[Lexicog] Re: lexical phrase

[David Frank]

Ron --

You may have a somewhat different model of linguistics structures in mind than I have. I realize your emphasis is on lexemes more than on syntax or other linguistic structures. So you call "on the other hand" a lexeme. I'll have to think about that. You would have to say that "on the other hand" is a prepositional phrase at the same time. I suppose that is your definition of "lexical phrase": a phrase that functions as a lexeme. From my perspective, I would say that "on the other hand" is a prepositional phrase no less than it is a lexeme. As a prepositional phrase, it can have variation:

    on the other hand
    in the other hand
    on my other hand
    on the third hand
    on the other foot

Your is that "on the other hand" has a specific function and goes together with "on the first hand," whether that is explicit or implied. The two phrases constitute a fixed pair, not allowing for a "third," or an "other other" hand. You cannot vary "on the other hand" because in doing so you would not have the same lexeme. A lexeme has a certain function, and you have determined that the function of "on the other hand" is as the second half of a binary pair, not allowing for any more parts. To suggest that there could be a third hand would be illogical and facetious and need not be taken seriously.

Are you making a distinction between the meaning and the function of a lexeme? "Function word" or "functor" is the term for a lexeme that can be described as having a function, not a meaning. Are you saying that "on the other hand" is a phrasal equivalent of a function word, in that it has a function but not a meaning?

Are you saying that "on the other hand" has a function while "A cat chased a mouse" has a meaning? Are you saying that "on the other hand" is basically a word that happens to have spaces in it when written? You would then say that using "third" in place of "other" would be analogous to inserting an obscenity in the word "absolutely" between "abso-" and "-lutely." Or would you say that the sentence "The cat chased a mouse" cannot have any variation either, because a sentence like "The dog chased a mouse" has a different meaning and so is not the same sentence?

I'm just exploring some here. It seems my perspective on language isn't as strictly lexicographically-oriented as yours. Also, I am not as quick to dismiss experimentation with language as being out of bounds for serious analysis. As I'm sure you are quite aware, metaphorical uses of words can become common use (like "pregnant with meaning"), and eventually become secondary meanings or even primary meanings (like "talent"). I'm not saying that "on the third hand" is a metaphorical use, but just that there is not a clear distinction between normal use of language and creative use.

-- David

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ron Moe 
  To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 8:38 PM
  Subject: RE: [Lexicog] Re: lexical phrase


  David,

  .... I’ll accept that ‘on the other hand’ *appears* to have variants. But the three mentioned all have different functions and therefore are different lexemes. ‘On the one hand’ marks the first of two contrastive statements. ‘On the other hand’ is “used when introducing another opinion that is as important to consider as the one you have just given” (Longman Language Activator). It isn’t necessarily used in conjunction with ‘on the one hand’. ‘On the third hand’ is just plain silly (and I would question its status as an established lexeme). ‘Facetious’ is a nicer label for it. It would be used jokingly to introduce a third opinion. You could also say, “But back on the first hand,” to add a confirming statement to the first opinion. So I will maintain that the phrasal lexeme ‘on the other hand’ has a unitary lexical meaning and has no variants....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20061204/514a32dd/attachment.htm>