Advertisement

Language, Space and the Theory of Semantic Forms

  • Yves-Marie Visetti
Chapter
Part of the Theory and Decision Library A: book series (TDLA, volume 38)

Keywords

Semantic Form John Benjamin Language Activity Linguistic Unit Semantic Field 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anscombre, J.C. and Ducrot, O. 1983. Ľargumentation dans la langue. Liège/paris: Mardaga.Google Scholar
  2. Benveniste, E. 1966/1974. Problèmes de Linguistique générale. (2 Vol). Paris: Gallimard. Partial Transltion 1973. Problems in General Linguistics (Miami Linguistics, No 8). Miami: Miami University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bergé, P., Pomeau, Y. and Vidal, C. 1984. Order within Chaos: Toward a Deterministic Approach to Turbulence. NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Brandt, P.A. 1992 [1986]. La charpente modale du sens: Pour une Sémiolinguistique Morphogénétique et Dynamique. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  5. Bühler, K. 1990 [1934]. Theory of Language; The Representational Function of language. Translated by D.F. Goodwin. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  6. Cadiot, P. 1991. De la grammaire à la cognition, la préposition POUR. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
  7. Cadiot, P. 1997. Les prépositions abstraites en franèais. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  8. Cadiot, P. 1999a. “Principe de conformité et génération analogique en sémantique nominale.” Verbum 31: 383–407.Google Scholar
  9. Cadiot, P. 1999b. “Espaces et prépositions.” Revue de Sémantique et pragmatique, 6: 43–70.Google Scholar
  10. Cadiot, P. 2002. “Schemas and Motifs in the Semantics of Prepositions.” in Prepositions in their syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context, S. Feigenbaum and D. Kurzon (eds): 41–57. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. Cadiot, P. and Nemo, F. 1997a. “Propriétés extrinsèques en sémantique lexicale.” Journal of French Language Studies, 7: 1–19.Google Scholar
  12. Cadiot, P. and Nemo, F. 1997b. “Pour une sémiogenèse du nom.” Langue Franèaise, 113: 24–34.Google Scholar
  13. Cadiot, P. and Nemo, F. 1997c. “Analytique des doubles caractérisations.” Sémiotiques, 13: 123–145.Google Scholar
  14. Cadiot, P. and Tract, L. 1997. “On n’a pas tous les jours sa tête sur les épaules.” Sémiotiques, 13: 105–122.Google Scholar
  15. Cadiot, P. and Visetti, Y.M. 2001. Pour une théorie des formes sémantiques: motifs, profils, thèmes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  16. Cadiot, P., Visetti, Y.M. 2002a. “Motifs, profils, Thèmes: une approche globale de la polysémie.” To appear in Cahiers de Lexicologie.Google Scholar
  17. Cadiot, P., Visetti, Y.M. 2002b. “Motifs linguistiques et construction des formes sémantiques. Schématicité, généricité, figuralité”. Actes du colloque Representations du Sens linguistique, LINCOM Europa, LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics.Google Scholar
  18. Cassirer, E. 1946 [1924]. Language and Myth. Translated by S. Langer. Reprint by Dower Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Cassirer, E. 1953 [1923]. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Vol 1: Language. Translated by R. Manheim. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and Postmodernism. Understanding Complex Systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Coulson, S. and Fauconnier, G. 1999. “Fake Guns and Stone Lions: Conceptual blendings and Privative Adjectives.” In Cognition and Function in Language, B. A. Fox, D. Jurafsky and L. Michaelis (eds), 143–158. Stanford, California: Publications of the CSLI.Google Scholar
  22. Culioli, A. 1990/1999. Pour une linguistique de Ľénonciation (3 Vols). Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
  23. Dahan-Dolmenico, A., Chabert, J.-L., and Chemla K. (eds) 1992. Chaos et déterminisme. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  24. Ducrot, O. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  25. Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Fauconnier, G., Turner, M. 1999. “Metonymy and conceptual integration.”, in Metonymy in Language and Thought, K.U Panther and G. Radden (eds), 77–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Flavel, J. and Draguns, J. 1957. “A Microgenetic approaach to perception and thought.” Psychological Bulletin, 54, 3: 197–216.Google Scholar
  28. Gibson, J.J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Reprint Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986.Google Scholar
  29. Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gurwitsch, A. 1964. The Field of Consciousness. Pittsburgh: Duquesnes University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gurwitsch, A. 1979. Human Encounters in the Social World. Pittsburgh: Duquesnes University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Husserl, E. 1982 [1913]. Ideas pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. First Book: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Translated by F. Kersten. The Hague: M. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  33. Husserl, E. 1989 [1912–1928]. Ideas pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. Second Book: Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution. Translated by R. Rojcewicz and A. Schuwer. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Husserl, E. 1973 [1939]. Experience and Judgement. Translated by J.S. Churchill and K. Ameriks. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  35. Kanizsa, G. 1991. Vedere e pensare. Milan: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  36. Kant, I. 1999 [1781/87]. Critique of Pure Reason. P. Guyer and A.W. Wood (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Köh;er, W. 1920. Die physischen Gestalten in Ruhe und im stationären Zustand. Berlin: Braunschweig. Excerpts in A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology 1938. W. D. Ellis, (ed.). London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  38. Koffka, K. 1935. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New-York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  39. Köh;er, W. 1964 [1929]. Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  40. Köh;er, W. 1938. The Place of Value in a World of Facts. New-York: Liveright Pub.Google Scholar
