Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-w5jd6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T22:45:13.423Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Fallacies in the Diachrony of Sentence Connectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Werner Abraham
Werner Abraham
Affiliation:
University of Groningen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this essay, the methodological point of departure is the assumption that the Saussurian inherited distinction between diachronic and synchronic levels of description is fictitious and arbitrary and will therefore have to be abandoned in its stringent interpretation (see Baumgärtner's convincing display of arguments (Baumgärtner 1969) and, in the same vein, Kanngießer 1972). Not only, it will be argued, is this meanwhile classical dichotomy unnecessary, and does it fail to account for similarities between semantic change and certain types of human reasoning, but it leads into blind alleys when one attempts to systematize various linguistic phenomena. The integration of catachresis, metaphor, and other figurative usage of lexical items into a theory of grammar are cases in point (Abraham 1975).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , Fall 1978 , pp. 95 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abbot, B. 1974. “Some problems in giving an adequate modeltheoretic account of CAUSE,” Paper read at LSA, summer 1974, U. C. Berkeley.Google Scholar
Abraham, W. 1975a. “Some semantic properties of some conjunctions.” In Corder, P./Roulet, E. (eds.): Some Implications of Linguistic Theory for Applied Linguistics, Brussels: AIMAV and Paris; Didier.Google Scholar
Abraham, W. 1975b. A Linguistic Approach to Metaphor, Lisse.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. 1972. An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics, New York.Google Scholar
Åqvist, L. 1974. “A new approach to the logical theory of actions and causality,” in Stenlund, 1974: 73–91.Google Scholar
Barker, J. A. 1974. “Brand and Swain on Causation,” Synthese 26, 396–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgärtner, K. 1969. “Diachronie und Synchronie der Sprach-struktur -- Faktum oder Idealisierung?” Sprache, Gegenwart und Geschichte. Probleme der Synchronie und Diachronie. Jahrbuch, 1968. Sprache der Gegenwart Bd. V. Düsseldorf, 1969, 52–64.Google Scholar
Behaghel, O. 1928. Deutsche Syntax, vol. 3: Die Satzgebilde, Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Bergsland, K. 1955. A Grammatical Outline of the Eskimo Language of West Greenland, Oslo.Google Scholar
Brand, M. and Swain, M. 1970. “On the analysis of causation,” Synthese 21, 222–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1974. “Inductive generalizations in semantic change,” University of Amsterdam: Publications of the Dept. of General Linguistics 7, May 1974.Google Scholar
Döhmann, K. 1966. “Zur Semantik und Etymologie der sprachlichen Darstellung der dyadischen Funktoren,” Studium Generale 19, 402–15.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. 1972. Studies of the Logic of Verb Aspect and Time Reference in English, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Duden, 1966 2. Duden-Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, Mannheim.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Th. 1974. “Exclusive and nonexclusive coordination,” Working Papers in Linguistics 6, The University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Geis, M. L. and Zwicky, A. M. 1971. “Invited Inferences,” Linguistic Inquiry 2, 561–66.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1967. The Logic of Conversation. William James Lectures, Harvard University. Unpublished (see also the short version “Logic and Conversation,” in Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.): The Logic of Grammar, Encino, 1975, 64–75.Google Scholar
Haines, Sh. 1974. Before once more. Paper read at the LSA Winter Meeting in New York (Also in: Penn Review of Linguistics 1/1, Feb. 1975, eds. S. Thomas and M. Gottfried.)Google Scholar
Jeffrey, R. C. 1974. “Remarks in interpersonal utility theory,” in Stenlund 1974, 35–44.Google Scholar
Kanngießer, S. 1972. Aspekte der synchronen und diachronen Linguistik, Tübingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, L. 1974. “Presupposition and linguistic context,” Theoretical Linguistics 1/2, 181–94.Google Scholar
Kasher, A. 1974. “Mood implicatures: A logical way of doing generative pragmatics,” Theoretical Linguistics 1/1, 6–38.Google Scholar
King, R. D. 1974. Competing Generalizations and Linguistic Change. Forum Lecture, Linguistic Institute: Univ. Massachusetts, 10 July 1974.Google Scholar
Klappenbach, R. and Steinitz, W. 1961. Wörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, Berlin.Google Scholar
Kummer, W. 1973. “Pragmatic implication,” in Petöfi/Rieser, 1974, 96–112.Google Scholar
Lang, E. 1974. Studien zur Semantik der koordinativen Verknüpfung, Ph.D. Dissertation, Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der D.D.R. (Duplicated).Google Scholar
Leumann, M., Hofmann, J. B. and Szantyr, A. 1974. Lateinische Grammatik, Band 2, München.Google Scholar
Levin, D. 1975. “Uber eine Gruppe von Konjunktionen im Russischen,” Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 2 (Translated from Russian Original: “Ob odnoj gruppe sojuzov russkogo jazyka,” Mašinnyi perevod i prikladnaja lingvistika 13, 1970, 64–88).Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1972. “General semantics,” in Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.): Semantics of Natural Language, Dordrecht, 169–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1973. “Causation,” The Journal of Philosophy 556–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, R. 1974. “On the nature of certain philosophical entities,” in Thomason, R. H. (ed.): Formal Philosophy, Selected Papers of Richard Montague, New Haven, 147–87. (Originally in The Monist 53, 1960, 155–94.)Google Scholar
Onions, C. T. 1933. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. “On historical principles,” prepared by William Little, H. W. Fowler, J. Couldon. Revised and edited by Onions, C. T., Clarendon Press; Oxford.Google Scholar
Paul, H. and Betz, W. 1966. Deutsches Wörterbuch, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Petöfi, J. S. and Risser, H. (eds.) 1973. Studies in Text Grammar, Dordrecht Foundations of Language Supplementary Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, M. 1974. “Patching up with counterparts,” Foundations of Language 12/2, 157–77.Google Scholar
Rieger, Ch. J. 1975a. “Understanding by conceptual inference,” Computer Science Technical Report Series TR 353, University of Maryland, February, 1975.Google Scholar
Rieger, Ch. J. 1975b. “Conceptual overlaps. A mechanism for the interpretation of sentence meaning in context,” Computer Science Technical Report Series TR 354, University of Maryland, February, 1975.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C. 1974. “Understanding paragraphs,” Working Papers Instituto per gli Studi Semantici e Cognitivi, Castagnola: Switzerland. (Cf. Paraphrasing Paragraphs, Report LSA, Amherst, Summer, 1974).Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, P. A. 1969. Operators and Nucleus, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Spillner, B. 1971. “Polysemie und Disambiguierung,” in von Stechow, 1971, 247–57.Google Scholar
Stechow, A. V. (ed.) 1971. Beiträge zur generativen Grammatik, Braunschweig.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenlund, S. (ed.) 1974. Logical Theory and Semantic Analysis, Synthese Library.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, R. 1973. Semantics, Pragmatics, Conversation, and Presupposition. Duplicated, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. 1969. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, V. 1947. Russkij jazyk. Moscow-Leningrade.Google Scholar
Wirth, K. 1972. On the Explanation of Invited Inferences. University of Wisconsin: Milwaukee. Duplicated.Google Scholar
Wright, G. H. von 1963. The Logic of Preference, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wright, G. H. von 1971. Explanation and Understanding, Ithaca.Google Scholar
Wright, G. H. von 1972. “Tne iogic of preference reconsidered,” Theory and Decision 3, 140–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar