Advertisement

Pragmatik pp 226-256 | Cite as

Modulare Pragmatik und die Maximen der Modalität

  • Jörg Meibauer
Chapter
  • 155 Downloads
Part of the Linguistische Berichte book series (LINGB)

Zusammenfassung

Der Begriff der Modularität, so populär er auch seit den 80er Jahren ist, wird in der Sprachwissenschaft durchaus nicht einheitlich verstanden: Einige verstehen darunter ein methodisches Prinzip der wissenschaftlichen Entdeckung; einige den inneren Aufbau von Theorien in Form separater Komponenten, und einige ein inneres Organisationsprinzip des menschlichen Geistes oder Gehirns. Die letztgenannte Auffassung, wie sie in verschiedenen Schriften Chomskys und vor allem in Jerry Fodors “The modularity of mind” (Fodor 1983) vertreten wird, soll den folgenden Überlegungen zugrunde gelegt werden.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Aitchison, J. (1994): “’Say, Say It again Sam’: The Treatment of Repetition in Linguistics”. In: A. Fischer, ed.: Repetition. Tübingen: Narr, 15–34.Google Scholar
  2. Ariel, M. (1994): “Interpreting anaphoric expressions: a cognitive versus a pragmatic approach”. Journal of Linguistics 30, 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aronoff, M. (1976): Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Atlas, J..D. & S.C. Levinson (1981): “It-Clefts, Informativeness, and Logical Form: Radical Pragmatics (Revised Standard Version).” In: P. Cole, ed.: Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 1–61.Google Scholar
  5. Attardo, S. (1993): “Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case ofjokes”. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 537–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bach, K. & R.M. Harnish (1979): Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bar-Lev, Z. & A. Palacas (1980): “Semantic command over pragmatic priority”. Lingua 51, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bayer, J. (1991): “German particles in a modular grammar: Neurolinguistic evidence”. In: W. Abraham, ed.: Discourse Particles. Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic properties of discourse particles in German. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 253–302.Google Scholar
  9. Briscoe, T. & A. Copestake & A. Lascarides (1995): “Blocking”. In: P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas, eds.: Computational lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, G. & G. Yule (1983): Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carston, R. (1993): “Conjunction, explanation and relevance”. Lingua 90, 27–48.Google Scholar
  11. Carston, R. (1994): “Conjunction and pragmatic effects”. In: R.E. Asher, ed.: The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 692–698.Google Scholar
  12. Carston, R. (1995): “Quantity maxims and generalised implicature”. Lingua 96, 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, E.V. (1993): The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, J.L. (1971): “Some Remarks on Grice’s Views about the Logical Particles of Natural Language”. In: Y. Bar-Hillel, ed.: Pragmatics of Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, 50–68.Google Scholar
  15. Crystal, D. (1990): “Linguistic Strangeness”. In: M. Bridges, ed.: On strangeness. Tübingen: Narr, 13–24.Google Scholar
  16. Fodor, J.A. (1983): The modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Foldi, N.S. (1987): “Appreciation of Pragmatic Interpretations of Indirect Commands: Comparison of Right and Left Hemisphere Brain-Damaged Patients”. Brain and Language 31, 88–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garfield, J.L. (1987): “Introduction: Carving the Mind at Its Joints”. In: J.L. Garfield, ed.: Modularity in Knowledge Representation and Natural Language Understanding. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1–13.Google Scholar
  19. Gazdar, G. (1979): Pragmatics. Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gibbs, R.W., Jr. (1994): The poetics of mind. Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Green, G.M. (1989): Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Grice, H.P. (1989a): “Logic and Conversation”. In: H.P. Grice: Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 22–40.Google Scholar
  23. Grice, H.P. (1989b): “Presupposition and Conversational Implicature”. In: H.P. Grice: Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 269–282.Google Scholar
  24. Groeben, N. & B. Scheele (1984): Produktion und Rezeption von Ironie. Bd. 1. Pragmalinguistische Beschreibung und psycholinguistische Beschreibungshypothesen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  25. Harnish, R.M. (1995): “Modularity and Speech Acts”. Pragmatics & Cognition 3, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harnish, R.M. & A.K. Farmer (1984): “Pragmatics and the modularity of the linguistic system”. Lingua 63, 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirschberg, J.B. (1985): A Theory of Scalar Implicature. PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.Google Scholar
  28. Horn, L.R. (1984): “Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature”. In: D. Schiffrin, ed.: Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1984. Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 11–42.Google Scholar
  29. Horn, L.R. (1989): A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jucker, A.H. (1994): “Irrelevant Repetitions: A Challenge to Relevance Theory”. In: A. Fischer, ed.: Repetition. Tübingen: Narr, 47–60.Google Scholar
