Grammar versus Pragmatics: Carving Nature at the Joints
I argue that the debate on the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics, at least as it pertains to pragmatic free enrichment, needs to be better grounded empirically. Often, only a reduced set of facts from English is used to substantiate claims regarding pragmatic free enrichment. But cons...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Mind & language 2015-09, Vol.30 (4), p.437-473 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 473 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 437 |
| container_title | Mind & language |
| container_volume | 30 |
| creator | Martí, Luisa |
| description | I argue that the debate on the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics, at least as it pertains to pragmatic free enrichment, needs to be better grounded empirically. Often, only a reduced set of facts from English is used to substantiate claims regarding pragmatic free enrichment. But considering a reduced set of facts from a single language can only afford limited (and, sometimes, wrong) results, because we can merely see whatever this one language chooses to express. Two cases studies are presented: adjectival fragments, and implicit indefinite objects. A grammatical analysis is defended for them. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/mila.12086 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2327558796</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2327558796</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3756-89127a92a8af25e990b35f5ed374c54304120751cc865ee4c9246561e2d57eba3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM9OAjEQxhujiYhefIJNvJks9s-23XojqIAgmqjx2JTSxUWWxbaL8jY8C09mcdWjc5k5_L6Z-T4AThFsoVAXRT5XLYRhyvZAAyUsjSFEfB80IA4zgiw5BEfOzSCEhBDYAKJrVVEoG62MdZWLHqyaFsrn2l1GHWVX-WIajZSvrImU3278q9lubst84d0xOMjU3JmTn94EzzfXT51ePLzv9jvtYawJpyxOBcJcCaxSlWFqhIBjQjNqJoQnmiYEJuFdTpHWKaPGJFrghFGGDJ5QbsaKNMFZvXdpy_fKOC9nZWUX4aTEBHNKUy5YoM5rStvSOWsyubR58LWWCMpdNHIXjfyOJsCohj_yuVn_Q8q7_rD9q4lrTe68-fzTKPsmGQ9O5cuoK68ee4Je0YEckC8X1HTN</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2327558796</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Grammar versus Pragmatics: Carving Nature at the Joints</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Martí, Luisa</creator><creatorcontrib>Martí, Luisa</creatorcontrib><description>I argue that the debate on the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics, at least as it pertains to pragmatic free enrichment, needs to be better grounded empirically. Often, only a reduced set of facts from English is used to substantiate claims regarding pragmatic free enrichment. But considering a reduced set of facts from a single language can only afford limited (and, sometimes, wrong) results, because we can merely see whatever this one language chooses to express. Two cases studies are presented: adjectival fragments, and implicit indefinite objects. A grammatical analysis is defended for them.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0268-1064</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-0017</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/mila.12086</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>English language ; Fragments ; Grammar ; Pragmatics ; Reference (Semantic)</subject><ispartof>Mind & language, 2015-09, Vol.30 (4), p.437-473</ispartof><rights>2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3756-89127a92a8af25e990b35f5ed374c54304120751cc865ee4c9246561e2d57eba3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3756-89127a92a8af25e990b35f5ed374c54304120751cc865ee4c9246561e2d57eba3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fmila.12086$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fmila.12086$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,45579,45580</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Martí, Luisa</creatorcontrib><title>Grammar versus Pragmatics: Carving Nature at the Joints</title><title>Mind & language</title><addtitle>Mind Lang</addtitle><description>I argue that the debate on the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics, at least as it pertains to pragmatic free enrichment, needs to be better grounded empirically. Often, only a reduced set of facts from English is used to substantiate claims regarding pragmatic free enrichment. But considering a reduced set of facts from a single language can only afford limited (and, sometimes, wrong) results, because we can merely see whatever this one language chooses to express. Two cases studies are presented: adjectival fragments, and implicit indefinite objects. A grammatical analysis is defended for them.</description><subject>English language</subject><subject>Fragments</subject><subject>Grammar</subject><subject>Pragmatics</subject><subject>Reference (Semantic)</subject><issn>0268-1064</issn><issn>1468-0017</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM9OAjEQxhujiYhefIJNvJks9s-23XojqIAgmqjx2JTSxUWWxbaL8jY8C09mcdWjc5k5_L6Z-T4AThFsoVAXRT5XLYRhyvZAAyUsjSFEfB80IA4zgiw5BEfOzSCEhBDYAKJrVVEoG62MdZWLHqyaFsrn2l1GHWVX-WIajZSvrImU3278q9lubst84d0xOMjU3JmTn94EzzfXT51ePLzv9jvtYawJpyxOBcJcCaxSlWFqhIBjQjNqJoQnmiYEJuFdTpHWKaPGJFrghFGGDJ5QbsaKNMFZvXdpy_fKOC9nZWUX4aTEBHNKUy5YoM5rStvSOWsyubR58LWWCMpdNHIXjfyOJsCohj_yuVn_Q8q7_rD9q4lrTe68-fzTKPsmGQ9O5cuoK68ee4Je0YEckC8X1HTN</recordid><startdate>201509</startdate><enddate>201509</enddate><creator>Martí, Luisa</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T9</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8BM</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201509</creationdate><title>Grammar versus Pragmatics: Carving Nature at the Joints</title><author>Martí, Luisa</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3756-89127a92a8af25e990b35f5ed374c54304120751cc865ee4c9246561e2d57eba3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>English language</topic><topic>Fragments</topic><topic>Grammar</topic><topic>Pragmatics</topic><topic>Reference (Semantic)</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Martí, Luisa</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Mind & language</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Martí, Luisa</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Grammar versus Pragmatics: Carving Nature at the Joints</atitle><jtitle>Mind & language</jtitle><addtitle>Mind Lang</addtitle><date>2015-09</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>437</spage><epage>473</epage><pages>437-473</pages><issn>0268-1064</issn><eissn>1468-0017</eissn><abstract>I argue that the debate on the division of labor between grammar and pragmatics, at least as it pertains to pragmatic free enrichment, needs to be better grounded empirically. Often, only a reduced set of facts from English is used to substantiate claims regarding pragmatic free enrichment. But considering a reduced set of facts from a single language can only afford limited (and, sometimes, wrong) results, because we can merely see whatever this one language chooses to express. Two cases studies are presented: adjectival fragments, and implicit indefinite objects. A grammatical analysis is defended for them.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/mila.12086</doi><tpages>37</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0268-1064 |
| ispartof | Mind & language, 2015-09, Vol.30 (4), p.437-473 |
| issn | 0268-1064 1468-0017 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2327558796 |
| source | Wiley Online Library All Journals |
| subjects | English language Fragments Grammar Pragmatics Reference (Semantic) |
| title | Grammar versus Pragmatics: Carving Nature at the Joints |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-15T14%3A23%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Grammar%20versus%20Pragmatics:%20Carving%20Nature%20at%C2%A0the%C2%A0Joints&rft.jtitle=Mind%20&%20language&rft.au=Mart%C3%AD,%20Luisa&rft.date=2015-09&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=437&rft.epage=473&rft.pages=437-473&rft.issn=0268-1064&rft.eissn=1468-0017&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/mila.12086&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2327558796%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2327558796&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |