Ken wrote,
>When a statement is being generated the speaker/writer starts with
>meaning assigns the appropriate syntactic pattern and wording and
>finally assigns the spelling or phonology. None of that is really
>linear, nor is it learned in any linear sense,
>
I find this statement to be an extremely simplistic description of what
happens when a statement (which I assume includes phenomena also described
as utterances and a speech acts) is made. Would it be correct to interpret
your position to mean that meaning exists independently from syntax and
"wording?" What is your opinion of the idea that syntax delimits a range of
meanings? Within comparable social and historical contexts (e.g., urban
inhabitants of contemporary world metropolises) do speakers of different
languages start with the same ranges of meanings prior to "assigning" the
appropriate syntactic pattern? Does your use of the term "wording" cover
all that is traditionally included in semantics and pragmatics? If yes,
then are you saying that the speaker starts with a meaning that is prior to
and independent of the semantics and pragmatics of their language?
The real problem I have is my inability to grasp what you might be referring
to as the "meaning" that is inserted into the vehicle of syntax and wording
? If it isn't already linguistic meaning, how does the speaker evaluate the
appropriateness of one or another syntactical, semantical, or pragmatic
possiblity prior to the act of assignation? If it doesn't already exist as
language, and therefor not require any act of assignation, how is it
possible for the speaker to assign it?
As far as phonology goes, how many of us normally make any phonological acts
of assignation, let alone even notice, so as to be able to select, the
phonological variants of our own speech (i.e, as in accents)? In those
cases where we do, it seems that we have already understood linguistically
the contextual differences that convey differences in meaning, but these are
often supra-linguistic; e.g., to connote membership in a group or a class or
feign provenience, all of which could not be reduced to anything resembling
a propositional meaning or even closed system of propositional meanings by
most speakers, if any at all.
I have a hard time understanding the possibility of any meaning independent
of language in which it is expressed, although it does seem all natural
languages weave together existentially grounded and embodied fields of
differences, such as "values" (as in Spencer-Brown) or root metaphors
(Lakoff).
Paul Dillon