MY REACTION TO CRESSWELL'S, HELLAN'S, HOEKSEMA'S AND SEUREN'S COMMENTS
MY REACTION TO CRESSWELL'S, HELLAN'S, HOEKSEMA'S AND SEUREN'S COMMENTS
复制标题
我对克雷斯韦尔、赫兰、霍克塞玛和瑟伦评论的反应
DOI：
10.1093/jos/3.1-2.183
复制
发表时间：
1984
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
A. Stechow
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Stechow
对于对我的文章的许多有价值的评论，我想首先就我所坚持的那种语义的方法论进行一些原则性的评论。显然，不可能讨论所有反对我建议的关键点。我的反应将是高度选择性的，只处理那些与企业本质有关的论点。诺姆·乔姆斯基（Noam Chomsky）可能会把我所提倡的语义学类型称为“一种描述性语义学，但我认为它实际上不是语义学，因为它不涉及语义学的经典问题，比如语言与世界之间的关系。它没有深入到一般解释原则的可怕领域，因此它很有吸引力，就像描述性语义学一样。”（乔姆斯基1982:46页）
I would like to start my reply to the many valuable comments on my article with some more principled remarks on the methodology of the kind of semantics I adhere to. Obviously, it is not possible to take up all the critical points raised against my proposal. My reaction will be highly selective, dealing with only those arguments which concern the essence of the enterprise.Noam Chomsky would presumably call the type of semantics I am advocating" a type of descriptive semantics, except that I think it is not semantics really, in the sense that it does not deal with classical questions of semantics such as the relation between language and the world It does not lead very far into the frightening area of general explanatory principles, and therefore it has a lot of appeal, as descriptive phonetics does."(Chomsky 1982: 46f.)