Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:01:57.179Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Propriétés des substances, conditions sur la syntaxe et explication en linguistique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

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

Abstract

In linguistics, explanation is based on whatever initial conditions are imposed on language, and so it necessarily functions within the range of options allowed by the laws of nature. Thus, since syntax is a computational system, it is subject to principles of efficient computation. Moreover, the Faculty of Language is located in human beings, so this means that it is constrained by the conceptual and perceptual systems of human beings. In this context, three topics are presented that have been repeatedly discussed over the last 50 years: inversion in interrogatives, long-distance dependencies, and recursion. For these cases, the computational approach favoured by Generative Grammar leads one to inscribe lists of unexplained elements in Universal Grammar. This is but a measure of our ignorance. On the other hand, a fully biolinguistic approach that takes into account the conceptual and perceptual basis of language opens a way to a true explanation.

Résumé

Résumé

En linguistique, l’explication se fonde sur les conditions initiales qui s’imposent au langage : il doit nécessairement fonctionner à l’intérieur des options permises par les lois de la nature. Ainsi, la syntaxe étant un système computationnel, elle est soumise à des principes de computation efficace. De plus, la Faculté de Langage se trouve dans des êtres humains, et ceci lui impose les conditions du système conceptuel et du système sensori-moteurd’un être humain. Dans ce contexte, trois sujets sont présentés qui ont été constamment discutés au cours des 50 dernières années : l’inversion dans les interrogatives, les dépendances à distance, et la recursion. Pour tous ces cas, la voie computationnelle favorisée par la Grammaire Générative mène à inscrire dans la Grammaire Universelle des listes d’éléments non expliqués. Ceci n’est qu’une mesure de notre ignorance. Par contre, une approche pleinement biolinguistique prenant en compte les substances conceptuelles et perceptuelles ouvre la voie à une explication véritable.

Type
Part I: Knowledge of Language
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 50 , Issue 1-4: Language know-how: Canadian Perspectives in Contemporary Linguistics/Le savoir-faire langagier: perspectives canadiennes en linguistique contemporaine , December 2005 , pp. 119 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2005

