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