"It is not necessary, either, to assume that the speaker operates always and only in terms of underlying forms and processes. As a matter of fact, he undoubtedly memorizes directly the phonetic structure of specific words and sentences a good deal of the time. In so doing, it is significant to note, he is actually achieving one kind of economy while bypassing another. He is not taking advantage of the generalizations which underlying forms and processes afford, but he is making things simpler in individual instances by ignoring that whole abstract apparatus in favor of a more direct jump from meaning to sound. It is only in terms of the language as a whole, not in terms of individual, frequently used items, that the device of underlying forms and processes represent a greater economy. I suspect, in fact, that a speaker of a language achieves some kind of balance, in a way that is not at present understood, between direct phonetic symbolization and symbolization mediated through processes of the sort described above [Chafe's post-semantic processes; BB]. I suspect also that different speakers may achieve different balances between these two opposite kinds of economy. It may even be that such differences between speakers constitute one of the principal causes of further language change itself, so that the interaction between language change and the complexities of symbolization perpetuates itself through a momentum of its own." (Chafe, Meaning and the structure of language, pp. 37-38)
Verdere goeie ideeën tot dusverre: semantiek als dieptestructuur die gelinearizeerd wordt om aan een zin gekoppeld te worden - dus het verder incorporeren van de syntaxis in de semantiek.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten