's grammatical proposals require > both syntactic and semantic recursion. My own work requires Peircean > recursion, while allowing syntactic recursion to be optional across > languages. > > This would all take a lot more space for me to unpack for non-specialists > (i.e. non-linguists). Peirce's discussions of predicates is little more > than a first pass. This doesn't mean he was wrong, but that verbal > semantics is far more complex than he understood, because it is based on a > science that did not exist, except perhaps in an extremely inchoate form > that he helped to birth, at the time he was writing. > > Guessing at whether predicates are triadic or not by non-linguists is akin > to me, a non-engineer, telling my grandson, a bio-medical engineer, how I > think the best way to design an artificial heart would be. > > I have referred many times to work of mine and others on these and related > subjects. I suggest reading a few of those (or just an introductory > linguistics text). Here are a couple of more references: > > > http://www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/fileadmin/mitarbeiter/wunderlich/Wunderlich_14_Lexical_Decomposition.pdf > > https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3353824/Huang_Lexical.pdf > > > http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199541072.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199541072-e-15 > > https://www.amazon.com/How-Language-Began-Humanitys-Invention/dp/0871407957 > > And then for the connoisseur, there are grammars of individual languages. > > So there is no utility in statements like "I certainly do assume that ... > the relation of giving is irreducbly triadic." First, even in English it IS > reduceable. Second, there is considerable cross-linguistic variation in the > mapping between lexical semantics (i.e. with lexical decomposition) and > syntax, or, as I stated earlier, between valency and transitivity. > > Thus the English verb "to give" is ditransitive, but not necessarily > divalent. > > Dan >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
