Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T15:31:35.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thoughts on the pragmatics of Ancient Greek

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2013

N. E. Collinge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

If any branch of linguistic analysis has in recent times been expansive and successful, it is pragmatics. This sector of the study of meaning concerns itself with what utterances achieve in interactive communication; that is, with how speaker works on hearer in real exchanges. The objects of this research are signs and their users (not signs-plus-designata, which is semantics, or expressions-plus-relations, which is part of semantics and all of syntax). It emerged as a riposte to both logical positivism and Carnapian formalism, out of the observations of John Austin, as elaborated by John Searle, and the maxims of Paul Grice. Many have since contributed and the discipline has its own chefs d'oeuvre and its own journal and several series. To put in a nutshell what is conveyed in volumes, this approach has been by five avenues, as follows.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (Second Series) , Volume 34 , 1988 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published online by Cambridge University Press 1988

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

REFERENCES

Armstrong, D. 1981 ‘The Ancient Greek aorist as the aspect of countable action’, in Tedeschi, P. J. & Zaenen, Z. (eds.), Tense and aspect (Syntax and Semantics 14) 1–12.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1962 How to do things with words (Re-edited 1977 by Urmson, J. O. et al. )Google Scholar
Bekker, W. F. 1966 The Greek imperative.Google Scholar
Brugmann, K. 1897 ‘Zum Gedächtniss W. D. Whitney's’, Journal of the American Oriental Society 19, 74–81.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 1987 ‘Comrie's Tense’, Folia Linguistica 21, 489–502.Google Scholar
Galton, A. 1984 The logic of aspectGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975 ‘Logic and conversation’, Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Speech acts (Syntax and Semantics 3) 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1978 ‘Further notes on logic and conversation’, in Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics 113–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. 1978 ‘The descriptive interpretation of performative utterances’, Journal of Linguistics 14, 309–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987 ‘Nouns and verbs’, Language 63, 53–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. N. 1983 Principles of pragmatics.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 1983 Pragmatics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuchelmans, G. 1976 ‘Taaldaden’ in Wijsbegeerte en Taal: Twalf Studies, 118–28 (Original paper 1967).Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969 Speech acts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1979 Expression and meaning.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachtel, T. 1980 ‘Going through the motions’, Journal of Linguistics 16, 85–8 (See Harris 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar