Displaying 1 - 14 of 14
-
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Introduction to part I. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (
Eds. ), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 21-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Introduction to part III. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (
Eds. ), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 225-231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Introduction: Linguistic relativity re-examined. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (
Eds. ), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 1-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (
Eds. ). (1996). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux's question: Cross-linguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (
Eds. ), Language and space (pp. 109-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT press. -
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Language and space. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 353-382. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.25.1.353.
Abstract
This review describes some recent, unexpected findings concerning variation in spatial language across cultures, and places them in the context of the general anthropology of space on the one hand, and theories of spatial cognition in the cognitive sciences on the other. There has been much concern with the symbolism of space in anthropological writings, but little on concepts of space in practical activities. This neglect of everyday spatial notions may be due to unwitting ethnocentrism, the assumption in Western thinking generally that notions of space are universally of a single kind. Recent work shows that systems of spatial reckoning and description can in fact be quite divergent across cultures, linguistic differences correlating with distinct cognitive tendencies. This unexpected cultural variation raises interesting questions concerning the relation between cultural and linguistic concepts and the biological foundations of cognition. It argues for more sophisticated models relating culture and cognition than we currently have available. -
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Introduction to part II. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (
Eds. ), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 133-144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Relativity in spatial conception and description. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (
Eds. ), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 177-202). Cambridge University Press. -
Levinson, S. C., & Senft, G. (1996). Zur Semantik der Verben INTRARE und EXIRE in verschieden Sprachen. In Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 1996 (pp. 340-344). München: Generalverwaltung der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft München.
-
Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1991). Rethinking linguistic relativity. Current Anthropology, 32(5), 613-623. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743696.
-
Levinson, S. C. (1991). Deixis. In W. Bright (
Ed. ), Oxford international encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 343-344). Oxford University Press. -
Levinson, S. C., & Senft, G. (1991). Forschungsgruppe für Kognitive Anthropologie - Eine neue Forschungsgruppe in der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Linguistische Berichte, 133, 244-246.
-
Levinson, S. C., & Senft, G. (1991). Research group for cognitive anthropology - A new research group of the Max Planck Society. Cognitive Linguistics, 2, 311-312.
-
Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the Binding Conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 107-161. doi:10.1017/S0022226700012433.
Abstract
In an earlier article (Levinson, 1987b), I raised the possibility that a Gricean theory of implicature might provide a systematic partial reduction of the Binding Conditions; the briefest of outlines is given in Section 2.1 below but the argumentation will be found in the earlier article. In this article I want, first, to show how that account might be further justified and extended, but then to introduce a radical alternative. This alternative uses the same pragmatic framework, but gives an account better adjusted to some languages. Finally, I shall attempt to show that both accounts can be combined by taking a diachronic perspective. The attraction of the combined account is that, suddenly, many facts about long-range reflexives and their associated logophoricity fall into place.
Share this page