Recent linguistic research has explored the possibility of using standard logical analyses to explain some phenomena of natural languages. The logical notion of scope in modal contexts has yielded to the linguistic dichotomy of [±specific] indefinite NPs. Donnellan’s (1966) distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite description has been used to extend this dichotomy to include definite NPs. The behaviour of moods in Romance subordinate clauses has been tentatively explained by the same notions.

The purpose of this paper is to criticize some of these attempts to apply logical analyses to natural languages. Without denying the heuristic and even the explanatory value of standard logical analysis in linguistics, I will try to show that the correspondence between logical semantic notions and the categories of natural languages is much more approximate than is sometimes believed.

Sentences like the following are basically the same in meaning (although not absolutely the same).

• (1) I believe Ralph came

• (2) Ralph came, I believe

These have been described by Green and Morgan (1972) and Hooper and Thompson (1973) as related by a transformational rule of Sentence-Lifting or Complement Preposing (to be abbreviated here as “Slifting”). By this hypothesized rule, an underlying embedded sentence, here “Ralph came,” is raised so that it precedes its higher subject and verb. Bolinger (1968) describes sentences such as (1) and (2) as related by a rule of Main Phrase Postposing, by which the material at the beginning of the sentence is moved to the end. None of these writers give any arguments for setting up the rule as they do.

The development of contrastive studies (CS) in recent years, judging by the proliferation of projects and published materials, has been accompanied since the late sixties by vigorous discussions and controversies concerning the theoretical status of CS, their form and their place in both general and applied linguistics.

Many linguists and language teachers have gone so far as to reject the validity and usefulness of CS (cf. Alatis, 1968). It seems that this attitude results from a number of misunderstandings created by such factors as the peculiar methodological status of CS, the lack of a clear-cut distinction between theoretical and applied CS (Stockwell, 1968:25; Fisiak, 1971:88ff), and the lack of any precise formulation of the different aims of theoretical CS and applied CS, as well as the confusion of the relationship between CS, psycholinguistic theories of interference and errors, and the theory of second language learning (Zabrocki, 1976). Some confusion also stems from the misunderstanding of the relationship between CS and linguistic theory.

IL ne saurait être question dans un article de faire un historique de la critique sur les problèmes soulevés par l’imparfait; on trouvera dans Imbs (1960) un état satisfaisant de la question, auquel on pourra se reporter avec profit. Notre but est d’essayer d’éclairer l’ambiguïté que l’on dénote dans l’imparfait en français. Pour ce faire, nous n’avons pas, du moins consciemment, voulu nous situer dans un système de linguistique particulier. Nous nous sommes contenté de donner une interprétation assez générale pour rendre compte des valeurs les plus insolites du temps que nous nous proposons d’étudier, et qui parfois semblent entrer en contradiction les unes avec les autres.

D’une façon générale on caractérise l’imparfait comme ayant une valeur aspectuelle, c’est-à-dire comme un duratif passé, ou comme un passé inachevé, et accessoirement comme un itératif. Mais ces valeurs ne recouvrent pas toutes celles de l’imparfait et sont même en quelque sorte accessoires. L’opposition qu’il y a entre Il y a dix ans je travaillais comme garçon de course à Paris et Il y a dix ans j’ai travaillé comme garçon de course à Paris n’exprime pas seulement une opposition duratif-non duratif. Il est évident que là n’est pas la différence essentielle entre ces deux exemples. On sent le caractère complexe de l’imparfait, mais l’opposition de ces deux phrases ne permet pas de bien le cerner.