Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives
Grammatical metaphor : views from systemic functional linguistics by A. M Simon-Vandenbergen 17 editions published in in English and held by 1, WorldCat member libraries worldwide Since the s, metaphor has received much attention in linguistics in general. This volume aims to raise and debate problematic issues in the study of lexico-grammatical metaphor, and to foreground the potential of further study in the field.
There is a need to highlight the SFL perspective on metaphor; other traditions focus on lexical aspects, and from cognitive perspectives, while SFL focuses on the grammatical dimension, and socio-functional aspects in the explanation o. Pragmatic markers in contrast 15 editions published in in English and held by 1, WorldCat member libraries worldwide Building on the first volume in the "Studies in Pragmatics" series which clearly set out the differences and similarities in approaches to discourse markers, "Pragmatic Markers in Contrast" continues the debate through offering a unique and thorough examination of the methods and theories for studying pragmatic markers cross-linguistically.
As a result of internationalisation and new developments in linguistics there has been an increasing interest in cross-linguistic studies. Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen have assembled experts in this field to explore the comparison of pragmatic markers across languages in order to offer important insights into the similarities and differences between languages. Contrastive studies can also shed more light on the pragmatic and discourse functions that pragmatic markers fulfil in the languages compared.
Another issue is to what extent pragmatic markers which have evolved from the same lexical source have developed similar functions in different languages. An impressively large number of different approaches are represented in this volume as well as a wide range of languages including; English, Swedish, Spanish, Dutch, German, French, Norwegian and Solv a dialect of Finland Swedish. By word of mouth : metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective by Louis Goossens 2 editions published in in English and held by WorldCat member libraries worldwide This volume contains seven synchronic and diachronic empirical investigations into the expression and conceptualization of linguistic action in English, focusing on figurative extensions.
The following issues are explored: Source domains, and their relation to the complexities of linguistic action as a target domain. The role of axiological parameter, the experiential grounding of metaphors expressing value judgements and the part played by image-schemata, how value judgements come about and their socio-cultural embedding. The graded character of metaphoricity and its correlation with degree. Pragmatic Markers in Contrast [electronic resource] by Karin Aijmer 2 editions published between and in English and held by WorldCat member libraries worldwide Annotation.
The grammar of the headlines in The Times, by A. Aspects of style in British newspapers Book 6 editions published in in English and held by 55 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. English via various Media Book 3 editions published in in English and German and held by 50 WorldCat member libraries worldwide.
Aspects of contrastive verb valency Book 11 editions published in in English and German and held by 49 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. The grammar of headlines in the times by A.
M Simon-Vandenbergen Book 3 editions published between and in English and held by 46 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. Exploring English grammar by A. M Simon-Vandenbergen Book 7 editions published between and in 3 languages and held by 19 WorldCat member libraries worldwide Systematisch overzicht van de grammatica van het Engels.
Language in epistemic access : mobilising multilingualism and literacy Book 6 editions published between and in English and held by 17 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. It can be proper or improper as when it is used in metaphor , metonyms and other figures of speech. A proper suppositio, in turn, can be either formal or material accordingly when it refers to its usual non-linguistic referent as in "Charles is a man" , or to itself as a linguistic entity as in " Charles has seven letters".
Such a classification scheme is the precursor of modern distinctions between use and mention , and between language and metalanguage. There is a tradition called speculative grammar which existed from the 11th to the 13th century. Linguists of the Renaissance and Baroque periods such as Johannes Goropius Becanus , Athanasius Kircher and John Wilkins were infatuated with the idea of a philosophical language reversing the confusion of tongues , influenced by the gradual discovery of Chinese characters and Egyptian hieroglyphs Hieroglyphica.
This thought parallels the idea that there might be a universal language of music. He argues that philosophy has not sufficiently focused on the role language plays in cognition and that future philosophy ought to proceed with a conscious focus on language:. If the claim of philosophers to be unbiased were all it pretends to be, it would also have to take account of language and its whole significance in relation to speculative philosophy Language is partly something originally given, partly that which develops freely.
And just as the individual can never reach the point at which he becomes absolutely independent The phrase " linguistic turn " was used to describe the noteworthy emphasis that contemporary philosophers put upon language. Language began to play a central role in Western philosophy in the early 20th century. One of the central figures involved in this development was the German philosopher Gottlob Frege , whose work on philosophical logic and the philosophy of language in the late 19th century influenced the work of 20th-century analytic philosophers Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
- Reconnecting Language: Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives.!
