LL-L: "Logic" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 21.SEP.1999 (02)
Lowlands-L Administrator
sassisch at yahoo.com
Tue Sep 21 14:51:03 UTC 1999
=========================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 21.SEP.1999 (02) * ISSN 1089-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
=========================================================================
A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
=========================================================================
You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
as message text from the same account to
<listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
=========================================================================
From: Ted Harding [Ted.Harding at nessie.mcc.ac.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Logic" [E/Danish] LOWLANDS-L, 20.SEP.1999 (04)
> From: Gerald Tighe [gftighe2 at home.com]
> Subject: LL-L: "Double negative" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 17.SEP.1999 (02)
>
> I am confused here with the use of "sense" and '"logical"', what "real
> E[nglish]" is, and why "I saw only the mountain" is considered
> "logical". Reference to sense or logic over one isolated sentence is a
> bit of a 'red herring'. (And I am beginning to wonder if I should be
> feeling a sharp tugging on my lip.)
>
> As I understand it, logic is more appropriately used in the discussion
> of ideas.
>
> I find no idea in the above sentence. In either of the two forms, it is
> a statement of fact: The person did, or did not see the mountain. An
> idea may be logical but not sensible, but if sensible it must be
> logical.
>
> The difference between "I only saw the mountain" and "I saw only the
> mountain" has nothing to do with "sense" or "logic". The difference is
> in the meaning assigned by the writer in his choice of one over the
> other to convey a character's emotional response or attitude, to or
> during the 'mountain seeing scene'.
[This was meant to be a shortish comment on logic and language. Some
hope.]
Logic, strictly speaking, is the application of formal reasoning and
transformations to data/premisses according to certain rules for the
purpose of arriving at conclusions which are not explicit (though are
necessarily implicit) in the data/premisses.
The role of logic in the interpretation of language is difficult to
define (probably not definable once and for all) because both the
data/premisses and the rules depend on the language, on the linguistic
context, on the speaker's and intended listener's "reference world",
on psychological probabilistic expectations related to the "reference
world", on the speaker's competence, etc.
To revert to the example.
"I only saw the mountain", as written, would (I judge) be superficially
seen by most English speakers as having one interpretation ["I saw the
mountain and nothing else"] when encountered "on-the-fly", i.e. without
deeper reflection, because that hypothesis would be thrown up by the mind
as the most likely or plausible; other interpretations would be latent
but, in everyday usage, probably not consciously perceived.
However, reflection (or having it pointed out as has happened on this
list) indicates other possibilities. Using "_" for emphasis, we have at
least
"I only saw the _mountain_" ["I saw the mountain and nothing else"]
"I only _saw_ the mountain" ["I did not also climb it"]
Since "I only saw the mountain" can now be seen as ambiguous, one sees
also the need to disambiguate it in a context where both speaker and
listeners (in the present case the readers of this list) are aware of
the possible ambiguity. This can be done by stress in oral speech,
in print be (e.g.) italics, in handwriting by underlining, or by some
other sign (as above).
Of course, context could already provide the disambiguating framework;
i.e. in the context of the statement there are a number of possibilities
which are resolved by the statement. So we might have
Context A: A scenario in which the speaker might or might not see the
mountain and might or might not see other things as well:
"The guidebook promises a handsome sight as you come to the crest
of the road leading down to the valley: the cluster of houses
nestling in a hollow below the mountainside and the magnificent church
higher up the slope, framed below by a crescent of dark green pines.
On the day I made this journey, the valley was deep in thick mist. I
climbed up to the crest of the road and looked across. I only saw
the mountain."
Not much doubt about what's _meant_ here, although (if your notion of the
rhythm of language matches mine) you may sense a break when it comes to
the last sentence: I think I would prefer it to be "I saw only
the mountain"; but, despite that, logic tells me that what is in fact
written has the interpretation "I saw the mountain and nothing else"
(well, OK, the mist as well; but that's not the point!).
You could equally set up a Context B where the issue was whether or
not "I climbed the mountain" and where the narrative ends with
"I only saw the mountain"; and where, from context, would be no
ambiguity.
