[b-hebrew] "Species" of the Genitive Waltke/O'Connor

C. Stirling Bartholomew jacksonpollock at earthlink.net
Fri Aug 27 20:52:25 EDT 2004

On 8/27/04 2:29 PM, "Trevor Peterson" <abuian at access4less.net> wrote:

> Could you elaborate on your point here? What do you think relevance
> theory is going to accomplish that avoids the need to talk about
> semantics?

RT is very much talking about semantics but in the cognitive approach the
relationship between the code (marked form) and the semantic realization
triggered by that code is completely different from what you will find in
traditional grammars (Hebrew or Greek). To cognitive approach views semantic
realizations as states within the cognitive framework of the
reader/listener. The marked form itself doesn't contribute much to the
process. The semantic realization is highly nondeterministic, therefore
defining categories for semantic sepcies of genitives makes about as much
sense as categorizing stones in Israel based on whom the stone is throne at.
This is a Jewish stone. This stone is for Americans. This is a Catholic
stone. This is a stone for Randall Buth and his friends :-))).

Clay Bartholomew 

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list