Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues
  • Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:48:25 +0100

Dear Harold,

I have a few comments to your post.


----- Original Message ----- From: "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] how scholars debate controversial issues


Dear David:

On 3/27/07, David Kummerow <farmerjoeblo AT hotmail.com> wrote:
...

> Karl seems to hold to some similar, though not identical, notion
> to what an amateur like me would understand by uncancellable intrinsic
> meaning. But Karl has said he doesn't know what to make of Rolf's
> theory either.
>

Karl's approach to lexicography may perhaps be seen as analogous to
Rolf's work on the verbal system. Their approach assumes that there is
something uncancellable between every occurrence of a lexical item in
Karl's case and every occurrence of a verb form in Rolf's.

...

Regards,
David Kummerow.

Unlike Rolf, I have never used "uncancellable" in my descriptions of
my methodology. That's because I don't know how it can be applied to
lexicography.

Rather I have looked at definitions according to action (or in the
case of nouns actors) while most lexicography that I have seen
emphasizes semantic domains (form). Often the same action is carried
across several semantic domains. Thus defining according to action
often will see one definition, where according to form (semantic
domains) can see several. It's a different model. As far as I can
tell, there's nothing uncancellable in that.

Karl W. Randolph.
_______________________________________________


As you say, there are several approaches in the lexical analysis of words,
and each can have advantages and drawbacks. I have never seen you have used
the word "uncancellable," but since the concept has been so much discussed,
it would be appropriate to apply it to lexical semantics as well.

In connection with Aktionsart and procedural traits (the interplay of
Aktionsart and other parts of the clause) four of the fundamental concepts
used are punctiliarity, durativity, dynamicity, and telicity. My exsperience
is that a substantive whose default interpretation is punctiliar also can
have a durative interpretation. I am not aware of a word where that is
not possible, so I draw the conclusion that punctiliarity is "conversational
pragmatic implicature". However, there are clear examples where the three
other properties represent "semantic meaning".


For example, in English we have the words "sing" and "run," and
corresponding words occur in Hebrew as well. These two words have the
properties durativity (continous action) and dynamicity (change). These are
intrinsic properties of the words, and they cannot be cancelled by any
context. English phrasal verbs are fine examples of the property telicity (the end is conceptually included). Phrasal verbs like "break through" and "bring back" have the intrinsic properties telicity and dynamicity, and perhaps also durativity. No context can cancel the telicity and dynamicity of these verbs. Thus the properties are uncancellable and represent "semantic meaning". In addition to these properties, lexical properties can also have uncancellable parts, as the mentioned example "slowly" and "plod".

When I say that "the words" have an intrinsic meaning, an explanation is needed. I believe that letters and sounds that communicate words are without any meaning (cf. the work of de Saussure), but they signal concepts in the minds of people speaking the same language. Such a concept tends to have a rather clear necleus but becomes more fuzzy towards the edges. The concepts of different classes of words (e.g., fully referential; partly referential; non-referential etc) may be somewhat different, and whether intrinsic properties can be seen or not varies. But in the case of the words "run; sing; break through; bring back" intrinsic uncancellable properties (=semantic meaning) can be clearly seen. Therefore, when I use "word" in this context, I refer to the concept in the mind signalled by the sounds ofletters of each word.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo










Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page