Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:27:55.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

La linguistique en toute simplicité / Linguistics, simply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2019

Denis Bouchard
Denis Bouchard*
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Résumé

La valeur explicative d'une théorie scientifique repose non seulement sur la quantité des éléments primitifs adoptés (principe de simplicité), mais aussi sur la qualité de ces éléments. En linguistique, les propriétés des substances perceptuelles et conceptuelles des signes offrent une base explicative solide parce qu'elles sont logiquement antérieures à l'objet qui est à l’étude. Ceci est particulièrement important parce que le langage est un phénomène neurologique, voire biologique. Moins les éléments d'une théorie linguistique sont spécifiques au domaine langagier, plus ils sont susceptibles d'avoir la granularité nécessaire pour être biologiquement plausibles (Poeppel et Embick 2005).

Cette perspective est celle qui guide mes travaux depuis des décennies. Je l'illustre par l'analyse de plusieurs constructions maintenant classiques dans les études en syntaxe, pour donner une vision globale des conséquences de cette approche. Cette approche méthodologique renouvelle la notion d'adéquation explicative et répond à des questions laissées en suspens dans l'argumentation linguistique des six dernières décennies.

Abstract

The explanatory value of a scientific theory rests not only upon the quantity of primitive elements adopted (principle of simplicity), but also upon the quality of these elements. In linguistics, the properties of the perceptual and conceptual substances of the signs provide a solid explanatory basis because they are logically prior to the object under study. This is particularly important because language is a neurological, biological phenomenon. The less language-specific the elements of a linguistic theory are, the more likely they are to have the granularity required to be biologically plausible (Poeppel and Embick 2005).

This perspective has been guiding my research for decades. I illustrate it by an analysis of several constructions now classic in syntactic studies, to give a global view of its consequences. This methodological approach renews the notion of explanatory adequacy and answers questions that have been left pending in linguistic argumentation for the past six decades.

Keywords

syntaxesémantiquepouvoir explicatifsimplicité qualitativesubstances langagièressyntaxsemanticsexplanatory powerqualitative simplicitylanguage substances
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 64 , Issue 2: Les signes, leur combinaison et les propriétés fondamentales du langage : un hommage à Denis Bouchard / Signs, their combination, and the fundamental properties of language: A tribute to Denis Bouchard , June 2019 , pp. 360 - 405
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2019 

