"of which"

[Frigolin]

Hi there! Well, I´m still dealing with this text, I need to know if I can rewrite this sentence:

We should thus distinguish between inherently metapragmatic semanticoreferential forms, lexicon and structural elements, the denotational values of which qua constituents of any grammatical expressions in which they occur characterize pragmatic facts of one sort or another....

into:

We should thus distinguish between inherently metapragmatic semantico-referential forms, lexicon and structural elements, whose values of denotation, in the character of components of any grammatical expressions in which they take place, characterize pragmatic facts of one sort or another...


Do you think it means the same (whatever "the same" is in this case)?

Thanks in advance.

Cheers

Frigos

 

[suzi br]

Jeez - this is goobledegook whichever way you read it! How sad that people who profess to be writing about language just be so opaque in their own expression. Do you REALLY have to do this?

 

[suzi br]

I find it very difficult to know which part of the opening sentence the "of which " refers to .. I think it is the "structural elements" which are distinguished from the "metapragmatic semanticoreferential forms, lexicon"

the ambiguity hinges on the dodgy construction of the list, using that comma and then a conjunction. If "metapragmatic semanticoreferential forms, lexicon" are one unit they need a conjucntion of their own .. not to be confused with the conjunction used to introduce the element which appears to be the contrasting thing: "structural elements"

 

[suzi br]

I am also VERY intrigued by the whole concept of "metapragmatics" !

In my experience, pragmatics is the study of what is meant as opposed to what is said - so it already denotes a "meta" textuality. (I am reading meta as : changed, altered or "higher, beyond," ) Metapragmatics must be the meaning beyond the meaning implied!



Semantico-referential forms are those of a more concrete nature: Table, pipe etc.


So (thinking out loud here) these various "meaning" elements are to be split off from the stuctural elements. The stuctural elements (which) if they have any denotional value at all, offer some more pragamatic facts?

phew - I give up!

 

[Frigolin]

I´m a mess here, too! (Thanksssssssss, Suzi) When you think you´re confused enough... you never have enough with this guy.

Let me see..., maybe I should have included the rest of the sentence:

...or another, and denotational explicitness in the metapragmatic-pragmatic functional relationship germane to some interactional-textual segment.

Well..., I didn´t want to trouble anybody. So, the opposition is between the "inherently metapragmatic semanticoreferential forms" and the "denotational explicitness". I believe that by "lexicon and structural elements" he refers to the former.

I want to give up!

 

[suzi br]

Oh you poor thing - to be honest the full sentence doesn't help me much. I will pm you!