Reply to Matthew Dryer's reply to Ellen Prince

[Carl.Mills at UC.EDU]

In his reply to Ellen Prince Matthew Dryer says

"My point is that the process of parsing involves the identification
of syntactic structure only as a means for determining the meaning,
that the identification of syntactic structure per se is of no value
as an end in itself, and that the real test of a parser is its
ability to identify meaning in context, something that can only be
tested by incorporating it in a system that can engage in conversation."

Whenever anyone uses the word *meaning* in a serious linguistic
discussion, I put my hand on my wallet.

Back in the 1930s, Ogden and Richards wrote an entire book called *The
Meaning of Meaning* in which they concluded, if I remember correctly,
that they thought maybe they didn't know.  In other words, the word
*meaning* has a meaning that is both so broad and so vague as to render
*meaning* well nigh empty of empirical content.

If we are going to use meaning to decide issues relating to syntax,
including whether syntax exists, we need to agree on what we mean by
*meaning*.


Carl Mills