- Trade and Traders in Mid-Victorian Liverpool: Mercantile Business and the Making of a World Port!
- The State of Affairs: Explorations in infidelity and Commitment (LEAs Series on Personal Relationships)!
- 100 Boat Designs Reviewed!
- Quick links;
The philosophy of language became so pervasive that for a time, in analytic philosophy circles, philosophy as a whole was understood to be a matter of philosophy of language. Secondly, this field of study seeks to better understand what speakers and listeners do with language in communication , and how it is used socially. Specific interests include the topics of language learning , language creation, and speech acts. Thirdly, the question of how language relates to the minds of both the speaker and the interpreter is investigated. Of specific interest is the grounds for successful translation of words and concepts into their equivalents in another language.
It has long been known that there are different parts of speech. One part of the common sentence is the lexical word , which is composed of nouns , verbs, and adjectives.
A major question in the field — perhaps the single most important question for formalist and structuralist thinkers — is, "How does the meaning of a sentence emerge out of its parts? Many aspects of the problem of the composition of sentences are addressed in the field of linguistics of syntax. Philosophical semantics tends to focus on the principle of compositionality to explain the relationship between meaningful parts and whole sentences.
The principle of compositionality asserts that a sentence can be understood on the basis of the meaning of the parts of the sentence i. It is possible to use the concept of functions to describe more than just how lexical meanings work: they can also be used to describe the meaning of a sentence. Take, for a moment, the sentence "The horse is red". We may consider "the horse" to be the product of a propositional function. A propositional function is an operation of language that takes an entity in this case, the horse as an input and outputs a semantic fact i.
In other words, a propositional function is like an algorithm. The meaning of "red" in this case is whatever takes the entity "the horse" and turns it into the statement, "The horse is red. Linguists have developed at least two general methods of understanding the relationship between the parts of a linguistic string and how it is put together: syntactic and semantic trees.
Syntactic trees draw upon the words of a sentence with the grammar of the sentence in mind. Semantic trees, on the other hand, focus upon the role of the meaning of the words and how those meanings combine to provide insight onto the genesis of semantic facts. Some of the major issues at the intersection of philosophy of language and philosophy of mind are also dealt with in modern psycholinguistics.
Some important questions are How much of language is innate? Is language acquisition a special faculty in the mind? What is the connection between thought and language? There are three general perspectives on the issue of language learning. The first is the behaviorist perspective, which dictates that not only is the solid bulk of language learned, but it is learned via conditioning.
The second is the hypothesis testing perspective , which understands the child's learning of syntactic rules and meanings to involve the postulation and testing of hypotheses, through the use of the general faculty of intelligence. The final candidate for explanation is the innatist perspective, which states that at least some of the syntactic settings are innate and hardwired, based on certain modules of the mind.
There are varying notions of the structure of the brain when it comes to language. Connectionist models emphasize the idea that a person's lexicon and their thoughts operate in a kind of distributed, associative network. Reductionist models attempt to explain higher-level mental processes in terms of the basic low-level neurophysiological activity of the brain. An important problem which touches both philosophy of language and philosophy of mind is to what extent language influences thought and vice versa. There have been a number of different perspectives on this issue, each offering a number of insights and suggestions.
Linguists Sapir and Whorf suggested that language limited the extent to which members of a "linguistic community" can think about certain subjects a hypothesis paralleled in George Orwell 's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Philosopher Michael Dummett is also a proponent of the "language-first" viewpoint. The stark opposite to the Sapir—Whorf position is the notion that thought or, more broadly, mental content has priority over language. The "knowledge-first" position can be found, for instance, in the work of Paul Grice.
According to his argument, spoken and written language derive their intentionality and meaning from an internal language encoded in the mind. Another argument is that it is difficult to explain how signs and symbols on paper can represent anything meaningful unless some sort of meaning is infused into them by the contents of the mind. One of the main arguments against is that such levels of language can lead to an infinite regress. Another tradition of philosophers has attempted to show that language and thought are coextensive — that there is no way of explaining one without the other.
Donald Davidson, in his essay "Thought and Talk", argued that the notion of belief could only arise as a product of public linguistic interaction. Daniel Dennett holds a similar interpretationist view of propositional attitudes. Some thinkers, like the ancient sophist Gorgias , have questioned whether or not language was capable of capturing thought at all. There are studies that prove that languages shape how people understand causality.
