Prompt One — Non-Inheritance

Prompt

Setup. A child who has handled fire — felt its heat, watched it move, been pulled back from it — has something no description gave her. Call this integrated, preverbal grasp a Pattern-Constellation, written { X } {X}. It is formed through serial, locus-bound, concern-laden encounter. It is not a representation and carries no content. A word acquires two modes of use. In object-mode (x o x o ) it labels what was encountered. In concept-mode (x c x c ) it enters relations with other words. Reference is the coordination of the two, written R ( x c , x o ) R(x c ,x o ). Define experiential grounding: $$G_E(X) \equiv {X} + \mathcal{R}(x^c, x^o)$$ The claim to assess is that grounding does not close under composition: $$G_E(A) \wedge G_E(B) \nRightarrow G_E(A,B)$$ A speaker who has encountered mice and encountered corners, but never a mouse in a corner, can form the expression "mouse in a corner" and use it correctly. On this account she is not thereby grounded in it. No { A , B } {A,B} has formed. Composition inside the linguistic register does not supply the formation history that direct grounding requires. The objection. Composition preserves the relevant property everywhere else in semantics. If "red" is grounded and "cube" is grounded, "red cube" is grounded — which is why the speaker gets it right on first encounter. Non-inheritance is a stipulation dressed as a discovery. It buys its apparent depth by defining grounding so narrowly that nothing but literal repetition of an encounter can satisfy it. Your tasks. Restate the non-inheritance claim so that it is type-consistent: say exactly what kind of thing G E G E ​ is predicated of, and show that the objection's reading and the intended reading predicate it of different things. If they do not, say so. Say which component the objection targets — the formation of { X } {X}, or the coordination R ( x c , x o ) R(x c ,x o ) — and whether it succeeds against that component. Do not answer for both if it only reaches one. Construct the strongest counterexample you can to non-inheritance: a case where the compound genuinely does inherit grounding from its parts. Then say what the account must say about your case. If the only available reply is ad hoc, say that instead of manufacturing one. State one condition under which you would abandon the claim. Constraints. Nine hundred words maximum. Do not summarise the setup back to me. Do not open by characterising the question as interesting or difficult. No hedging: if a claim is uncertain, name the uncertainty and its source.