...
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".It seems strange to me that within the same paragraph you can both very sensibly allow for the fuzziness of language and then claim (despite evidence to the contrary) that in certain areas this fuzziness cannot apply.
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.