Some of them were performed by Lera Boroditsky. For example, English speakers tend to say things like "John broke the vase" even for accidents. However, Spanish or Japanese speakers would be more likely to say "the vase broke itself. Later everyone was asked whether they could remember who did what. Spanish and Japanese speakers did not remember the agents of accidental events as well as did English speakers. Russian speakers, who make an extra distinction between light and dark blue in their language, are better able to visually discriminate shades of blue.
The Piraha , a tribe in Brazil , whose language has only terms like few and many instead of numerals, are not able to keep track of exact quantities. In one study German and Spanish speakers were asked to describe objects having opposite gender assignment in those two languages. The descriptions they gave differed in a way predicted by grammatical gender.
- Account Options;
- A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Author of Reconnecting Language)!
- 1001 Symmetrical Patterns A Complete Resource of Pattern Designs Created by Evolving Symmetrical Shapes.
- Binu and the Great Wall of China (Canongate Myths series Book 9).
- 3rd Serving of Chicken Soup for the Soul. More Stories to Open the Heart and Rekindle the Spirit.
- Predicate agreement with quantified expressions;
- The Rough Guides Maui Directions 1 (Rough Guide Directions)?
- Chinese Children’s Reading Acquisition: Theoretical and Pedagogical Issues.
- Rhetoric Reclaimed: Aristotle and the Liberal Arts Tradition.
- Ebook Reconnecting Language: Morphology And Syntax In Functional Perspectives 1997.
- Liner Conferences in Competition Law: A Comparative Analysis of European and Chinese Law.
- Go to Page.
- McGraw-Hills Spanish for Educators (Book Only)?
For example, when asked to describe a "key"—a word that is masculine in German and feminine in Spanish—the German speakers were more likely to use words like "hard," "heavy," "jagged," "metal," "serrated," and "useful," whereas Spanish speakers were more likely to say "golden," "intricate," "little," "lovely," "shiny," and "tiny. In a series of studies conducted by Gary Lupyan, people were asked to look at a series of images of imaginary aliens.
They had to guess whether each alien was friendly or hostile, and after each response they were told if they were correct or not, helping them learn the subtle cues that distinguished friend from foe. A quarter of the participants were told in advance that the friendly aliens were called "leebish" and the hostile ones "grecious", while another quarter were told the opposite.
For the rest, the aliens remained nameless. It was found that participants who were given names for the aliens learned to categorize the aliens far more quickly, reaching 80 per cent accuracy in less than half the time taken by those not told the names. By the end of the test, those told the names could correctly categorize 88 per cent of aliens, compared to just 80 per cent for the rest.
It was concluded that naming objects helps us categorize and memorize them. In another series of experiments  a group of people was asked to view furniture from an IKEA catalog. Half the time they were asked to label the object — whether it was a chair or lamp, for example — while the rest of the time they had to say whether or not they liked it. It was found that when asked to label items, people were later less likely to recall the specific details of products, such as whether a chair had arms or not.
It was concluded that labeling objects helps our minds build a prototype of the typical object in the group at the expense of individual features. The topic that has received the most attention in the philosophy of language has been the nature of meaning, to explain what "meaning" is, and what we mean when we talk about meaning. Within this area, issues include: the nature of synonymy , the origins of meaning itself, our apprehension of meaning, and the nature of composition the question of how meaningful units of language are composed of smaller meaningful parts, and how the meaning of the whole is derived from the meaning of its parts.
There have been several distinctive explanations of what a linguistic "meaning" is. Each has been associated with its own body of literature. Other theories exist to discuss non-linguistic meaning i. Investigations into how language interacts with the world are called theories of reference. Gottlob Frege was an advocate of a mediated reference theory. Frege divided the semantic content of every expression, including sentences, into two components: sense and reference.
The sense of a sentence is the thought that it expresses. Such a thought is abstract, universal and objective. The sense of any sub-sentential expression consists in its contribution to the thought that its embedding sentence expresses. Senses determine reference and are also the modes of presentation of the objects to which expressions refer. Referents are the objects in the world that words pick out.
The senses of sentences are thoughts, while their referents are truth values true or false. The referents of sentences embedded in propositional attitude ascriptions and other opaque contexts are their usual senses. Bertrand Russell , in his later writings and for reasons related to his theory of acquaintance in epistemology , held that the only directly referential expressions are, what he called, "logically proper names". Logically proper names are such terms as I , now , here and other indexicals.
