We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The Introduction to this chapter raises the problem of how to distinguish between tolerable and intolerable inconsistencies in linguistic theorising. In , Rescher and Brandom’s () logic will be introduced, which differentiates between paraconsistency, allowing for a special kind of inconsistency without ex contradictione quodlibet, and strong inconsistency, which is exposed to logical chaos. The workability of this distinction in theoretical linguistics will be exemplified by two case studies in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. They will illustrate, first, that tolerable inconsistency can be represented as paraconsistency, while the unavailability of a paraconsistent resolution may leave us with an intolerable strong inconsistency. Second, they will also show that in the cases examined the emergence of inconsistencies is closely related to the data handling techniques applied.summarises the solution to the problem raised in this chapter and highlights that there is a need to re-evaluate the way data are treated in theoretical linguistics; but tackling the question of how this should be done will be postponed to later chapters.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.