Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T16:02:22.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L'explication en grammaire transformationnelle*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

Claude Panaccio
Claude Panaccio
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Malgré les critiques de toutes sortes dont elle fut et dont elle est encore l'objet, la grammaire transformationnelle est devenue en vingt ans, sous l'impulsion de Noam Chomsky, le paradigme dominant de la linguistique contemporaine. Et, bien sûr, l'incroyable rapidité de cette ascension s'est accompagnée de nombreuses crises de croissance. Linguistes, philosophes et psychologues, ainsi amenés à s'interroger sur les fondements épistémologiques de cette étrange discipline, se sont heurtés à de redoutables énigmes métathéoriques: de quel domaine factuel la linguistique est-elle la science? les grammaires sont-elles empiriquement falsifiables? quel rôle l'intuition du locuteur – et singulièrement celle du linguiste – joue-t-elle dans l'élaboration et la confirmation de la théorie? quelle relation y a-t-il entre règles et lois? quel est le rapport théorique de la linguistique à la psychologie, à la sociologie, à la neurophysiologie? … Ces questions et d'autres semblables ont donné lieu ces dernières années à une étonnante profusion de livres et d'articles, où, à propos d'une discipline particulière et d'exemples précis, sont discutés, souvent en profondeur, tous les principaux problemes de l'épistémologie contemporaine.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 1979 , pp. 307 - 341
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1979

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 BIBLIOGRAPHIQUES DES TEXTES CITÉS