  31. Kasher, A. (1991a): “On the pragmatic modules: A lecture”. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 381–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kasher, A. (1991b): “Pragmatics and the modularity of the mind”. In: St. Davis, ed.: Pragmatics. A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 567–582.Google Scholar
  33. Kasher, A. (1991c): “Pragmatics and Chomsky’s research program”. In: A. Kasher, ed.: The Chomsky-an turn. Oxford: Blackwell, 122–149.Google Scholar
  34. Kempson, R.M. (1988): “Grammar and conversational principles”. In: F.J. Newmeyer, ed.: Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey. Vol. II. Linguistic Theory: Extensions and Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139–163.Google Scholar
  35. Kiparsky, P. (1983): “Word-Formation and the Lexicon”. In: F. Ingeman, ed.: 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 3–29.Google Scholar
  36. Lascarides, A. & J. Oberlander (1993): “Temporal coherence and defeasible knowledge”. Theoretical Linguistics 19, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levelt, W.J.M. (1989): Speaking. From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Levinson, S.C. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Levinson, S.C. (1987a): “Minimization and Conversational Inference”. In: J. Verschueren & M. Bertucelli-Papi, eds.: The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 61–129.Google Scholar
  40. Levinson, S.C. (1987b): “Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of Binding and Control phenomena”. Journal of Linguistics 23, 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levinson, S.C. (1989): “A review of Relevance”. Journal of Linguistics 25, 455–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levinson, S.C. (1991): “Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited”. Journal of Linguistics 27, 107–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matsumoto, Y. (1995): “The conversational condition on Horn scales”. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 21–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Meibauer, J. (1987): “Zur Form und Funktion von Echofragen”. In: I. Rosengren, ed.: Sprache und Pragmatik. Lunder Symposium 1986. Malmö: Almqvist & Wiksell, 335–356.Google Scholar
  45. Meibauer, J. (1995): “Komplexe Präpositionen–Grammatikalisierung, Metapher, Implikaturen und division of pragmatic labour”. In: F. Liedtke, ed.: Implikaturen: grammatische und pragmatische Analysen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 47–74.Google Scholar
  46. Meibauer, J. (1996): “Modulare Pragmatik und die Maxime der Art und Weise”. Sprache und Pragmatik 38, 40–69.Google Scholar
  47. Muthmann, G. (1994): Doppelformen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Studie zu den Varianten in Aussprache, Schreibung, Wortbildung und Flexion. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  48. Poser, W. (1992): “Blocking of Phrasal Constructions by Lexical Items”. In: I. Sag & A. Szabolsci, eds.: Lexical Matters. Stanford: CSLI, 111–130.Google Scholar
  49. Posner, R. (1979): “Bedeutung und Gebrauch der Satzverknüpfer in den natürlichen Sprachen”. In: G. Grewendorf, ed.: Sprechakttheorie und Semantik. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 345–385.Google Scholar
  50. Récanati, F. (1995): “The Alleged Priority of Literal Interpretation”. Cognitive Science 19, 207–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rolf, E. (1994): Sagen und Meinen. Paul Grices Theorie der Konversations-Implikaturen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  52. Schegloff, E.A. (1971): “Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place”. In: D. Sudnow, ed.: Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, 71–119.Google Scholar
  53. Schmerling, S.F. (1975): “Asymmetric conjunction and rules of conversation”. In: P. Cole & J.L. Morgan, eds.: Syntax and Semantics 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 211–231.Google Scholar
  54. Searle, J.R. (1975): “Indirect Speech Acts”. In: P. Cole & J.L. Morgan, eds.: Syntax and Semantics 3. Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 59–82.Google Scholar
  55. Shapiro, A.M. & G.L. Murphy (1993): “Can You Answer a Question for Me? Processing Indirect Speech Acts”. Journal of Memory and Language 32, 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sinclair, M. (1995): “Fitting pragmatics into the mind: Some issues in mentalist pragmatics”. Journal of pragmatics 23, 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1986): Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1987): “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tannen, D. (1989): Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Turner, K. (1995): “The principal principles of pragmatic inference: Co-operation”. Language Teaching 28, 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Verschueren, J. (1987): Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaption. IPRA Working Document 1. Antwerpen: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
  62. Werner, A. (1995): “Blockierungsphänomene in der Wortbildung”. Papiere zur Linguistik 52, 43–65.Google Scholar
  63. Wilson, D. & D. Sperber (1981): “On Grice’s Theory of Conversation”. In: P. Werth, ed.: Conversation and Discourse. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 155–178.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson, D. & D. Sperber (1991): “Pragmatics and Modularity”. In: S. Davis, ed.: Pragmatics. A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 583–595.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Meibauer
    • 1
  1. 1.TübingenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations