Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

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