In the latter case, however, "I saw only the mountain" would not be an
option (whereas it is an option in Context A). This is because of the
implicit logic in English word order, where the "direction of influence"
tends to be forwards rather than backwards. In both Context A and Context
B, in the sentence "I only saw the mountain" the word "only" can act
either on "saw" or on "mountain"; context disambiguates. In the sentence
"I saw only the mountain", "only" acts on "mountain" and cannot act on
"saw" -- this is the "language logic". In Context A, this is compatible
with the context. In Context B this is incompatible with the context,
so "context logic" tells you that it is not an admissible construction
so, in a correctly meaningful statement, this sentence would not occur.
Now consider the questions arising in, say, French.
"I only saw the mountain" [and nothing else] would normally be expressed
as "Je n'ai vu que la montange" or possibly "j'ai vu uniquement la
montagne". Furthermore, either form can only mean "I saw the mountain
and nothing else". Neither form favours the interpretation "I saw the
mountain but I did not climb it". That is to say, that these
straightforward French constructions are exact counterparts of
"I saw only the mountain".
To express "I saw the mountain but I did not climb it" (i.e. I only
_saw_ the mountain"), something more contrived is required, probably
with word order for emphasis, e.g. "La montagne, je l'ai seulement vue".
While "Je n'ai que vu la montagne" is a logically possible word order
whose most likely interpretation is "I saw the mountain but did not
climb it", I think it would be perceived as very bad style.
In speech, you might get by with very strong phonetic emphasis, as in
"Je n'ai que __VU__ la montagne", but I think that most French speakers
would still want to spell it out: "Je n'ai que __VU__ la montagne; je n'en
ai pas fait l'ascension". In print or writing, I'm sure the fully explicit
version would normally be used.
One of the factors underlying this is, of course, the fact that in
French the stress patterns in speech are far more closely tied to
sentence structure and word position, and tend not to reflect
distinctions of meaning, whereas in English they are closely tied to
meaning and more loosely associated with sentence structure (just
listen to a French person speaking English and reflect on how often
they seem to be getting the meaning wrong, as perceived by an English
speaker, solely as a result of inappropriate stress, even though
the written transript of what they say may be seen as perfectly correct).
So, although the questions of contextual logic are the same in both
languages, the logic of the language works differently in French and in
English.
It seems, therefore, that there are several levels at which logic can
operate in language, some conscious and some unconscious. Despite the
can of worms which opens up when you try to analyse what is going on
in a logical manner, nevertheless I believe that logic plays a very
important role in interpretation.
Logic, as logic, also serves another important function. Not only does
it operate "forwards" (i.e. by providing pathways from the data you
have, in the context of a domain of hypothetical possibilities, to
those possibilities which remain logically compatible with the data,
and by closing pathways to those possibilities which are logically
incompatible with the data); it can also operate "backwards", by
helping you to generate possibilities you may not have thought of
which can be added to the domain of possibilities you are already
aware of.
When logic says "if A then B" and the data say "not B", then logic
entails "not A". Explicitly getting to grips with what may be implied
by "not A" can be very instructive.
[In the mind of a reader of a book]:
Book: "I only saw the mountain ... "
[thinks: "Does he mean he couldn't see anything else?"]
Book: "I saw it, however, towering over the village, the church,
the trees ... "
[thinks: "Oh, if 'only' applied to 'mountain' then it would mean he
couldn't see anything else. But clearly it doesn't mean that.
Therefore, since he saw other things it can't mean that
'only' applies to 'mountain' so it must apply to something
else. I wonder what. Maybe 'saw'. Maybe he came with the
intention of climbing it but failed for some reason,
so he only _saw_ it. Let's read on ... ]
Better stop there ...
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <Ted.Harding at nessie.mcc.ac.uk>
Date: 21-Sep-99 Time: 12:16:58
------------------------------ XFMail ------------------------------
----------
From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Logic
Sandy quoted Ben Jonson's "To Celia":
Drink to me only with thine eyes,
And I will pledge with mine;
Or leave a kiss but in the cup
And I'll not look for wine.
The thirst that from the soul doth rise
Doth ask a drink divine;
But might I of Jove's nectar sup
I would not change for thine.
And commented:
>>By the time you get to the end of this you've already grasped the
meaning -
nobody even notices that the last line actually says the opposite of what's
intended. <<
I think Jonson says exactly what he means, but says it imprecisely. Celia's
"nectar" is obviously not her wine.
John Feather
johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk
==================================END======================================
* Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
* Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
* Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
<http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
* Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
type of format, in your submissions
=========================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list