Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Pragmatik pp 226–256Cite as

Modulare Pragmatik und die Maximen der Modalität

  • Chapter

  • 364 Accesses

Part of the book series: Linguistische Berichte ((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.

Die vorliegende Arbeit ist eine revidierte Fassung eines Vortrages, den ich auf dem Treffen des Netzwerks “Sprache und Pragmatik” in Rendsberg (2.-6.10.1995) gehalten habe (vgl. Meibauer 1996). Beatrice Primus und Eckard Rolf danke ich für ihre Verbesserungsvorschläge zu der früheren Version.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • 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 

  • Ariel, M. (1994): “Interpreting anaphoric expressions: a cognitive versus a pragmatic approach”. Journal of Linguistics 30, 3–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronoff, M. (1976): Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Attardo, S. (1993): “Violation of conversational maxims and cooperation: The case ofjokes”. Journal of Pragmatics 19, 537–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. & R.M. Harnish (1979): Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Lev, Z. & A. Palacas (1980): “Semantic command over pragmatic priority”. Lingua 51, 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Briscoe, T. & A. Copestake & A. Lascarides (1995): “Blocking”. In: P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas, eds.: Computational lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 273–302.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. & G. Yule (1983): Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carston, R. (1993): “Conjunction, explanation and relevance”. Lingua 90, 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Carston, R. (1995): “Quantity maxims and generalised implicature”. Lingua 96, 213–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, E.V. (1993): The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Crystal, D. (1990): “Linguistic Strangeness”. In: M. Bridges, ed.: On strangeness. Tübingen: Narr, 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J.A. (1983): The modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gazdar, G. (1979): Pragmatics. Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, R.W., Jr. (1994): The poetics of mind. Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, G.M. (1989): Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Groeben, N. & B. Scheele (1984): Produktion und Rezeption von Ironie. Bd. 1. Pragmalinguistische Beschreibung und psycholinguistische Beschreibungshypothesen. Tübingen: Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnish, R.M. (1995): “Modularity and Speech Acts”. Pragmatics & Cognition 3, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harnish, R.M. & A.K. Farmer (1984): “Pragmatics and the modularity of the linguistic system”. Lingua 63, 255–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschberg, J.B. (1985): A Theory of Scalar Implicature. PhD thesis. University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Horn, L.R. (1989): A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jucker, A.H. (1994): “Irrelevant Repetitions: A Challenge to Relevance Theory”. In: A. Fischer, ed.: Repetition. Tübingen: Narr, 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasher, A. (1991a): “On the pragmatic modules: A lecture”. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 381–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kasher, A. (1991c): “Pragmatics and Chomsky’s research program”. In: A. Kasher, ed.: The Chomsky-an turn. Oxford: Blackwell, 122–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Lascarides, A. & J. Oberlander (1993): “Temporal coherence and defeasible knowledge”. Theoretical Linguistics 19, 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W.J.M. (1989): Speaking. From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S.C. (1983): Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S.C. (1987a): “Minimization and Conversational Inference”. In: J. Verschueren & M. Bertucelli-Papi, eds.: The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 61–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S.C. (1989): “A review of Relevance”. Journal of Linguistics 25, 455–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S.C. (1991): “Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited”. Journal of Linguistics 27, 107–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsumoto, Y. (1995): “The conversational condition on Horn scales”. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 21–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Meibauer, J. (1996): “Modulare Pragmatik und die Maxime der Art und Weise”. Sprache und Pragmatik 38, 40–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthmann, G. (1994): Doppelformen in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Studie zu den Varianten in Aussprache, Schreibung, Wortbildung und Flexion. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poser, W. (1992): “Blocking of Phrasal Constructions by Lexical Items”. In: I. Sag & A. Szabolsci, eds.: Lexical Matters. Stanford: CSLI, 111–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Récanati, F. (1995): “The Alleged Priority of Literal Interpretation”. Cognitive Science 19, 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolf, E. (1994): Sagen und Meinen. Paul Grices Theorie der Konversations-Implikaturen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, M. (1995): “Fitting pragmatics into the mind: Some issues in mentalist pragmatics”. Journal of pragmatics 23, 509–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1986): Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1987): “Précis of Relevance: Communication and Cognition”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10, 697–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D. (1989): Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, K. (1995): “The principal principles of pragmatic inference: Co-operation”. Language Teaching 28, 67–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschueren, J. (1987): Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaption. IPRA Working Document 1. Antwerpen: International Pragmatics Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werner, A. (1995): “Blockierungsphänomene in der Wortbildung”. Papiere zur Linguistik 52, 43–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wilson, D. & D. Sperber (1991): “Pragmatics and Modularity”. In: S. Davis, ed.: Pragmatics. A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 583–595.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tübingen, Deutschland

    Jörg Meibauer

Authors
  1. Jörg Meibauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Deutsche Philologie I, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Johannisstraße 1-4, 48143, Münster, Germany

    Eckard Rolf

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1997 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Meibauer, J. (1997). Modulare Pragmatik und die Maximen der Modalität. In: Rolf, E. (eds) Pragmatik. Linguistische Berichte. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11116-0_14

  • Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-531-13105-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-663-11116-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation