Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:49:32.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammar and the Intersubjectivity of Language. Focus on Epistemic Verbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Lars Heltoft
Lars Heltoft
Affiliation:
Holmevej 11, DK-2950 Vedbtæk, Danmark.
Get access

Abstract

This paper argues that Jürgen Habermas' theory of universal pragmatics is valuable for semantic and text-linguistic theory. Habermas' distinctions between communicative action (Kommunikatives Handeln) and discourse (Diskurs; debate on the validity of statements) are reflected in linguistic structure, as is his distinction between the four dimensions involved in every speech, act: comprehensibility, truth, sincerity, and correctness. The primary question is: Given that Habermas' distinctions are universal, what means of signalling them do natural languages contain? The present article limits itself to contrastive focus and epistemic verbs. The application of contrastive focus, to epistemic verbs enables speakers to mark the distinction between communicative action and discourse (the level of debate) and to clarify the dimension, under debate: comprehensibility, truth, sincerity, or correctness.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , December 1981 , pp. 91 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Apel, , Karl-Otto, 1976: Sprechakttheorie und transzendentale Sprachpragmatik zur Frage etischer Normen. In: Apel, , Karl-Otto, (ed.): Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie. Frankfurt a.M., pp. 10–153.Google Scholar
Chafe, , Wallace, L. 1976: Givenness, Contrastiveness, Definiteness, Subjects, Topics, and Point of View. In Li, , Charles, (ed.): Subject and Topic. New York, pp. 25–55.Google Scholar
Glismann, , Otto, 1978: On Factives and Semifactives. In: Weinstock, , John, (ed.) Proceedings of the Third Conference of Nordic and General Lingustics. Austin, Texas, pp. 360–365.Google Scholar
Glismann, , Otto, 1979: Om vurderende udsagn og emotive prædikater. In Nydanske studier og almen kommunikationsteori 10/11. Kθbenhavn, pp. 131–158.Google Scholar
Habermas, , Jürgen, 1971: Vorbereitende Bemerkungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz. In Habermas, / Luhmann, : Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie. Frankfurt, pp. 101–141.Google Scholar
Habermas, , Jürgen, 1976: Was heisst Universalpragmatik? In Apel, , Karl-Otto, (ed.): Sprachpragmatik und Philosophic. Frankfurt a. M., pp. 174–272.Google Scholar
Harder, , Peter, and Kock, Christian 1976: The Theory of Presupposition Failure. Travauz du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague XVI. Kθbenhavn.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1952. The Language of Morals. Oxford.Google Scholar
Karttunen, , Lauri, 1971: The Logic of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Leech, , Geoffrey, 1974: Semantics. Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
Lyons, , John, 1978: Semantics 1–2. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Lyons, , John, 1979: Deixis and Subjectivity. Loquor, ergo sum? Ms. To appear in Jarvalla, and Klein, (eds.): Speech, Place, and Action. New York.Google Scholar
Quirk, , Randolph, et al. 1972: A Grammar of Contemporary English. London.Google Scholar
Searle, , John, 1969: Speech Acts. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Searle, , John, 1976: A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, , Stephen, 1958: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Urmson, J.O. 1963: Parenthetical Verbs. In Caton, , Charles, E. (ed.): Philosophy and Ordinary Language, Urbana, pp. 220–40.Google Scholar
Vendler, , Zeno, 1967: Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, , Dieter, 1974: Grundlagen der Linguistik. Hamburg.Google Scholar