Hence Donald J. Trump may be an abbreviation for "the current President of the United States and husband of Melania Trump. Such phrases denote in the sense that there is an object that satisfies the description. However, such objects are not to be considered meaningful on their own, but have meaning only in the proposition expressed by the sentences of which they are a part. Hence, they are not directly referential in the same way as logically proper names, for Russell. On Frege's account, any referring expression has a sense as well as a referent.
Such a "mediated reference" view has certain theoretical advantages over Mill's view. For example, co-referential names, such as Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain , cause problems for a directly referential view because it is possible for someone to hear "Mark Twain is Samuel Clemens" and be surprised — thus, their cognitive content seems different. Despite the differences between the views of Frege and Russell, they are generally lumped together as descriptivists about proper names. Such descriptivism was criticized in Saul Kripke 's Naming and Necessity.
Kripke put forth what has come to be known as "the modal argument" or "argument from rigidity". Consider the name Aristotle and the descriptions "the greatest student of Plato", "the founder of logic" and "the teacher of Alexander". Aristotle obviously satisfies all of the descriptions and many of the others we commonly associate with him , but it is not necessarily true that if Aristotle existed then Aristotle was any one, or all, of these descriptions.
Aristotle may well have existed without doing any single one of the things for which he is known to posterity. He may have existed and not have become known to posterity at all or he may have died in infancy. Suppose that Aristotle is associated by Mary with the description "the last great philosopher of antiquity" and the actual Aristotle died in infancy.
Then Mary's description would seem to refer to Plato. But this is deeply counterintuitive. Hence, names are rigid designators , according to Kripke.
SORA - publications
That is, they refer to the same individual in every possible world in which that individual exists. In the same work, Kripke articulated several other arguments against " Frege—Russell " descriptivism  see also Kripke's causal theory of reference.
It is worth noting that the whole philosophical enterprise of studying reference has been critiqued by linguist Noam Chomsky in various works. A common claim is that language is governed by social conventions. Questions inevitably arise on surrounding topics. One question is, "What exactly is a convention, and how do we study it? However, this view seems to compete to some extent with the Gricean view of speaker's meaning, requiring either one or both to be weakened if both are to be taken as true.
Some have questioned whether or not conventions are relevant to the study of meaning at all. Noam Chomsky proposed that the study of language could be done in terms of the I-Language, or internal language of persons.
If this is so, then it undermines the pursuit of explanations in terms of conventions, and relegates such explanations to the domain of "meta-semantics". Metasemantics is a term used by philosopher of language Robert Stainton to describe all those fields that attempt to explain how semantic facts arise. Etymology the study of the origins of words and stylistics philosophical argumentation over what makes "good grammar", relative to a particular language are two other examples of fields that are taken to be meta-semantic. Not surprisingly, many separate but related fields have investigated the topic of linguistic convention within their own research paradigms.
The presumptions that prop up each theoretical view are of interest to the philosopher of language. For instance, one of the major fields of sociology, symbolic interactionism , is based on the insight that human social organization is based almost entirely on the use of meanings. Rhetoric is the study of the particular words that people use to achieve the proper emotional and rational effect in the listener, be it to persuade, provoke, endear, or teach.
Some relevant applications of the field include the examination of propaganda and didacticism , the examination of the purposes of swearing and pejoratives especially how it influences the behavior of others, and defines relationships , or the effects of gendered language. It can also be used to study linguistic transparency or speaking in an accessible manner , as well as performative utterances and the various tasks that language can perform called "speech acts".
It also has applications to the study and interpretation of law, and helps give insight to the logical concept of the domain of discourse. Literary theory is a discipline that some literary theorists claim overlaps with the philosophy of language. It emphasizes the methods that readers and critics use in understanding a text. This field, an outgrowth of the study of how to properly interpret messages, is unsurprisingly closely tied to the ancient discipline of hermeneutics. Finally, philosophers of language investigate how language and meaning relate to truth and the reality being referred to.
They tend to be less interested in which sentences are actually true , and more in what kinds of meanings can be true or false. A truth-oriented philosopher of language might wonder whether or not a meaningless sentence can be true or false, or whether or not sentences can express propositions about things that do not exist, rather than the way sentences are used.
In continental philosophy , language is not studied as a separate discipline, as it is in analytic philosophy. Rather, it is an inextricable part of many other areas of thought, such as phenomenology , structural semiotics ,  hermeneutics , existentialism , structuralism , deconstruction and critical theory. The idea of language is often related to that of logic in its Greek sense as " logos ", meaning discourse or dialectic.
