Richard Hudson, On 27/09/2007 13:26:
> Good questions, And! I'm not sure I really understand it myself, but 
> here goes.
> 
> One reaction is that 'realisation' is just part of general linguistics, 
> so these questions aren't specific to WG.
> 
> Another is that realisation is the relation between two levels of 
> description of the same event or object; so the same object can be a 
> collection of atoms (physics), molecules (chemistry) or cells (biology), 
> a human body (biology again), a person (psychology) or a student 
> (sociology). I suppose realisation in language is like that: the more 
> abstract is realised by the more concrete, but they're both descriptions 
> of the same thing.  Does that make sense?

The bit about the abstract being realized by the more concrete makes sense, but not that they are (necessarily) levels of *description*. Nor do the items in your example seem to me to be realizations of one another.

Its utility in linguistics is that (a) it's a relation between abstract and concrete, (b) the abstract imposes constraints on what counts as its realization, (c) there is no inheritance from abstract to concrete. 

The main sorts of extralinguistic exx that occur to me are the relations between blueprints/designs/scripts/plans/intentions and actions/objects.

--And.
 
> Best wishes, Dick
> 
> And Rosta wrote:
>> Current WG (e.g. Language Networks, Hudson 2007) makes important use 
>> of the relation 'Realization'. What are the defining characteristics 
>> of 'Realization', and are there any extralinguistic instances of it?
>>
>> --And.
>>
>>
> 
> -- 
> 
> Richard Hudson, FBA. Emeritus Professor, University College London
> 
>     * My web page: www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/home.htm
>     * Why I support the academic boycott of Israel:
>       http://richardhudson.byethost2.com/boycotts.htm
>     * My new book: /Language Networks. The New Word Grammar/
> 
>  
>