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

Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz. 1967. Die syntactische konnexität. In Polish logic 1920-1939, sous la dir. de Storrs McCall, traduit par Grushman, B.. Oxford : Oxford University Press. [1935.]Google Scholar
Allwood, Jens, Andersen, Lars-Gunnar et Dahl, Osten. 1977. Logic in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1953. A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description. Language 29:47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric. 2005. Remarks on « Exaption and Linguistic Explanation » by Bouchard, Denis. Lingua 115:1679–1683.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1982. On the content of empty categories. Thèse de doctorat, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The semantics of syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1996. Sign languages and language universale : The status of order and position in grammar. Sign Language Studies 91:101–160.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1998. The syntax of sentential negation in French and English. In Negation and polarity : Syntax and semantics, sous la dir. Forget, de Danielle, Hirschbiihler, Paul, Martineau, France et Rivero, Maria-Luisa, 29–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2002. Adjectives, number and interfaces : Why languages vary. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2006a. Good intentions and actual deeds : A response to my critics. Lingua 116:523–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 2006b. Simply disappointing : A response to Crain and Pietroski. Lingua 116:69–77.Google Scholar
Breheny, Richard et Adger, David. 2005. Commentary on ‘exaption and linguistic explanation’. Lingua 115:1673–1677.Google Scholar
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen et Rooryck, Johan. 2000. Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax 3:1–19.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. Review of B.F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior. Language 35:26–58.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current issues in linguistic theory. In The structure of language : Readings in philosophy of language, sous la dir. Fodor, de Jerry et Katz, Jerrold, 50–118. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on Transformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, sous la dir. Anderson, de Steven et Kiparsky, Paul, 232–286. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On WH-movement. In Formal syntax, sous la dir. Culicover, de Peter, Wasow, Thomas et Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1985. Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 13. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries : The framework. In Step by step : Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, sous la dir. Martin, de Richard, Michaels, David et Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Beyond explanatory adequacy. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 20:1–28.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 12:665–670.Google Scholar
Fitch, Tecumseh, Hauser, Marc et Chomsky, Noam. 2005. The evolution of the language faculty : Clarifications and implications. Cognition 97:179–210.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1977. Logical investigations. Traduit par Geach, P.T. et Stoothoff, R.H.. Sous la dir. de Geach, P.T.. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. [1923.]Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay et Lewontin, Richard. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm : A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 205, no. 1161, 581–598.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark et Reiss, Charles. 2000. Substance abuse and dysfunctionalism : Current trends in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 31:157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam et Fitch, Tecumseh. 2002. The language faculty: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298:1569–1579.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc et Spelke, Elizabeth. Sous presse. Evolutionary and developmental foundations of human knowledge : A case study of mathematics. In The cognitive neurosciences III, sous la dir. Gazzaniga, de M.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G.W.F. 1977. Phenomenology of spirit. Traduit par Miller, A.V.. Sous la dir. Findlay, de J.N.. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [1807.]Google Scholar
Hilbert, David. 1967a. On the foundations of logic and arithmetic. Traduit par Woodward, B.. In From Frege to Godei: A source book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931, sous la dir. van Heijenoort, de Jean, 130–138. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [1904.]Google Scholar
Hilbert, David. 1967b. The foundations of mathematics. Traduit par S. Bauer Mengelberg et D. Føllesdal. In From Frege to Gödel: A source book in Mathematical Logic, 1879-1931, sous la dir. van Heijenoort, de Jean, 464–479. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [1927.]Google Scholar
Hilbert, David. 1998. The new grounding of mathematics. Traduit par W. Ewald. In From Hilbert to Brouwer : The debate on the foundations of mathematics in the 1920s, sous la dir. Mancosu, de P., 198–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [1922.]Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1968. Prolégomènes à une théorie du langage. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 2003. Critique of pure reason. Traduit par Smith, Norman Kemp. Sous la dir. Caygill, de Howard. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. [1781.]Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1983. Connectedness. Linguistic Inquiry 14:223–249.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kopp, Bob. 2000. Chimpanzee communications and the evolution of human language. Ms., University of Chicago, www.gps.caltech.edu/~rkopp/collegepapers/.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William. 1995. Semantic interpretation of negative concord. Communication presentee au congrès Négation: Syntaxe et sémantique, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard et Uriegereka, Juan. 2002. On the poverty of the challenge. Linguistic Review 19:149–150.Google Scholar
Miller, George et Chomsky, Noam. 1963. Finitary models of language users. In Handbook of mathematical psychology II, sous la dir. Duncan Luce, de Robert, Bush, Robert et Galanter, Eugene, 419–491. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nowak, Martin, Krakauer, David C. et Dress, Andreas. 1999. An error limit for the evolution of language. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 266: 2131–2136.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: William Morrow and Company.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1986. Infinite syntax! New York: Ablex. [Publication revise de Constraints on variables in syntax. Thèse de doctorat, Massachussetts Institute of Technology, 1967.]Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1968. Introduction à la grammaire generative. Paris: Plon.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1967. Cours de linguistique générale. Edition préparée et commentée par Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot. [1916.]Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1883. The world as will and idea. Traduit par Haidane, R.B. et Kemp, J.. Londres: Ballantyne, Hanson and Co.Google Scholar
Scruton, Roger. 2005. The unobservable mind. Technology Review 108:72–76.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. et Petitto, T.. 1987. Communication, symbolic communication and language: Comments on Savage-Rumbaugh, McDonald, Sevick, Hopkins, and Rupert (1986). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 116:279–287.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Éditions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Vaissière, Jacques. 1995. Phonetic explanations for cross-linguistic prosodie similarities. Phonetica 52:123–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar