From: connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: sci.lang
Subject: Re: NegV vs. NegQ
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:35:07 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <12214@tamsun.tamu.edu>, e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu (Michael Hand) writes:
> In article <1992Apr10.083647.1820@memstvx1.memst.edu> connolly@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>But your theory of s-interpretation is simply impossible if it requires, 
>>as you claim, an interpretation of certain sentences which is simply wrong.
> 
> Why is this so difficult for folks to grasp?  Whether an interpretation
> is "simply wrong" (or even complicatedly wrong) is a theoretical issue,
> if "wrong" means *semantically* wrong.  Most of the time, the theoretical
> issue is not interesting or difficult, but it's no less theoretical!
> If "wrong" means "intuitively unacceptable," then wrongness is not
> a theoretical property, but the theory I suggested (and again I emphasize, 
> do not hold) was a theory concerned with what interpretations are grammatical 
> (in the broad sense of syntax+semantics).  Here's some data: negQ is the 
> preferred message, negV is unacceptable.  The question --a theoretical 
> one -- is what to make of this fact.  There are options.  If you don't 
> like mine, you gotta argue against it theoretically, 'cause I accept the 
> same data you accept.

I've read and puzzled over this and still can't make it out.  I quite
agree that both interpretations are grammatical, but so what?  Wasn't
it you who were claiming in earlier postings that negV was the only
legitimate interpretation?  And if anyone maintains this, isn't it 
because of some theory?  And if people nevertheless obstinately insist
on the negQ interpretation, shouldn't an adequate theory of semantic
interpretation and/or grammaticality somehow account for this, which
your theory doesn't?

> 
>>Further, it is far from clear what sort of interpretation has produced
>>the universally accepted negQ interpretation.  
> 
> You got that right!  Witness this thread.
> 
>>You're trying to save
>>your theory by claiming that it's a p-interpretation.  That remains
>>to be shown.  What evidence to you have to support this view?
> 
> The claim that negQ is a p-interpretation is hardly a defense of
> my sad theory.  You've misunderstood it.  If people read a sentence 
> a certain way, then that way is a p-interpretation.  That's all I meant by 
> "p-interpretation".  So uncontroversially, negQ is a p-interpretation.
> Some people think it's the *only* p-interpretation of the sentence
> in question.  (It isn't, but some people seem to think it is.)  But 
> not every p-interpretation is an s-interpretation, unless you just 
> wanna stipulate, and not every s-interpretation is a p-interpretation, 
> unless you wanna stipulate a second time.  I don't wanna stipulate.

Again I don't understand.  I thought you had claimed that a p-interpre-
tation was a _pragmatic_ interpretation.  If I'm wrong, please clarify.
But if I'm right, then what does _pragmatic_ mean?  I understood it
as referring to an interpretation which was forced by the pragmatics
of the situation, coupled with world knowledge, hence contrasting
with your s-interpretation, which is presumably rule-governed.  You
seemed to be using p-interpretation as an out: any interpretation 
which went against your rules could be shoved aside as merely pragmatic
and hence could not be used as fodder against your s-rules.  Now you
say that *any* interpretation  that people actually have is a p-
interpretation.  If so, what do s-interpretations have to do with
anything?  And why should I (or anyone else) be concerned with
them?

> 
>>Lacking such evidence, many of us will claim: any theory which does
>>not yield negQ *as an s-interpretation* is preposterous on its face
>>and should be abandoned.
> 
> This is an objection I hadn't considered.  Not being a linguist, 
> I wasn't aware that such powerful modes of argumentation occurred 
> in the field.  Just how powerful an objection do you think it is?  ;->

It's the most powerful objection of all: that a theory whose only
prediction (at least, the only one posted here) is entirely false
(no native speaker actually assigns the proposed negV interpretation to
the sentence in question) isn't worth the paper or phosphorous
compounds it's written on.  Logical refutation isn't necessary.

Your preceding remark about not being a linguist puzzles me most of
all.  Why then do you bother with such theories?

--Leo Connolly
Newsgroups: sci.lang