Logical form
The grammar cognition interface
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10141574 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Ruth Kempson (0000-0002-5096-3812, University of London, corresponding author), Ruth M Kempson |
| Year | 1988 |
| Volume | 24 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 393-431 |
| Publication date | 1988-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Linguistics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-2267 • E-ISSN: 1469-7742 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0022226700011841 |
| OpenAlex | W2163744835 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 15 |
| References cited | 19 |
Over the course of the last twenty-five years, linguistic theory has established itself as providing one of the major routes towards an understanding of the human mind. With increasing precision we have been able to address the problem of articulating in detail the structured capacities the human mind brings to the problem of language acquisition. Along the way there have been doubters, much of the doubt having arisen because of the apparently unbridgeable gap the theory demands between the language user's capacity and the interaction of this capacity with more general cognitive skills. Such doubters as there were received little reassurance from looking at work on performance or language use, for there has been little more than speculative philosophy on the one hand (most notably by Paul Grice, 1975) and articulation of detailed processing mechanisms on the other (e.g. Fodor, 1978; Frazier, 1979; Frazier & Fodor, 1978), without any overall theory. J. A. Fodor (1982, 1983) has led the field in cognitive psychology with his representational theory of mind. But we have till now had no theory of the central cognitive mechanism. Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986) provides us with a contender. It makes specific claims about the central cognitive mechanism and about the relation of natural language to that central mechanism. Against this framework, we are at last able to formulate precise proposals about the grammar-cognition interface, and in so doing provide answers to the psychological reality questions which have gone unanswered for so long: What is the relation of grammars to utterance–interpretation? What is the nature of the link between grammars and the central cognitive mechanism? What is the relation between a speaker's knowledge of his language and his general knowledge
Cognition · Cognitive science · Epistemology · Grammar · Grice · Linguistics · Mechanism (biology · Pragmatics · Relation (database · Relevance (law · Universal Grammar · Computer Science · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Philosophy · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Wh-gap Binding and Ellipsis — a Grammar for an Input System
The Representation of Disjunct Constituents
Understanding Utterances
Strong agreement and identification
VP-Ellipsis and the Case for Representationalism in Semantics
Possessives and relevance
Processing for relevance
Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora
A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora
The interpretation of inherent objects in English∗
NP-anaphora in Modern Greek
Be going to and will
Fitting pragmatics into the mind
A decade of relevance theory
Understood arguments
Knowledge of language
Formal methods in the study of Language
Coreference and bound anaphora
Adverbs of quantification
The sausage machine
Logic and Conversation
Mental representations
The Modularity of Mind
Lectures on Government and Binding
On the Nature of Proper Government
Knowledge of language
A Grammar of Anaphora
Focus, mode and the nucleus
Logical form, its structure and derivation
Formal semantics of natural language
Introduction to the Theory of Grammar
| Unique citing works | 15 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,38 |
| Citation span | 1987 - 2012 (26) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 15 |