Ackermann, R. (1965), «Deductive Scientific Explanation», Philosophy of Science, 32, p. 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al, B. (1975), La Notion de grammaticalité en grammaire générative-tramformationnelle, Leyde, Presse Universitaire de Leyde.Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1964), An Introduction to Transformational Grammars, N.-Y., Holt, Rinehart and Winston; trad, franç, par. R. Strick, Introduction aux grammaires transformationnelles, Paris, Armand Colin, 1973 (référ, à la trad, franç.).Google Scholar
Bach, E. (1966), «Linguistique structurelle et philosophie des sciences» (trad, franç, par Béra, M.A.), in E, Benveniste. et al., Problèmes du langage (Coll. Diogene), Paris, Gallimard, p. 117–136.Google Scholar
Bromberger, S. (1966), «Why Questions», in Colodny, R. (éd.), Mind and Cosmos: Explorations in the Philosophy of Science, Pittsburgh, Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, p. 86–111.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1937), The Logical Syntax of Language (tr. Smeaton, A.), London, Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. et Sankoff, D. (1974), «Variables rules: performance as a statistical reflection of competence», Language, 50, p. 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957), Syntactic Structures, La Haye, Mouton; trad, franç, par M. Braudeau, Structures syntaxiques, Paris, Seuil, 1969 (référ, a la trad, franç.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1959), «Review of Verbal Behavior, by Skinner, B.F.», Language, 35, p. 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1961), «Some Methodological Remarks on Generative Grammar», Word, 17, p. 219–239; repris partiellement in FODOR et Katz (1964), p. 384–389, sous le titre «Degrees of Grammaticalness».CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1962), «Explanatory Models in Linguistics», in Nagel, E., Suppes, P. et Tarski, A. (eds), Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Proc. of the 1960 Congress, Stanford, Cal., Stanford Univ. Press, p. 528–550.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1964), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, La Haye, Mouton; repris in Fodor et Katz (1964), p. 50–118 (référ, à Fodor/Katz).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T. Press; trad, franç, par J.C. Milner, Aspects de la théorie syntaxique, Paris, Seuil, 1971 (référ, à la trad. franç.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1968), Language and Mind, N.Y., Brace and World (éd. augmentee en 1972); trad, franç, par L.-J. Calvet, Le langage et lapensée, Paris, Payot, 1970 (référ, à la trad, franç).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1970), «Problems of Explanation in Linguistics», in Borger, E. et Cioffi, F. (eds), Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences, Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 425–451; suivi d'un commentaire de M. BLACK («Comment», p. 452–461), et d'une réponse de Chomsky («Reply», p. 462–470).Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1972), Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, La Haye, Mouton; trad, franç. de B. Cerquiglini, Questions de sémantique, Paris, Seuil, 1975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975), Reflections on Language, N.-Y., Pantheon Books; trad, franç. par J. Milner, B. Vautherin et P. Fiala, Reflexions sur le langage, Paris, Maspero, 1977Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977), Essays on Form and Interpretation, N.-Y., Amsterdam, North-Holland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. et Halle, M. (1965), «Some Controversial Questions in Phonological Theory», Journal of Linguistics, 1, p. 97–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, D. (1974) (éd.), Explaining Linguistic Phenomena, Washington, Hemisphere Publ. Corp.Google Scholar
Cohen, D. et Wirth, J. (1975) (eds.), Testing Linguistic Hypotheses, Washington, Hemisphere Publ. Corp.Google Scholar
Derwing, B.L. (1973), Transformational Grammar as a Theory of Language Acquisition, Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Dougherty, R.C. (1974), «What Explanation is and isn't», in , Cohen (1974), p. 125–151Google Scholar
Dretskef, I. (1974), «Explanation in Linguistics», in , Cohen (1974), p. 21–41.Google Scholar
Eberle, R., Kaplan, D. and Montague, R. (1961), «Hempel and Oppenheim on Explanation», Philosophy of Science, 28, p. 418–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (1972), L'explication enpsychologie (trad, Par, Y. et Noizet, G.), Paris, SeghersGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. et Katzj, J. (1964) (eds.), The Structure of Language, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
Galmiche, M. (1975), Sémantique générative, Paris, Larousse.Google Scholar
Glasersfeld, E.V. (1978), «Les chimpanzes et le langage», La Recherche, no 92, p. 725–732.Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1968), «The Epistemological Argument», Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. III, N.Y., The Humanities Press; repris in Searle (1971), p. 140–144.Google Scholar
Harman, C. (1974) (éd.), On Noam Chomsky: Critical Essays, N.-Y., Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation and other Essays in the Philosophy of Science, N.Y., The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. et Oppenheim, P. (1948), «Studies in the Logic of Explanation», Philosophy of Science, 15, p. 135–175; repris in Hempel (1965), p. 245–295 (référ, à Hempel 1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hook, S. (1969) (ed.), Language and Philosophy, N.Y.Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. (1974), Linguistics and Metascience, Kokemäki (Finlande), Risteen Kirjapaino.Google Scholar
Itkonen, E. (1975), «Transformational Grammar and the Philosophy of Science», in , Koerner (1975), p. 381–445.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972), Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge Mass., M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1961), «Explanation Revisited», Philosophy of Science, 28, p. 429–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzj, J. (1964), «Semi-sentences», in , Fodor et , Katz (1964), p. 400–416.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. et Postal, P. M. (1964), An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions, Cambridge, Mass, M.I.T. Press; trad, franç, par Pollock, J. Y., Théorie globale des descriptions linguistiques, Paris, Mame, 1973.Google Scholar
Kim, J. (1963) «On the Logical Conditions of Deductive Explanation», Philosophy of Science, 30, p. 286–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E.F.K. (1975) (ed.), The Transformational-Generative Paradigm and Modern Linguistic Theory, Amsterdam, John Benjamins B.V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1969), «Contraction, deletion and inherent variability of the English copula», Language, 45, p. 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1973), Sociolinguistic Patterns, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press; trad. franç, de A. Kihm, Sociolinguistique, Paris, Ed. de Minuit, 1976 (référ, à la trad, franç.)Google Scholar
Lees, R.B. (1957), «Review of Syntactic Structures», Language, 33, p. 375–407; repris in Harman (1974), p. 34–79 (référ, à Harman, 1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, M. (1977), «Explanation and Prediction in Grammar (and Semantics)», Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. II: Studies in the Philosophy of Language, Univ. of Minnesota, Morris, p. 128–137.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1970), «Introduction», in Lyons, J. (ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics, Harmondsworth, Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977), Semantics (2 vol.), Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, C. G. (1970), «Kim on Deductive Explanation», Philosophy of Science, 37, p. 434–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, C. G. (1972), «On Two Proposed Models of Explanation», Philosophy of Science, 39, p. 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, T. (1969), «Linguistics and Epistemology», in , Hook (1969); repris in Harman (1974), p. 219–228.Google Scholar
Otero, C. P. (1977), «Définition de la grammaire et jugement du locuteur. De la psychologie à la sociologie du langage», in , Ronat (1977), p. 123–151.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. (1968), «The ‘Innateness Hypothesis’ and Explanatory Models in Linguistics», in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. III, N.Y., The Humanities Press; repris in , Searle (1971), p. 130–139.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. (1953), «The problem of meaning in linguistics», From a Logical Point of View, N.Y., Harper Torchbooks, p. 47–64.Google Scholar
Ringen, J.D. (1975), «Linguistic Facts: A Study ofthe Empirical Scientific Status of Transformational Generative Grammars», in , Cohen et , Wirth (1975), p. 1–41.Google Scholar
Ronat, M. (1977) (ed.), Langue: Théorie générative étendue, Paris, Hermann.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1966), The Foundations of Scientific Inference, Pittsburgh, Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, W. (1970), Statistical Explanation and Statistical Relevance, Pittsburgh, Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (1975), The Form of Language, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (1976), Review of Koerner (1975), Language, 52, p. 961–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D. (1978), «Probability and Linguistic Variation», Synthese, 37, p, 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R. (1971) (éd.), The Philosophy of Language, Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (1977), «Afterword-1977», in Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories, second edition, Urbana, Univ. of Illinois Press, p. 615–730.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1961), Foresight and Understanding, London, Hutchinson; trad, franç, par J.J. Lecercle, L'Explication scientifique, Paris, Armand Colin, 1973.Google Scholar
Winch, P. (1958), The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, N.-Y., The Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Wirth, J. (1975), «Logical Considerations in the Testing of Linguistic Hypotheses», in , Cohen et , Wirth (1975), p. 211–220.Google Scholar
Zadeh, L.A. (1971), «Toward a theory of fuzzy systems», in Kalman, R.E. et Declaris, N. (eds), Aspects of Network and System Theory, N.Y.Google Scholar