furuli at online.no
Sat Jul 1 02:22:57 EDT 2000
I am not sure Grice's principle is a tautology, because it outlines a
method by which we can find what is "semantic meaning", and this is new
information. In view of how difficult it is for some (we have some glimpses
on the list) to accept that fundamental units of semantic meaning do exist,
such a method is evidently not self-evident.
University of Oslo
>Thank you, Rolf. Well, if semantic meaning is defined as that which is
>uncancellable, at least I can accept the first part of Grice's principle,
>that "semantic meanings may not be canceled without contradiction..." I have
>to; it is no longer either an assertion or a definition, it is a tautology.
>I will leave Randall to answer for himself as to what he makes of this.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no>
>To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew at franklin.oit.unc.edu>
>Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 7:15 AM
>Subject: Re: vayyiqtol, assumption-rolf
>> I am not sure about the difference between "assertion" and "definition" in
>> relation to pragmatics versus semantics, so I would just call Grice's
>> dictum a principle. It simply outlines a method to find the difference
>> between "semantic meaning" and "conversational pragmatic implicature".
>> Regarding definition, I would give the following one: "Semantic meaning"
>> uncancelable but "conversational pragmatic implicature" is cancelable.
More information about the b-hebrew