  41. Köh;er, W. 1971. Selected Papers. Ed. by Mary Henle. New-York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  42. Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  43. Langacker, R. 1987, 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (2 vols). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin/New-York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  45. Lebas F. 1999. L’indexicalité du sens et L’opposition ‹en intension›/‹en extension›. PhD Thesis. Paris: Université Paris 8.Google Scholar
  46. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962 [1945]. Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by C. Smith. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  47. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1973 [1969]. Prose of the World. Translated by J. O’Neill. Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Michotte, A. (1946). La perception de la causalité. Louvain: Études de Psychologie, Vol. 8.Google Scholar
  49. Nemo, F. and Cadiot, P. 1997. “Un problème insoluble?”. Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique, 2: 9–40.Google Scholar
  50. Petitot, J. 1985. Morphogenèse du sens. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. English version to appear 2001. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  51. Petitot, J. 1992. Physique du sens. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
  52. Petitot, J. 1995. “Morphodynamics and Attractor Syntax. Dynamical and Morphological Models for Constituency in Visual Perception and Cognitive Grammar.” In Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition, R. Port and T. Van Gelder (eds), 227–281. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Petitot, J., Varela, F., Pachoud, B. and Roy, J.-M. (eds) 1999. Naturalizing Phenomenology. Issues in Contemporary Phenomenology and Cognitive Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Piotrowski, D. 1997. Dynamiques et structures en langue. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
  55. Port R. and Van Gelder, T. (eds) 1995. Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition.Google Scholar
  56. Rastier, F. 1987. Sémantique interprétative. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  57. Rastier 1997 [1989]. Meaning and Textuality. Translated by P. Perrone and F. Collins. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  58. Rastier, F. 2000. “On Signs and Texts: Cognitive Science and Interpretation.” In Semiotics as a Bridge between the Humanities and the Sciences, P. Perron et al. (eds), 409–450. New-York/Toronto: Legas Press.Google Scholar
  59. Rastier, F. 2001 [1994]. Semantics for Descriptions. To appear. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rosenthal, V. and Visetti, Y.M. 1999. “Sens et temps de la Gestalt.” Intellectica, 28: 147–227.Google Scholar
  61. Rosenthal, V. and Visetti, Y.M. 2003. Köhler. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
  62. Ruelle, D. and Takens, F. 1971. “On the nature of turbulence.” Communications in Mathematical Physics 20: 167–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ruelle, D. 1993. Chance and Chaos. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Ruelle, D. 1996. Turbulence, Strange Attractors, and Chaos. World Scientific Series on Nonlinear Science, Series A, Vol. 16. World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  65. Salanskis, J.-M. 1994. “Continuity, Cognition, and Linguistics.”, In Continuity in Semantics, C. Fuchs and B. Victorri (eds), 127–153. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  66. Salanskis, J.-M. 1998. Husserl. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
  67. Sinha, C. and Jensen De Lopez, K. 2000. “Language, Culture and the Embodiment of Spatial Cognition.” Cognitive Linguistics 11–1/2:17–41.Google Scholar
  68. Talmy, L. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics (2 Vols). Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  69. Thom, R. 1980 [1974]. Modèles mathématiques de la morphogenèse. Paris: Christian Bourgois.Google Scholar
  70. Tracy, L. 1997. “La clé du mystère: mettre le référent à sa place.” Langue Franèaise, 113: 66–78.Google Scholar
  71. Vandeloise, C. 1991 [1986]. Spatial prepositions: A Case Study for French. Translated by A. Bosch. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
  72. Vandeloise, C. 2001. “Force and function in the development of the preposition IN.”. The 2ndAnnual Language and Space Workshop, University of Notre Dame, June 23–24 (L. Carlson, E. van der Zee, ed.)Google Scholar
  73. Victorri, B. and Fuchs, C. 1996. La polysémie — construction dynamique du sens. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
  74. Visetti, Y.-M. 1994. “Les modèles connexionnistes entre perception et sémantique.” Sémiotiques 6–7: 15–48.Google Scholar
  75. Visetti, Y.-M. 2001. “Constructivismes, émergences: une analyse sémantique et thématique.”. To appear in Des lois de la pensée au constructivisme, M.J. Durand (ed.). Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de ĽHomme.Google Scholar
  76. Visetti, Y.-M. and Cadiot, P. 2000. “Instabilité et théorie des formes en sémantique — pour une notion de motif linguistique.” TLE (Théorie, Littérature, Enseignement), 18: 137–169. Vincennes/Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
  77. Visetti, Y.-M., Cadiot, P. 2002. “Instability and the Theory of Semantic Forms” in Prepositions in their syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context, S. Feigenbaum and D. Kurzon (eds): 9–39. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  78. Vygotsky, L. 1978 [1930]. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Vygotsky, L. 1986 [1934]. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Weisbuch, G. 1991. Complex Systems Dynamics. Santa Fe Institute Studies on the Sciences of Complexity. Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  81. Werner, H. (1956). Microgenesis and aphasia. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 52, 236–248.Google Scholar
  82. Wertheimer, M. 1959 [1945]. Productive thinking. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  83. Wildgen, W. 1982. Catastrophe Theoretic Semantics. An Elaboration and Application of René Thom’s Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  84. Zeeman, E.C. 1977. Catastrophe Theory: Selected Papers 1972–1977. Mass: Addison-Weslay.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yves-Marie Visetti
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole Normale SupérieureMontrougeFrance

Personalised recommendations