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

Références / References

Anderson, Lloyd. 1986. Evidentials, paths of change, and mental maps: Typologically regular asymmetries. In Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, ed. Chafe, Wallace and Nichols, Johanna, 273−312. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Aoun, Youssef, and Lightfoot, David. 1984. Government and contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 15(3): 465–473.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2000. A note on contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 357–366.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Bare syntax. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2014. Elementary syntactic structures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1979. Conjectures sur une grammaire indépendante du contexte pour les langues naturelles. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1985. PRO, Pronominal or anaphor. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3): 471–477.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1986. Empty categories and the contraction debate. Linguistic Inquiry 17(1): 95–104.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The semantics of syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1998a. L'effet existentiel. Dans Explorations du lexique, sous la direction de Julie Auger et Yvan Rose, 31–45. Québec : Centre international de recherche en aménagement linguistique.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1998b. The syntax of sentential negation in French and English. In Negation and polarity: Syntax and semantics, ed. Forget, Danielle, Hirschbühler, Paul, Martineau, France and Rivero, Maria-Luisa, 29–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number and interfaces: Why languages vary. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2005a. Exaption and linguistic explanation. Lingua 115(12): 1685–1696.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2005b. Propriétés des substances, conditions sur la syntaxe et explication en linguistique, Revue canadienne de linguistique 50(1–4) : 119–149.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2012. Solving the UG problem. Biolinguistics 6(1): 1–31.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2013. The nature and origin of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2015a. Solving the problem of “defective” signs. In Rajendra Singh: In memoriam, ed. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk, Katarzyna and Weckwerth, Jaroslaw, 1–6. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2015b. Brain readiness and the nature of language. Frontiers in Psychology. <http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01376/full>>Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace, and Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. In The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, ed. Fodor, Jerry A. and Katz, Jerrold J., 50–118. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1969. Structures syntaxiques. Trad. Braudeau, Michel. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Aspects de la théorie syntaxique. Trad. Milner, Jean-Claude. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [1955].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. In Formal syntax, ed. Culicover, Peter W., Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1985. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Of minds and language. Biolinguistics 1: 9–27.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos, and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Alexander, and Lappin, Shalom. 2011. Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2002. Eliminating labels. In Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, ed. Epstein, Samuel D. and Seely, T. Daniel, 42–64. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Coppieters, René. 1982. Descriptions and attitudes: The problem of reference to individuals. Studies in Language 6(1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1996. What's a head? In Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie, 35–75. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1984. Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1981. More on extractability from quasi-NPs. Linguistic Inquiry 12(4): 665–670.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles. 1984. Espaces mentaux. Paris : Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Fiengo, Robert. 1974. Semantic conditions on surface structure. Thèse de doctorat, MIT.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1923. Logische Untersuchungen. Dritter Teil: Gendankenfüge [Enquêtes logiques. Troisième partie: pensées]. Beiträge zur Philosophie des Deutschen Idealismus 3 : 36–51.Google Scholar
Gillon, Brendan. 2004. Ambiguity, indeterminacy, deixis and vagueness. In Semantics: A reader, ed. Davis, Steven and Gillon, Brendan, 157–187. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline. 1998. Le verbe avoir et la possession. Dans La grammaire de la possession, sous la direction de Jacqueline Guéron et Anne Zribi-Hertz, 167–194. Nanterre : Université Paris X.Google Scholar
Hausser, Roland. 1984. Surface compositional grammar. Munich: Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1983. The game of language. Studies in game-theoretical semantics and its applications. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1978. A treatise of human nature: Being an attempt to introduce the experimental method of reasoning into moral subjects. London: John Noon. [1739–1740].Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X-Bar syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo. 1980. Remarks on to contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 11(1): 239–245.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Selected writings 2. Word and language, by Jakobson, Roman, 41–58. The Hague: Mouton. [1957].Google Scholar
Janssen, Theo M. V. 2012. Compositionality: Its historic context. In The Oxford handbook of compositionality, ed. Werning, Markus, Hinzen, Wolfram, and Machery, Edouard, 19–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Lyle. 1972. Modality in English syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14(2): 223–249.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1975. Universal Grammar: 15 Essays. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1996. Negative concord and ‘mode of judgement’. In Negation: A notion in focus, ed. Wansing, Heinrich, 127–143. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge, ed. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1969. On pronominalization and the chain of command. In Modern studies in English, ed. Reibel, David A. and Schane, Sanford A., 160–186. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1989. On the necessity of binding conditions. In Essays on Anaphora, by Lasnik, Howard, 149–167. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 2000. Presumptive meaning: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H., with Hendriks, Herman. 1997. Montague grammar. In Handbook of logic and language, ed. van Benthem, Johan and ter Meulen, Alice, 5–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 2004. The Principle of semantic compositionality. In Semantics: A reader, ed. Davis, Steven and Gillon, Brendan, 133–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, Paul. 2008. Minimalist meaning, internalist interpretation. Biolinguistics 2(4): 317–341.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Poeppel, David, et Embick, David. 2005. Defining the relation between linguistics and neuroscience. In Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: Four cornerstones, ed. Cutler, Anne, 103–118. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl Raimund. 1963. Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1978. Traces and the description of English complements and contraction. Linguistic Inquiry 9(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1982. The contraction debate. Linguistic Inquiry 13(1): 122–138.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Configurations of sentential complementation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2001a. Evidentiality, Part I. Glot International 5(4): 125–133.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 2001b. Evidentiality, Part II. Glot International 5(5): 161–168.Google Scholar
Rooryck, Johan, and Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido. 2011. Dissolving binding theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation. [Published with revisions as Infinite Syntax! 1986. New York : Ablex.]Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1982. Grammaire des insultes et autres études. Paris : Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. Syntax and human experience. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1967. Cours de linguistique générale. Édition préparée et commentée par Tullio de Mauro. Paris : Payot. [1916].Google Scholar
Seely, Daniel. 2006. Merge, derivational C-command, and subcategorization in a label-free syntax. In Minimalist essays, ed. Boeckx, Cedric, 182–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1972. The phrase phonology of English and French. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 1975. On the nature of talk to children. In Foundations of language development, ed. Lenneberg, Eric and Lenneberg, Elizabeth, 283–297. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1891. A new English grammar, logical and historical, Part I. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris : Klincksieck.Google Scholar
van Voorst, Jan. 1988. Event structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Voorst, Jan. 1992. The aspectual semantics of psychological verbs. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(1): 65–92.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1979. Anaphora in generative grammar. Ghent: E. Story-Scientia.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1993. Heads, bases, and functors. In Heads in grammatical theory, ed. Corbett, Greville, Fraser, Norman, and McGlashan, Scott, 292–315. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar