Show Less
Restricted access

Semántica latina y románica

Unidades de significado conceptual y procedimental

Series:

Edited By Benjamín García-Hernández and Mª Azucena Penas Ibáñez

Esta obra colectiva consta de una presentación, un texto inédito de E. Coseriu «Semántica y metodología» y un conjunto de 16 capítulos divididos en 3 secciones: general, latina y románica. Las de la primera sección tienen un alcance teórico más general y las otras dos contienen estudios latinos y románicos más específicos. No obstante, la división no pasa de ser indicativa; en este sentido un criterio importante para la clasificación ha sido la especialidad de los autores. Lo que no es óbice para que varios latinistas, en particular, hayan orientado sus trabajos hacia los resultados románicos de las expresiones que tratan. Cuando los latinistas se acercan a las lenguas románicas tienen la sensación de que el latín se vuelve vivo y, a la inversa, cuando los romanistas se aproximan al latín encuentran en él unas referencias ineludibles en la perspectiva histórica. El latín será una lengua muerta; pero siempre, aún sin pensar en grandes renacimientos, seguirá redivivo. Y latín redivivo es no solo un sinfín de frases lapidarias románicas, sino tantas y tantas unidades de cualquier nivel expresivo, que la lengua del Lacio se nos antoja una fuente histórica inagotable de lo románico.

Show Summary Details
Restricted access

The semiotic basis of conceptual and procedural meaning. Towards a cognitive model of the linguistic sign

Extract

*

1. Introduction

The distinction of conceptual and procedural meaning has first been suggested by Blakemore in order to describe linguistic functions in discourse from a pragmatic point of view:

On the one hand, there is the essentially conceptual theory that deals with the way in which elements of linguistic structure map onto concepts – that is, onto constituents of propositional representations that undergo computations. On the other, there is the essentially procedural theory that deals with the way in which elements of linguistic structure map directly onto computations themselves – that is, onto mental processes. (Blakemore 1987: 144)

Consequently, concepts exclusively belong to the propositional content of an utterance. Blakemore further assumes that unities that can roughly be subsumed under the labels of discourse markers and connectives convey procedural instructions rather than adding information to the propositional content:

[W]e have also seen that there are expressions whose meanings cannot be analyzed in representational [conceptual] terms at all. But, after all, moreover, and inferential so do not contribute to a propositional representation, but simply encode instructions for processing propositional representation. […] [Linguistic meaning] may be either representational or procedural [but not both]. (Blakemore 1992: 150) ← 57 | 58 →

This restrictive interpretation is in line with current analyses of discourse markers: “The essential property of DMs […] is therefore that they have primarily procedural meanings […] (Fanego 2010: 200)”. The term discourse marker (DM) stems from Schiffrin’s ground-breaking study on oral discourse, where she defends...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.