First of all, I would like to make clear that this paper is meant as a response to the attack against the Mixed
Game Model (Weigand 2010) launched by Harrissians in their articles of the Special
Issue of this journal (2018, 1). When I became aware of the fact that against their
dogmatic position no argument can take effect, I decided not to take part directly in such a pseudo-debate but to respond in a
discussion article in the next issue (see the preface of the special issue). I am writing this discussion article not in the
futile hope of changing the minds of Harrissian hardliners, but because I feel obliged to the other contributors of the Special
Issue who made a plea for the MGM. Moreover, I feel obliged to the readers of this journal to defend my position regarding basic
issues of linguistics. I’ll focus on central points and refer to my book on “Dialogue: The Mixed Game” for details.
1995 “The ‘Language Myth’ Myth; or Roy Harris’s Red Herrings.” In Linguistics Inside Out: Roy Harris and his Critics, ed. by Nigel Love and George Wolf, 9–41. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Joseph, John E.
2003 “Orthodox Unorthodoxy.” Language Sciences 251: 99–109.
2017 “From Pragmatics to Dialogue”. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, 78–92. New York/London: Routledge.
Mackay, Rowan R.
2016 “Goodish: Integrating Integrationism. Review Article of Signs, Meaning and Experience: Integrational Approaches to Linguistics and Semiotics, ed. by Adrian Pablé and Christopher Hutton. Boston/Berlin: de Gruyter 2015 Language & Communication 471: 89–93.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.