Edith A. Moravcsik | Professor emerita, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
The paper investigates conflicts that arise in syntactic description and the resolutions of these conflicts. I will identify four logical possibilities of resolving conflicts and will cite examples from the syntactic literature for each. It will further be suggested that conflict resolution is a common goal of otherwise different linguistic theories in and outside syntax, and that it goes a long way towards motivating argumentation both in other sciences and in everyday discourse. The basic theme of the paper is that just as the study of languages provides a window into human cognition, so does the study of metalanguages — the conceptual apparatus employed by linguists in describing languages. Partonomy (whole-part relations) and taxonomy (type-subtype relations) will be represented as shared tools across various domains of human thought, with both relations serving a shared goal: resolving conflicts.
2020. Thenãointerpolation in Classical and early Modern European Portuguese and the mapping between syntactic and phonological structures: An empirical study. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 13:1 ► pp. 115 ff.
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria
2018. Evidential commitment and feature mismatch in Spanish estar constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 128 ► pp. 102 ff.
Bloem, Jelke, Arjen Versloot & Fred Weerman
2017. Verbal cluster order and processing complexity. Language Sciences 60 ► pp. 94 ff.
Moravcsik, Edith & András Bárány
2014. Book reviews. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 61:2 ► pp. 225 ff.
Kertész, András & Csilla Rákosi
2013. Paraconsistency and Plausible Argumentation in Generative Grammar: A Case Study. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 22:2 ► pp. 195 ff.
Kertész, András
2012. The ‘Galilean Style in Science’ and the Inconsistency of Linguistic Theorising. Foundations of Science 17:1 ► pp. 91 ff.
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria & Manuel Leonetti
2011. 4 On the Rigidity of Procedural Meaning. In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives [Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface, 25], ► pp. 81 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 september 2024. 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.