Dick:
> And: 
> > Since I think syntactic structure is semantic structure
> .....
> >But the idea that there is a simple, direct and unmediated
> >interface between syntactic structure and cognition seems to be alive and
> >well these days.
> ## I agree entirely with this view, of course. I too reject a distinction
> between semantic structure and conceptual/cognitive structure. So maybe we
> don't disagree? 

[I'll reply briefly here, since there are more that follow in the thread.]

I'm not sure why you sau "I *too*", because rejecting a distinction between
semantic and conceptual structure is not necessarily the same as thinking
that syntactic structure is semantic structure.

Anyway, where me & Noam disagree with you & Jackendoff is in two main
related ways. (1) How simple is the mapping from syntax to conceptual
structure? (2) To what extent does the grammar have rules controlling
the mapping from syntax to conceptual structure?

You & Jackendoff are happy to countenance complex mappings (especially
if it buys simplicity elsewhere, in syntax), and both are happy to have
lots of rules controlling the mapping.

Me & Noam, on the other hand, think the grammar should know nothing about
conceptual structure & hence have no rules controlling the mapping.
The sort of thing I envisage is that there is not much besides the Sense-of
relation (or, more broadly, Meaning-of). Although Sense-of is a relation
from syntax to conceptual structure, syntax/grammar is entirely impervious
to what concept is at the other end of the relation.
It follows from this view that all encoded meaning that is not encoded in
the meanings of individual words must be represented in syntax.

--And.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%