Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T16:59:07.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The semantics of grammatical categories: a dialectical approach1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Carl Bache
Carl Bache
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Odense
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I want to present a practical descriptive approach to the semantics of grammatical categories, especially of the binary type involving two forms only. In doing so, I hope to be able to attract the attention of linguists concerned with the structure of a comprehensive semantic theory of human language. Substitutional relations of a grammatical kind (as opposed to syntactic and lexical relations) are too often neglected in textbooks on modern semantics. For example, in Ruth Kempson's otherwise excellent introduction to semantic theory (Kempson, 1977), there is no mention of the semantics of grammatical categories at all. In my view, not only must such Substitutional relations be accommodated within a total theory of semantics – even on a narrow definition of the discipline – but they may provide important insights into the nature of meaning which will affect some of the current suppositions in semantic theory. In particular I shall attempt to shed light on the role of ‘subjectivity’ – a notion which is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore and which challenges the very common restriction among semanticists of the scope of semantics to just a truth-conditional component.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 51 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Agrell, S. (1908). Aspektänderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitwort. Lund.Google Scholar
Bache, C. (1982). Aspect and Aktionsart: towards a semantic distinction. JL 18. 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bache, C. (1985). Verbal aspect: a general theory and its application to present-day English. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Bache, C. & Jakobsen, L. K. (1980). On the distinction between restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses in Modern English. Lingua 52. 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forsyth, J. (1970). A grammar of aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garey, H. (1957). Verbal aspect in French. Lg 33. 91–110.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. & Woisetschlaeger, E. (1982). The logic of the English progressive. LIn 13. 79–89.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17. 241–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970). Language structure and language function. In Lyons, J. (ed.), New horizons in linguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin. 140–165.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (eds.) (1981). Readings in systemic linguistics, London: Batsford Academic and Educational Ltd.Google Scholar
Holt, J. (1943). Éludes d'aspect. Acta Jutlandica 15.2.Google Scholar
Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (1968). English transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1932). Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. In Charisteria Guilelmo Mathesio Quinquagenario. Prague. 74–84.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1977). Semantic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
King, L. S. (1983). The semantics of tense, orientation, and aspect in English. Lingua 59. 101–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ljung, M. (1980). Reflections on the English progressive. Gothenburg Studies in English, 46. Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1981). Language, meaning and context. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Lyttle, E. G. (1974). A grammar of subordinate structures in English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porzig, W. (1927). Zur Aktionsart indogermanischer Präsensbildungen. IF 45. 152–167.Google Scholar
Schefler, J. (1975). The progressive in English. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Schopf, A. (ed.) (1974). Der englische Aspekt. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Smith, N. & Wilson, D. (1979). Modern linguistics. Harmondsworth: Pelican Books.Google Scholar
Sørensen, H. S. (1958). Word-classes in modern English. Copenhagen: Gad.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. (1939). Grundzüge der Phonologie. Prague. TCLP 7.Google Scholar