13.1652, Diss: Pragmatics: Nemo "Contraintes de..."

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-13-1652. Tue Jun 11 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 13.1652, Diss: Pragmatics: Nemo "Contraintes de..."

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Consulting Editor:
        Andrew Carnie, U. of Arizona <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Editors (linguist at linguistlist.org):
	Karen Milligan, WSU 		Naomi Ogasawara, EMU
	James Yuells, EMU		Marie Klopfenstein, WSU
	Michael Appleby, EMU		Heather Taylor, EMU
	Ljuba Veselinova, Stockholm U.	Richard John Harvey, EMU
	Dina Kapetangianni, EMU		Renee Galvis, WSU
	Karolina Owczarzak, EMU

Software: John Remmers, E. Michigan U. <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
          Gayathri Sriram, E. Michigan U. <gayatri at linguistlist.org>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.



Editor for this issue: Karolina Owczarzak <karolina at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:44:21 +0000
From:  francois.nemo at wanadoo.fr
Subject:  Pragmatics: Nemo "Contraintes de pertinence..."

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:44:21 +0000
From:  francois.nemo at wanadoo.fr
Subject:  Pragmatics: Nemo "Contraintes de pertinence..."



New Dissertation Abstract

Institution: Paris Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales
Program: PhD
Dissertation Status: Completed
Degree Date: 1992

Author: Francois Nemo

Dissertation Title:

Contraintes de pertinence et competence enonciative. L'image du
possible dans l'interlocution.

Linguistic Field: Pragmatics

Dissertation Director 1: Oswald Ducrot
Dissertation Director 2: Francois Recanati
Dissertation Director 3: Alain Berrendonner
Dissertation Director 4: Pierre Encreve


Dissertation Abstract:

The idea that saying would be ruled by general pragmatic principles is
not giving any clue when the diversity of utterance-types is to be
accounted for. But in order to study this diversity, and for instance
that we can say things which are not informative at all (but are
argumentative or directive) but are still relevant, we need to ask the
same question, i.e. the question of their relevance to all types of
utterances, and compare the answers. It is shown here that beyond this
diversity, what makes an utterance different from a proposition is
that it associates a proposition with a modal frame. In other words,
that utterances are saying something simultanesously about what is the
case and what is not the case. It is shown then that the different
types of utterances are building different modal frames, i.e images of
what is possible, and specific descriptions are made to describe the
conditions of relevance of argumentative utterances, performative
(directive) utterances, in formative utterances, etc..

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-13-1652