[Corpora-List] ad-hoc generalization and meaning

[Michael Maxwell]

Rob Freeman wrote:
> As an example, consider the verb *support* in the following sentences:
>
> Tom supported the tomato plant with a stick.
> Tom supported his daughter with $10,000 per year.
> Tom supported his father with a decisive argument.
> Tom supported his partner with a bid of 3 spades.
>
> These sentences all use the verb *support* in the same syntactic pattern:
>
> A person supported NP1 with NP2.
>
> Yet each use of the verb can only be understood with respect to a
> particular subject matter or domain of discourse..."
>
> Well, I'm saying their syntax can only be understood with respect to
> context too. Each context will select a different "grammar".

Hmm...  In one sentence you acknowledge that all four use the same
syntactic pattern; in another you that each context selects a different
"grammar."  I can only make sense of this if you reject a division of
"grammar" into syntax and other components.

I would have used the term 'grammar' for syntax and morphology, but not
semantics (hence my use of quotes in the para above).  But perhaps that's
just a question of terminology.  My point is that the problem becomes more
tractable if you divide it up, and recognize that syntax can be handled
separately--and because the syntax of all four examples is the same, the
syntax becomes simpler.  Of course, Chomsky argued for that division a
long time ago...

Another way of looking at the need to divide up the problem: if Tom's
support to his daughter consisted of stacking up $10k worth of coins, and
letting her lean on them, then the analysis (in your terms, the "grammar")
of the second sentence would become more like that of the first.  But I
fail to see that as a change in the *grammar*.

   Mike Maxwell
   CASL/ U MD


_______________________________________________
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora