Abstract
The intention of this chapter is to show the peculiarities of the point of view of Dressler and de Beaugrande, expressed in their work. The position taken by the two authors in their Introduction is a veiled criticism against van Dijk and Petőfi, which are accused of excessive rigour. Dressler and de Beaugrande’s procedural approach avoids the use of logical bases and they propose a point of view closer to cognitive science. According to Dressler and de Beaugrande, the heart of the procedural approach is semantics. In their view, knowledge and meaning are sensitive to the situation in which they are used. So, the two authors believe that framing the texts and the knowledge about the real world and the situation, in which the communication occurs, within a logical system is probably absurd. So, the procedural approach does not require semantic markers to be set in order to constitute the logical apparatus of a textual theory; rather, it indicates the need to engage in the search for types of global cognitive models on the basis of which textual production and reception functions. A well-formed text has to satisfy seven fixed criteria: cohesion, coherence, intentionality and acceptability, informativity, situationality and intertextuality.
There is no such thing as the “philosophy” of language. There is only linguistics; and grammar is an essential part thereof.
Louis Hjelmslev, Principes de grammaire générale
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See Lemke and van Helden (2009).
- 2.
On this point, see Chap. 1, p. 15.
- 3.
- 4.
Of particular interest is Tabossi (1998).
- 5.
See in particular Changeux (1983).
- 6.
On HCI (= Human-Computer Interaction), see Chap. 1, footnote 23.
- 7.
See Mantovani (1995), pp. 132–138.
- 8.
- 9.
In general, Lakoff and Johnson define as structural metaphors those that structure a concept in terms of another concept. They insist on the idea of structuring because, as we have already seen, conceptual metaphors never exist as an isolated case. In other words, if, for example, I am considering the metaphor “discussion is a war”, I will not stop at this initial consideration, but I shall articulate the metaphor by perceiving a number of similarities between the situation “discussion” and the situation “war”. The two concepts, however, never overlap completely (otherwise they would represent the same concept). This means that the metaphor necessarily highlights certain aspects of the metaphorized concept (those that exhibit a similarity with the other concept), while it neglects or hides the others.
- 10.
For a proposal of interpreting ‘argument’ as a metaphor of ‘dance’, on the basis of Hegel’s thought, see Giuffrè (2013).
- 11.
These spatial orientations derive from the human body itself and how it functions in the physical environment. The metaphors of orientation give the concept a spatial orientation. For example, in expressions such as “Today I am in high spirits”, the expression for “happy” has a high position. The fact that the concept it contains is oriented upwards determines a spatial location for that mood. These metaphorical orientations are not arbitrary, as they have a basis in physical and sensory experience. But, although the opposition up-down, in-out, etc. are physical in nature, the metaphors of orientation based on them can vary from culture to culture (Lakoff and Johnson 2003, p. 33).
- 12.
See Violi (1997).
- 13.
This is the position of Fillmore (1968).
- 14.
Jackendoff also holds the same position and has spoken out against the “syntax-centric” nature of Generative Grammar. In the various versions of Generative Grammar listed in Chap. 1 footnote 20, Chomsky argues that syntax is the only generative component within a language. Jackendoff instead believes that phonology, syntax and semantics are generative, and that they are connected to each other reciprocally by means of special components having their own rules. Rejecting the mainstream of syntax-centric Generative Grammar, the contribution of cognitive semantics—which Jackendoff helped develop—principally concerns meaning. He disputes that it is syntax that determines semantics, and not, however, the contrary. Syntax requires a relationship with semantics to be able to produce eutactic outputs; see Jackendoff (1996, 2002).
- 15.
On the whole issue see Traini (2006).
- 16.
- 17.
See Marconi (1999).
- 18.
- 19.
- 20.
This issue was dealt with in detail by Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976).
- 21.
The point is dealt with in further detail by Tulving and Donaldson (1972).
- 22.
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
Walker (1978) reports a series of tests that support the idea that abstract distinctions are not recognizable in the verbal processes but can only be derived from the communicative situation.
- 26.
In the early models of computerized language processing, this factor was particularly evident, as pointed out by Woods (1970).
- 27.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
«For narrative only belongs in a manner to forensic speech, but in epideictic or deliberative speech how is it possible that there should be narrative as it is defined, or a refutation?» (Aristotle, Rhetoric 1414, 3a–b), in the English translation by John Henry Freese, fellow of St. John’s College, in the Loeb Classical Library (1947), book III, XIII.3, p. 425.
- 32.
The classical tradition required facts to follow the natural order, that is their true chronological order. Later, especially in the Middle Ages, however, this rule was often violated in order to create specific narrative effects (analepsis, prolepsis, etc.). In these cases, we are dealing with an artificial order. As for the arguments, however, classical tradition mentions three different methods: (1) ascending order: from weak to strong arguments; the advantage is that the last arguments used are more easily remembered; (2) descending order: from strong to weak arguments; the advantage is the strength of the first argument’s impact; (3) Nestorian or Homeric order: the strongest arguments are placed at the beginning and at the end (so named because in the Iliad Δ, Nestor places less reliable troops at the centre of his formation).
- 33.
It has been observed by Indo-Europeanists that modern European languages such as German, English and Spanish have a far less extensive repertoire of grammatical dependencies than Finnish, Hungarian or Caucasian languages, which are equipped with many grammatical cases capable of indicating conceptual relations. Hjelmslev (1935) has already reflected on the correspondence between semantic relations and grammatical cases, assigning a kind of supremacy to the Finno-Ugric languages.
- 34.
- 35.
In this passage, the concept of ‘execution’ expressed by de Beaugrande would be an actualization of competence during execution; there is thus a huge difference between this idea and the analogous concept of ‘performance’ utilized by Chomsky.
- 36.
- 37.
- 38.
For support they indicate Wright (1968).
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
- 45.
- 46.
The maxims listed by Grice (1975) concern cooperation, quantity, quality, relevance and manner, and make it possible to monitor the logical implicatures in conversations.
- 47.
See Bruce and Newman (1978).
- 48.
See Blom and Gumperz (1972).
- 49.
- 50.
The observations in Greenbaum (1973) are made in this direction.
- 51.
- 52.
The theory is presented in Shannon and Weaver (1949).
- 53.
This is maintained by Sprung (1964).
- 54.
The whole discussion of these issues is based on Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976).
- 55.
See Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976).
- 56.
- 57.
Edmondson (1980) considers such a process similar to negotiations. When several participants have different views on what is happening or is going in front of them, it is likely that the situation will be subjected to monitoring.
- 58.
The following is an exemplificative case in Plato: «SOCRATES: Of course! So that, in Epicharmus’s phrase, “what two men spake erewhile” I may prove I can manage single-handed. And indeed it looks as though it must of sheer necessity be so. Still, if we are to do this, for my part I think we ought all to vie with each other in attempting a knowledge of what is true and what false, in the matter of our argument; for it is a benefit to all alike that it be revealed. Now I am going to pursue the argument as my view of it may suggest; but if any of you think the admission I am making to myself are not the truth, you must seize upon them and refute me. For I assure you I myself do not say what I say as knowing it, but as joining in the search with you; so that if anyone who disputes my statements is found to be on the right track, I shall be the first to agree with him. This, however, I say on the assumption that you think the argument should be carried through to a conclusion; but if you would rather it were not, let us have done with it now and go our ways. GORGIAS: Well, my opinion is, Socrates, that we ought not to go away yet, but that you should go through with the argument; and I fancy the rest of them think the same. For I myself, in fact, desire to hear you going through the remainder by yourself. SOCRATES: Why, to be sure, Gorgias, I myself should have liked to continue discussing with Callicles here until I had paid him an Amphion’s speech in return for his of Zetus. But since you, Callicles, are unwilling to join me in finishing off the argument, you must at any rate pull me up, as you listen, if it seems to you that my statements are wrong. And if you refute me, I shall not be vexed with you as you were with me; you will only be recorded in my mind as my greatest benefactor. CALLICLES: Proceed, good sir, by yourself, and finish it off» [Plato, Gorgias 505 e–506 c, with the English translation by Walter R.M. Lamb, M.A. sometime fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, in the Loeb Classical Library (1946), volume 5, pp. 462–465].
- 59.
Schank and Abelson (1977) take into account the goal negotiation.
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.
References
Classics
Aristotle. Rhetorica. In Aristotelis opera. Edidit August Immanuel Bekker, Academia Regia Borussica. Berlin: Reimer, 1831–1870 [rist. De Gruyter, 1960]. In the English translation by John Henry Freese, Fellow of St. John’s College, in the Loeb Classical Library (1947).
Plato. Gorgias. In Platonis opera. Edidit Iannes Burnet, Oxford Classical Texts Library. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1903. In the English translation by Walter R. M. Lamb, fellow of Trinity College (Cambridge), in the Loeb Classical Library (1946).
Modern Studies
Allen, James Frederick. 1979. A Plan-Based Approach to Speech Act Recognition. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Barthes, Roland. 1970. L’ancienne rhétorique. Communications 16: 172–229.
Blom, Jan-Petter, and John Gumperz. 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code switching in Norway. In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. John J. Gumperz, and Dell Hymes, 407–434. New York: Holt.
Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. 1999. Remediation. Understanding New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Bruce, Bertram, and Denis Newman. 1978. Interacting plans. Cognitive Psychology 2(3): 195–234.
Changeux, Jean-Pierre. 1983. L’homme neuronal. Paris: Fayard.
Chomsky, Noam Avram. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cohen, Philip Raymond. 1978. On Knowing What to Say: Planning Speech Acts. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Coşeriu, Eugeniu. 1975. Sprachtheorie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. 5 Studien. München: Fink.
de Beaugrande, Robert-Alain, and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. 1981a. Eine Einführung in die Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
de Beaugrande, Robert-Alain, and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. 1981b. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London-New York: Longman.
de Beaugrande, Robert-Alain, and Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. 1994. Introduzione alla linguistica testuale (trans: Muscas, S.). Bologna: Il Mulino.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale, ed. Charles Bally, and Albert Sechehaye. Lausanne-Paris: Payot.
Dressler, Wolfgang Ulrich. 1970. Textsyntax und Übersetzung. In Sprachwissenschaft und Übersetzen, ed. Peter Hartmann, and Henri Vernay, 64–71. München: Hüber.
Edmondson, Willis. 1980. On negoziation in discourse: Contras and counters in exchange structure. Grazer Linguistische Studien 11: 28–44.
Fillmore, Charles John. 1968. The Case for cases. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. Emmon Bach, and Robert T. Harms, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Giuffrè, Silvia. 2013. Il pensiero in movimento (Ipotesi per una filosofia della danza). In Creatori di senso. Identità, pratiche e confronti nella danza contemporanea italiana, ed. Massimo Schiavoni, 49–62. Roma: Aracne. doi:10.4399/97888548662255
Goldstein, Ira, and Seymour Papert. 1977. Artificial intelligence, language and the study of knowledge. Cognitive Science 1(1): 84–123.
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1973. Informant elicitation of data on syntactic variation. Lingua 31: 201–212.
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, Michael, and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London-New York: Longman.
Hartmann, Peter. 1963. Theorie der Grammatik: Allgemeinste strukturgesetz in Sprache und grammatik. The Hague: Mouton.
Hjelmslev, Louis Trolle. 1928. Principes de grammaire générale. Copenhague: AF Høst.
Hjelmslev, Louis Trolle. 1935. La catégorie des cas. Étude de grammaire générale. première partie. Vol. Acta Jutlandica VII 1. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. Semantics and cognition. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, ed. Shalom Lappin, 539–559. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language. Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. London-Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, David. 1977. On relational constraints on grammar. In Syntax and Semantics VIII: Grammatical Relations, ed. Peter Cole, and Jerrold Sadock, 151–178. New York: Academic Press.
Lakoff, George. 1971. On generative semantics. In Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, ed. Danny D. Steinberg, and Leon A. Jakobovits, 232–296. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George. 1973. Fuzzy grammar and the performance/competence terminology game, ed. Claudia Corum, Thomas Cedric Smith-Stark, and Ann Weiser. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society, April 13–15, 1973 (CLS, 9). Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 271–291.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphores We Live By. New Edition with a new Afterword. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Legrenzi, Paolo. 2002. Prima lezione di scienze cognitive. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
Lemke, Jay L., and Caspar van Helden. 2009. A tribute to Robert de Beaugrande. Functions of Language 16(1): 1–3.
Levesque, Hector. 1977. A procedural approach to semantics networks. University of Toronto, Dept. of Computer Science, M.Sc. thesis, Toronto.
Levesque, Hector, and John Mylopoulos. 1979. A procedural semantics for semantic networks. In Associative Networks: Representation and Use of Knowledge by Computers, ed. Nicholas V. Findler, 93–120. New York-San Francisco-London: Academic Press.
Mantovani, Giuseppe. 1995. L’interazione uomo-computer. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Marconi, Diego. 1999. La filosofia del linguaggio. Da Frege ai giorni nostri. Torino: UTET.
McCawley, James. 1972. Syntactic and Logical Arguments for Semantic Structures. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
McLuhan, Marshall. 1962. The Gutenberg Galaxy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Meyer, Bonnie. 1977. What is remembered from prose: A function of passage structure. In Discourse Production and Comprehension. Discourse Processes: Advances in Research and Theory, ed. Roy O. Freedle, 307–336. Norwood: Ablex.
Miller, Geraldine, and Philip Johnson-Laird. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. Patrick Henry Winston, and Berthold Horn, 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Petöfi, János Sándor. 1976. Some Remarks on the Grammatical Component of an Integrated Semiotic Theory of Texts. Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld.
Petőfi, János Sándor. 2004. Scrittura e interpretazione. Introduzione alla Testologia Semiotica dei testi verbali. Roma: Carocci.
Reichman, Rachel. 1978. Conversational coherency. Cognitive Science 2: 283–327.
Rubin, Andee. 1978. A Theoretical Taxonomy of the Differences between Oral and Written Languange. Cambridge: Bolt, Beranek & Newman.
Rumelhart, David Everett. 1977. Introduction to Human Information Processing. New York: Wiley.
Schank, Roger, and Robert Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Schneider, Peter. 1978. Organization of Knowledge in a Procedural Semantic Network Formalism. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Shannon, Claude, and Werner Weaver. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Sprung, Lothar. 1964. Zur Psychologie des Gedächtnisses. Zeitschrift für Psychologie 1: 35–51.
Tabossi, Patrizia. 1998. Intelligenza naturale e intelligenza artificiale. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Traini, Stefano. 2006. Le due vie della semiotica. Teorie strutturali ed interpretative. Milano: Bompiani.
Tulving, Endel, and Wayne Donaldson. 1972. The Organization of Memory. New York-San Francisco-London: Academic Press.
van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1972. Some Aspects of Text Grammars: A Study in Theoretical Linguistics and Poetics. The Hague: Mouton.
van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1977. Text and Context. London-New York: Longman.
van Dijk, Teun Adrianus, and Walter Kintsch. 1978. Cognitive psychology and discourse: Recalling and summarizing stories. In Current Trend in Text Linguistics, ed. Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler, 61–80. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Violi, Patrizia. 1997. Significato ed esperienza. Milano: Bompiani.
Walker, David E. (ed.). 1978. Understanding Spoken Language. New York-Amsterdam: North Holland.
Webber, Bonnie. 1978. A Formal Approach to Discourse Anaphora. Cambridge: Bolt, Beranek & Newman.
Weinrich, Harald. 1972. Thesen zur Textsortenlinguistik. In Textsorten. Differenzierungskriterien aus linguistischer Sicht, ed. Wolfgang Raible, and Elisabeth Gülich, 161–169. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.
Winograd, Terry. 1976. Towards a procedural analysis of semantics. Stanford: Stanford University.
Winston, Patrick Henry. 1977. Artificial Intelligence. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Woods, William. 1970. Transition network grammars for natural language analysis. Communication of Association for Computer Machinery (ACM) 13(10): 591–606.
Wright, Patricia. 1968. Sentence retention and transformation theory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 20(3): 265–272.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giuffrè, M. (2017). The Procedural Approach to Texts. In: Text Linguistics and Classical Studies. UNIPA Springer Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47931-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47931-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-47930-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-47931-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)