Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:39:03.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Place of Structure in Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2010

Timothy C. Potts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this lecture, I want to convey some ideas about linguistic communication which will probably be found not only unfamiliar, but also difficult to grasp at a first encounter. Perhaps I am being too ambitious in so short a compass. At any rate, my only hope of success is to work within closely defined limits, to concentrate more upon expounding these suggestions than upon detailed justification of them, and to say as little as possible about the shortcomings of alternative proposals which are current. The references which I cite have also been rather narrowly selected. As to the limits of this discussion, it will be confined to linguistic communication, as effected by the use of sentences. This is not to deny that there are non-linguistic forms of communication, both between men and between other animals, nor that there are other units of linguistic communication than the sentence; I have taken only what seems most typical of human communication, in order to make the task manageable.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 10 , March 1976 , pp. 91 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 1975

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

Chomsky, N. A.‘A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behaviour’. Language (1959, 35, 26–58). Reprinted inCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. (Eds.) The Structure of Language (1964), Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 547–78.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. ‘Theories of Meaning and Learnable Languages’.Y., Bar-Hillel (Ed), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (1965), Amsterdam, North-Holland, 384–394.Google Scholar
Deutsch, J. A. The Structural Basis of Behaviour (1960), Cambridge University Press, Ch. 2.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. ‘The Case for Case’. Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (Eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory (1968), New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1–88.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. ‘Some Problems for Case Grammar’, Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics (1971), 24, 35–56. Washington: Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Frege, G.‘Über Begriff und Gegenstand’, Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophic (1892), 16, 192–205; reprinted inGoogle Scholar
G., Frege, Kleine Schriften (1967), Hildesheim: G. Olms, 167–78.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C.‘The Sixteen Conceptual Actions underlying Natural Language’ (1972a), Stanford University: Department of Computer Science and Committee on Linguistics.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C, Goldman, N. and Rieger, C. J.‘Primitive Concepts underlying Verbs of Thought’ (1972b), Stanford University: Computer Science Department. Stanford Artificial Intelligence Project, Memo AIM-162.Google Scholar
Schank, R. C.‘Causality and Reasoning’ (1973), Castagnola: Fondazione Dalle Molle Working Papers. Technical Report 1.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1922), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.Philosophical Investigations (1953), Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar