Rick asks some very interesting questions about the role of semantics in
syntactic analysis. His characterizations of the role of semantics are surely
apt. But then the question is "what kind of meaning" should we expect our
grammars to account for.

I think part of the problem with "Sally has a migraine in her foot" is that
we're dealing with flat out contradiction and anomaly. thus, "migraine" is
really really specific, and actually is short for "migraine headache." so,
when we say "migraine" we also hear, "headache" even though it is unsaid.
Thus, it's bizarre to assert that someone has a headache in their foot.  It's
hard to figure out what that MIGHT mean, in any world, past, present, or
future.

It's rather like asserting that I have a "sore throat in my wrist." or even
that "he's a married bachelor" -- some sort of flat out contradiction inside
the meaning of the two parts.  But "the car is flying" is not a
contradiction, we can see how to apply the notion of great speed to car.

Rick's sentence about "it's all in her head" is an interesting one:

 Sally thinks she has a migraine in her foot, but it is all in her head.

It's a lovely double entendre (given our recent discussion) -- as to whether
the (i) migraine is in her head, or the (ii) perception that "the migraine is
in her foot" is in her head. And I BET that the vast, vast majority of people
would take the former reading, meaning

Sally thinks she has a migraine in her foot, but she is deluded.

And actually, asserting that she is deluded is one way that we can explain
how a speaker COULD match up something so contradictory as "migraine
(headache)" and location in the foot.

cheers


rebecca


________________________

Rebecca S. Wheeler
Department of English
Christopher Newport University
Newport News, Va 23606