Apologies if I'm jumping in on this thread too early. Clayton, it might be
wise to avoid potential confusion over contrary definitions and use another
term for what you are describing, but for now, EAWMEN. I think your point is
reasonable, on the surface. What bothers me is that it really doesn't matter
what the reader surmises to be marked or unmarked, if we do not know the
intent of the writer. The effect on the reader of a particular construction
seeming to be unusual, or the opposite, may unfortunately have a lot more to
do with the reader's preparation and social/historical context than the
writer's intent. You are certainly correct to emphasize the importance of
the reader's skill and experience, and those of us who have spent many years
in formal and personal study do have the impression (perhaps not an entirely
accurate one) that we can sense points of emphasis and the lack thereof. But
I have the uneasy feeling that more is needed if we are going to have
confidence about our conclusions. Let me offer another example from the bad
old days in advanced Greek composition: as I vaguely recall, the prof asked
us what word we used to translate a particular idea--I think it was 'use' or
'exercise' or something similar--in an assignment to translate an English
translation of Thucydides back into Greek (loosely called back-translation).
When we replied, the prof complimented us on our Greek diction and then went
on to tell us that Thucydides actually used GUMNAZW in the particular
context. His point (i.e. the prof's; who knows what T's point was--which is
the point of my story) was that Thucydides would seem to have committed a
blooper of terrific proportion, and yet the master did, after all, do what
he did.
So what are we to do in our semantic analyses? Perhaps we are justified in
our conclusions if we have a great deal of material from a particular author
and have read it to the point of unintentional memorization. But I am not at
all sure how much material is necessary. I am hoping that work being done
with statistics and computers can answer the question, and in that regard I
would encourage every interested person to follow relevant postings in the
Humanist Discussion Group, where I just saw some interesting stuff. By the
same token, I would be grateful for other sources, especially the free ones.
I already know about a couple of the journals on computers and computational
linguistics, etc. but alas, you can't find them at the library and they are
expensive (for me, anyway).
Don Wilkins