Advertisement

Pragmatik pp 283-295 | Cite as

Reduction and Contextualization in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis

  • Anne Reboul
  • Jacques Moeschler
Chapter
  • 158 Downloads
Part of the Linguistische Berichte book series (LINGB)

Abstract

Discourse analysis is built on a premise:
  1. (1)

    Syntax and semantics are not sufficient to account for linguistic interpretation because their domain is the sentence.

     
Discourse analysts draw a conclusion from that premise:
  1. (2)

    To account for linguistic interpretation, it is necessary to have a unit larger than the sentence.

     
Discourse analysis has an obvious candidate for the status of larger unit: discourse (or text for the written language approaches). Yet it does not seem that discourse is in any way a well-defined entity and a unit which may be circumscribed through linguistic means. We will come back to that question in the next section.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blass, R. (1985): “Cohesion, Coherence and Relevance”. UCL, ms.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, G. & G. Yule (1983): Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dennett, D.C. (1987): The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fodor, J. (1983): The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Moeschler, J. (1989): Modélisation du dialogue. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
  6. Rebout, A. & J. Moeschler (1995): “Le dialogue n’est pas une catégorie naturelle scientifiquement pertinente”. Cahier de Linguistique française 17, 229–248.Google Scholar
  7. Rebout, A. & J. Moeschler (1996): “Faut-il continuer à faire de l’analyse de discours?”. Hermes 16, 61–92.Google Scholar
  8. Reboul, A. & J. Moeschler (forthcoming): Contre l’analyse de discours: la construction d’un sens commun. Paris: Armand Collin.Google Scholar
  9. Reboul, A., ed. (forthcoming): Evolving Reference and Anaphora: Time and Objects. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. Récanati, F. (1994): “Contextualism and Anti-Contextualism in the Philosophy of Language”. In: S.L. Tsohatzidis, ed.: Foundations of Speech Act Theory. London: Routledge, 156–166.Google Scholar
  11. Roulet, E. et al. (1985): L’articulation du discours en français contemporain. Berne: Lang.Google Scholar
  12. Searle, J.R. (1992): The Rediscovery of the Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1995): Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Reboul
  • Jacques Moeschler
    • 1
  1. 1.GenevaSweden

Personalised recommendations