Problèmes de linguistique générale
About: This article is published in Language.The article was published on 1968-03-01. It has received 1838 citations till now.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: Wilson and Sperber as mentioned in this paper treat utterance interpretation as a two-phase process: a modular decoding phase is seen as providing input to a central inferential phase in which a linguistically encoded logical form is contextually enriched and used to construct a hypothesis about the speaker's informative intention.
601 citations
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: This work explains Morphosyntactic Competition, the Structure of DPs, and the Natures of Nonconfigurationality in Modern Transformational Syntax, as well as investigating the role of rhetoric in the development of knowledge representation.
Abstract: Contributors. Introduction. Part I: Derivation Versus Representation:. 1. Explaining Morphosyntactic Competition: Joan Bresnan (Stanford University). 2. Economy Conditions in Syntax: Chris Collins (Cornell University). 3. Derivation and Representation in Modern Transformational Syntax: Howard Lasnik (University of Connecticut). 4. Relativized Minimality Effects: Luigi Rizzi (Universite de Geneve). Part II: Movement:. 5. Head Movement: Ian Roberts (University of Stuttgart). 6. Object Shift and Scrambling: Hoskuldur Thrainsson (University of Iceland). 7. Wh--in--situ Languages: Akira Watanabe (University of Tokyo). 8. A--Movements: Mark Baltin (New York University). Part III: Argument Structure and Phrase Structure:. 9. Thematic Relations in Syntax: Jeffrey S. Gruber (independent scholar). 10. Predication: John Bowers (Cornell University). 11. Case: Hiroyuki Ura. 12. Phrase Structure: Naoki Fukui (University of California). 13. The Natures of Nonconfigurationality: Mark C. Baker (McGill University). 14. What VP Ellipsis Can Do, and What it Can't, but not Why: Kyle Johnson (University of Massachusetts at Amherst). Part IV: Functional Projections:. 15. Agreement Projections: Adriana Belletti (Universita di Siena). 16. Sentential Negation: Raffaella Zanuttini (Georgetown University). 17. The DP Hypothesis: Identifying Clausal Properties in the Nominal Domain: Judy B. Bernstein (Syracuse University). 18. The Structure of DPs: Some Principles, Parameters and Problems: Giuseppe Longobardi (University of Trieste). Part V: Interface With Interpretation:. 19. The Syntax of Scope: Anna Szabolcsi (New York University). 20. Deconstructing Binding: Eric Reuland and Martin Everaert (both Utrecht Institute of Linguistics). 21. Syntactic Reconstruction Effects: Andrew Barss (University of Arizona). Part VI: External Evaluation of Syntax:. 22. Syntactic Change: Anthony S. Kroch (University of Pennsylvania). 23. Setting Syntactic Parameters: Janet Dean Fodor (City University of New York). Bibliography. Index.
568 citations
Cites background from "Problèmes de linguistique générale"
...and Accusative (Benveniste 1966) (the latter fact does not seem to necessarily hold in all languages:...
[...]
TL;DR: This paper proposed a new view of the nature of heads and head movement that reveals that head movement is totally compliant with the standardly suggested properties of grammar and provided independent motivation for m-merger, arguing that it can be attested in environments where no head movement took place.
Abstract: In this article, I address the issue of head movement in current linguistic theory. I propose a new view of the nature of heads and head movement that reveals that head movement is totally compliant with the standardly suggested properties of grammar. To do so, I suggest that head movement is not a single syntactic operation, but a combination of two operations: a syntactic one (movement) and a morphological one (m-merger). I then provide independent motivation for m-merger, arguing that it can be attested in environments where no head movement took place
443 citations
01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: Wilson and Sperber as mentioned in this paper treat utterance interpretation as a two-phase process: a modular decoding phase is seen as providing input to a central inferential phase in which a linguistically encoded logical form is contextually enriched and used to construct a hypothesis about the speaker's informative intention.
Abstract: © Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber 2012. Introduction Our book Relevance (Sperber and Wilson 1986a) treats utterance interpretation as a two-phase process: a modular decoding phase is seen as providing input to a central inferential phase in which a linguistically encoded logical form is contextually enriched and used to construct a hypothesis about the speaker’s informative intention. Relevance was mainly concerned with the inferential phase of comprehension: we had to answer Fodor’s challenge that while decoding processes are quite well understood, inferential processes are not only not understood, but perhaps not even understandable (see Fodor 1983). Here we will look more closely at the decoding phase and consider what types of information may be linguistically encoded, and how the borderline between decoding and inference can be drawn. It might be that all linguistically encoded information is cut to a single pattern: all truth conditions, say, or all instructions for use. However, there is a robust intuition that two basic types of meaning can be found. This intuition surfaces in a variety of distinctions: between describing and indicating, stating and showing, saying and conventionally implicating, or between truth-conditional and non-truth-conditional, conceptual and procedural, or representational and computational meaning. In the literature, justifications for these distinctions have been developed in both strictly linguistic and more broadly cognitive terms.
417 citations
Cites background from "Problèmes de linguistique générale"
...The idea that there are procedural constraints on truth-conditional content was suggested (in different terms) by Jakobson and Benveniste in their discussion of 'shifters'. However, when Benveniste (1966: 252) says that the pronoun 'I' means "the speaker of the utterance in which the token of 'I' occurs", his proposal is seriously ambiguous. Kaplan (1989) points out (again in different terms) that the claim that 'I' means 'the speaker' has different consequences depending on whether it is conceptually or procedurally understood....
[...]
TL;DR: The idea of reflexivity has much to offer to the analysis of taste -but reflexivity in its ancient sense, a form neither active nor passive, pointing to an originary state where things, persons, and events have just arrived, with no action, subject or objects yet decided as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The idea of reflexivity has much to offer to the analysis of taste - but reflexivity in its ancient sense, a form neither active nor passive, pointing to an originary state where things, persons, and events have just arrived, with no action, subject or objects yet decided. Objects of taste are not present, inert, available and at our service.They give themselves up, they shy away, they impose themselves. ‘Amateurs’ do not believe things have taste. On the contrary, they make themselves detect them, through a continuous elaboration of procedures that put taste to the test. Understood as reflexive work performed on one’s own attachments, the amateur’s taste is no longer considered (as with so-called ‘critical’ sociology) an arbitrary election which has to be explained by hidden social causes. Rather, it is a collective technique, whose analysis helps us to understand the ways we make ourselves sensitized, to things, to ourselves, to situations and to moments, while simultaneously controlling how those feelings might be shared and discussed with others.
396 citations
Additional excerpts
...3 Cf. the beautiful description of fingers on the strings of a guitar by Michel Serres (1985)....
[...]
...12 Cf. Benvéniste (1966), pp. 168–175, and Hennion, Maisonneuve and Gomart (2000), p. 166....
[...]