It's good to have you back! As you can see, the discussions are
covering many territories. Just a quick comment - your response to my
thoughts (below) appears that you read me as somehow "defining"
sense-as-thought and meaning-as-context. If this is so, that was
unintended and a stylistic error. What I was attempting to do in that
rather rough posting was to lay the ground for readers without a SFL
background to appreciate the idea of congruency - highly relevant to
the current discussion of *language in situ*. You say "The "higher
strata" ie context semantics and lexicogrammar are held together by the
dialectic of realization". This seems a hot topic for the most recent
half-dozen posts. Unfortunately, you are the only SFL academic joining
in here, which makes for a rather wiggly path to be woven.
Begin forwarded message:
> When it comes to talking about the "same" thing in language, we often
> rely on the orthographic/phonological (or philological) identity of
> this may delude us into thinking that what we are treating as the same
> must (or even ought to) mean the same thing. But it is just a
> delusion. For
> example, as a linguist, I feel quite puzzled by Phil's statement
> (communication of 11 July in response to Mike's original message on the
> subject) that when "confronted with the concepts 'sense' and 'meaning'
> I (ie
> Phil) immediately attend(s) to the notion of thought and context." I
> think I know any linguists who would feel comfortable with this way of
> looking at these two words.
xmca mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:01:06 PDT