Language and concepts are also seen as having been formed by history and politics, or even by historical philosophy itself. The field of hermeneutics, and the theory of interpretation in general, has played a significant role in 20th century continental philosophy of language and ontology beginning with Martin Heidegger. Heidegger combines phenomenology with the hermeneutics of Wilhelm Dilthey. Heidegger believed language was one of the most important concepts for Dasein. Heidegger believed that language today is worn out because of overuse of important words, and would be inadequate for in-depth study of Being Sein.
For example, Sein being , the word itself, is saturated with multiple meanings. Thus, he invented new vocabulary and linguistic styles , based on Ancient Greek and Germanic etymological word relations, to disambiguate commonly used words. He avoided words like consciousness, ego, human, nature, etc. With such new concepts as Being-in-the-world , Heidegger constructs his theory of language, centered on speech. He believed speech talking, listening, silence was the most essential and pure form of language. Heidegger claims writing is only a supplement to speech, because even a reader constructs or contributes one's own "talk" while reading.
The most important feature of language is its projectivity , the idea that language is prior to human speech. This means that when one is "thrown" into the world, his existence is characterized from the beginning by a certain pre-comprehension of the world. However, it is only after naming, or "articulation of intelligibility", can one have primary access to Dasein and Being-in-the-World. Hans-Georg Gadamer expanded on these ideas of Heidegger and proposed a complete hermeneutic ontology.
In Truth and Method , Gadamer describes language as "the medium in which substantive understanding and agreement take place between two people. For example, monuments and statues cannot communicate without the aid of language. Gadamer also claims that every language constitutes a world-view, because the linguistic nature of the world frees each individual from an objective environment: " The world as world exists for man as for no other creature in the world. Other philosophers who have worked in this tradition include Luigi Pareyson and Jacques Derrida.
Semiotics is the study of the transmission, reception and meaning of signs and symbols in general. In this field, human language both natural and artificial is just one among many ways that humans and other conscious beings are able to communicate. It allows them to take advantage of and effectively manipulate the external world in order to create meaning for themselves and transmit this meaning to others.
Every object, every person, every event, and every force communicates or signifies continuously. The ringing of a telephone for example, is the telephone. The smoke that I see on the horizon is the sign that there is a fire. The smoke signifies. The things of the world, in this vision, seem to be labeled precisely for intelligent beings who only need to interpret them in the way that humans do.
Everything has meaning. True communication, including the use of human language, however, requires someone a sender who sends a message , or text , in some code to someone else a receiver. Language is studied only insofar as it is one of these forms the most sophisticated form of communication. In modern times, its best-known figures include Umberto Eco , A. Another of the questions that has divided philosophers of language is the extent to which formal logic can be used as an effective tool in the analysis and understanding of natural languages.
While most philosophers, including Gottlob Frege , Alfred Tarski and Rudolf Carnap , have been more or less skeptical about formalizing natural languages, many of them developed formal languages for use in the sciences or formalized parts of natural language for investigation. Some of the most prominent members of this tradition of formal semantics include Tarski, Carnap, Richard Montague and Donald Davidson. On the other side of the divide, and especially prominent in the s and '60s, were the so-called " ordinary language philosophers ".
Philosophers such as P. Strawson , John Langshaw Austin and Gilbert Ryle stressed the importance of studying natural language without regard to the truth-conditions of sentences and the references of terms. They did not believe that the social and practical dimensions of linguistic meaning could be captured by any attempts at formalization using the tools of logic. Logic is one thing and language is something entirely different.
What is important is not expressions themselves but what people use them to do in communication. Hence, Austin developed a theory of speech acts , which described the kinds of things which can be done with a sentence assertion, command, inquiry, exclamation in different contexts of use on different occasions.
While keeping these traditions in mind, the question of whether or not there is any grounds for conflict between the formal and informal approaches is far from being decided.
Access the database
Some theorists, like Paul Grice , have been skeptical of any claims that there is a substantial conflict between logic and natural language. One debate that has captured the interest of many philosophers is the debate over the meaning of universals. One might ask, for example, "When people say the word rocks , what is it that the word represents?
Some have said that the expression stands for some real, abstract universal out in the world called "rocks". Others have said that the word stands for some collection of particular, individual rocks that we associate with merely a nomenclature. The former position has been called philosophical realism , and the latter nominalism.