copy of sci.lang posting

[Logical Language Group <cbmvax!uunet!GREBYN.COM!pucc.PRINCETON.EDU!lojbab>]

Newsgroups: sci.lang
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
Summary: Undecideable without context; English is ambiguous
Keywords: assertion, inference, attitude, Lojban

e343mh@tamuts.tamu.edu (Michael Hand) writes:
>The doctrine of parentheticals holds that (1) is not really an assertion
>about what I think, but about John.  The `I think' just hedges the
>speaker's commitment a bit.
>
>(1)    I think John will arrive about 8:00.
>
>The strict compositional doctrine holds that (1) is an assertion about
>what I think, but the conversational inference concerning John's arrival
>is so easy and fast that `I think' is pragmatically insignificant.
>
>What are some arguments that help decide between these two views?

Both interpretations are valid, in different contexts.  There is no way
to decide between them in English given an absence of contextual
information.

Alternatively, in spoken English, we might use tone of voice.  Relative
emphatic stress on either of the first two words suggests that "I think"
is the main claim.  In spoken English, we can even make the sentence be
about "John's arrival", or "8:00", changing only emphasis.

In Lojban, we clearly distinguish these meanings, presumably showing
Lojban more 'compositional' than English.  The translations shed light
on the English ambiguity.  I've stuck to same sentence order and avoided
hyperlogical constructions, since the purpose is analysis of English.
Lojban also allows specification of a topic 'up front' to make it clear
what the sentence is 'about', but this more resembles Japanese than
English.

The following pair use speaker attitudinals, which are incidental and
discursive to a claim (tome of voice conveys such discursive content in
English), to make it clear that the main predicate is the arrival, with
John as the subject.

pe'i    la djan ba   klamu'o caze'a      la bicac.
I opine John    will arrive  at-interval 8:00

.ia       la djan ba   klamu'o caze'a      la bicac.
I believe John    will arrive  at-interval 8:00


The following has the speaker's belief as the predicate, and
the speaker as the subject.  (The parallel sentence for opinion is
expressed by substituting jinvi for krici)

mi krici   ledu'u          la djan ba   klamu'o caze'a      la bicac.
I  believe the predication John    will arrive  at-interval 8:00

The following is similar to the first two, but makes the speaker's belief
part of the claim in a subordinate role.

du'o         mi  la djan ba   klamu'o caze'a      la bicac.
According to me, John    will arrive  at-interval 8:00

To make the arrival clearly the 'subject', I'll use the attitudinal version.

.ia       lenu      la djan ba   klamu'o cu fasnu  caze'a      la bicac.
I believe the event John    will arrive     occurs at-interval 8:00.

The event occurring is the predication here.  In the following, the time
of day becomes the predicate:

.ia       lenu      la djan ba   klamu'o cu jibni            se tcika  la
 bicac.
I believe the event John    will arrive     is-approximately betimed by 8:00

Making 8:00 the heart of the claim is the furthest reach, and least likely in
the English, too:

.ia       lenu      la djan cu   klamu'o  kei tcika
I believe the event John         arriving     time-of-day
             cu jibni         ke cacra     bimoi
                approximately    hourishly-eighth

This range of more or less plausible interpretations makes me reluctant
to state conclusions on pragmatic interpretation of individual English
sentences.  And I didn't even try to get inventive.
----
lojbab = Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
         2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA
         703-385-0273
         lojbab@grebyn.com

NOTE THAT THIS IS A NEW NET ADDRESS AND SUPERSEDES OTHERS IN MY POSTINGS
            OR LOGICAL LANGUAGE GROUP, INC. PUBLICATIONS

For information about Lojban, please provide a snail-post address to me
via mail or phone.  We are funded solely by contributions, which are
encouraged for the purpose of defraying our costs, but are not mandatory.