ISBN: 9789027720559 - anaphora and definite descriptions: two applications of game-theroetical semantics: 26 (10 risultati)

Soft cover. Condizione: Good. 1st Edition. xii + 250 pages. Glossy stiff paper binding is sound and tight. There are rubber stamps and stickers from a university linguistics department collection, but the book appears to remain unread, and there are no markings on the interior pages. Originally S. Y. Kuroda's copy with his address label. …

Hardcover. Condizione: Very Good. Condizione sovraccoperta: Very Good. Book has light rubbing to covers with light fading/discoloration to edges, a slightly loose first signature. otherwise in great condition, strong binding, bright pages with unmarked text; an overall sturdy copy with clean interiors. Dust jacket has mild rubbing, a touch of wear to edges. in great condition.…

Hardcover. Condizione: Good. No Dust Jacket. Usual ex-library marks, light sunning to covers, otherwise text clean and tight; no dust jacket; Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy; Ex-Library; 9.21 X 6.14 X 0.68 inches; 250 pages.

Condizione: New.

Condizione: New.

Condizione: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Buch. Condizione: Neu. Druck auf Anfrage Neuware - Printed after ordering - I n order to appreciate properly what we are doing in this book it is necessary to realize that our approach to linguistic theorizing differs from the prevailing views. Our approach can be described by indicating what distinguishes it from the methodological ideas current in theoretical linguistics, which I consider seriously misguided. Linguists typically construe their task in these days as that of making exceptionless generalizations from particular examples. This explanatory strategy is wrong in several different ways. It presupposes that we can have 'intuitions' about particular examples, usually examples invented by the linguist himself or herself, reliable and sharp enough to serve as a basis of sharp generalizations. It also presupposes that we cannot have equally reliable direct access to general linguistic regularities. Both assumptions appear to me extremely dubious, and the first of them has in effect been challenged by linguists like Dwight Bol inger. There is also some evidence that the degree of unanimity among linguists is fairly low when it comes to less clear cases, even in connection with such relatively simple questions as grammaticality (acceptability). For this reason we have tried to rely more on quotations from contemporary fiction, newspapers and magazines than on linguists' and philosophers' ad hoc examples. I also find it strange that some of the same linguists as believe that we all possess innate ideas about general characteristics of humanly possible grammars assume that we can have access to them only via their particular consequences.…

Buch. Condizione: Neu. This item is printed on demand - it takes 3-4 days longer - Neuware -I n order to appreciate properly what we are doing in this book it is necessary to realize that our approach to linguistic theorizing differs from the prevailing views. Our approach can be described by indicating what distinguishes it from the methodological ideas current in theoretical linguistics, which I consider seriously misguided. Linguists typically construe their task in these days as that of making exceptionless generalizations from particular examples. This explanatory strategy is wrong in several different ways. It presupposes that we can have 'intuitions' about particular examples, usually examples invented by the linguist himself or herself, reliable and sharp enough to serve as a basis of sharp generalizations. It also presupposes that we cannot have equally reliable direct access to general linguistic regularities. Both assumptions appear to me extremely dubious, and the first of them has in effect been challenged by linguists like Dwight Bol inger. There is also some evidence that the degree of unanimity among linguists is fairly low when it comes to less clear cases, even in connection with such relatively simple questions as grammaticality (acceptability). For this reason we have tried to rely more on quotations from contemporary fiction, newspapers and magazines than on linguists' and philosophers' ad hoc examples. I also find it strange that some of the same linguists as believe that we all possess innate ideas about general characteristics of humanly possible grammars assume that we can have access to them only via their particular consequences. 268 pp. Englisch.…

Gebunden. Condizione: New. Dieser Artikel ist ein Print on Demand Artikel und wird nach Ihrer Bestellung fuer Sie gedruckt. Jaakko Hintikka is the author or co-author of thirty volumes and of some 300 scholarly articles in mathematical and philosophical logic, epistemology, language theory, philosophy of science, history of ideas and history of philosophy, including Ari. …

Buch. Condizione: Neu. This item is printed on demand - Print on Demand Titel. Neuware -I n order to appreciate properly what we are doing in this book it is necessary to realize that our approach to linguistic theorizing differs from the prevailing views. Our approach can be described by indicating what distinguishes it from the methodological ideas current in theoretical linguistics, which I consider seriously misguided. Linguists typically construe their task in these days as that of making exceptionless generalizations from particular examples. This explanatory strategy is wrong in several different ways. It presupposes that we can have 'intuitions' about particular examples, usually examples invented by the linguist himself or herself, reliable and sharp enough to serve as a basis of sharp generalizations. It also presupposes that we cannot have equally reliable direct access to general linguistic regularities. Both assumptions appear to me extremely dubious, and the first of them has in effect been challenged by linguists like Dwight Bol inger. There is also some evidence that the degree of unanimity among linguists is fairly low when it comes to less clear cases, even in connection with such relatively simple questions as grammaticality (acceptability). For this reason we have tried to rely more on quotations from contemporary fiction, newspapers and magazines than on linguists' and philosophers' ad hoc examples. I also find it strange that some of the same linguists as believe that we all possess innate ideas about general characteristics of humanly possible grammars assume that we can have access to them only via their particular consequences.Springer-Verlag KG, Sachsenplatz 4-6, 1201 Wien 268 pp. Englisch.…