1,721,026 research outputs found
Plaidoyer pour le monisme structurel
No full textCet article défend la thèse du monisme structurel, selon laquelle toutes les sciences partagent une même structure bipartite fondamentale, analogue à celle de la croyance humaine. Toute croyance — et, par extension, toute science — comporte deux composantes : une composante conceptuelle, non empirique et normative (A), et une composante empirique, causale et descriptive (B). La première définit les catégories, normes ou possibilités qui rendent la seconde intelligible, tandis que la seconde présuppose nécessairement la première. À partir de cette distinction, nous examinons un large éventail de disciplines — linguistique, psychologie, physique, chimie, biologie, sociologie, théorie de l’évolution, logique et philosophie — afin de montrer que chacune d’elles manifeste, sous des formes diverses, la même opposition structurelle entre cadre conceptuel et phénomènes empiriques. L’auteur met en évidence une asymétrie centrale : il est possible d’étudier la composante A indépendamment de B, mais non l’inverse. L’article accorde une attention particulière à la linguistique, où la distinction langue/parole illustre clairement le monisme structurel, ainsi qu’à la physique et à la philosophie des sciences, notamment à travers les notions d’a priori, de cadres théoriques et de normes de justification.This article defends the thesis of structural monism, according to which all sciences share the same fundamental bipartite structure, analogous to that of human belief. Every belief—and, by extension, every science—comprises two components: a conceptual, non-empirical, and normative component (A), and an empirical, causal, and descriptive component (B). The former defines the categories, norms, or possibilities that render the latter intelligible, while the latter necessarily presupposes the former. On the basis of this distinction, the article examines a wide range of disciplines—linguistics, psychology, physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, evolutionary theory, logic, and philosophy—in order to show that each of them manifests, in different ways, the same structural opposition between conceptual frameworks and empirical phenomena. The author highlights a central asymmetry: it is possible to study component A independently of B, but not vice versa. Particular attention is paid to linguistics, where the langue/parole distinction clearly exemplifies structural monism, as well as to physics and the philosophy of science, especially through the notions of the a priori, theoretical frameworks, and norms of justification
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
EINFUHLUNG (= 'RE-ENACTMENT') AS THE BASIC METHOD OF TYPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS
Get PDFThis article discusses the methodology of linguistic typology. /t is argued that arational explanation is the only true explanation for typology. Language can beunderstood to be a means to achieve the goals of the speaker. Onlya rationalexplanation may reveal how exactly linguistic forms serve the function oflanguage. Therefore, this kind of rational explanation is the only way we canunderstand linguistic phenomena in a large scale. In addition, even thoughparticular linguistic changes are unpredictable, they can be understood, and thusexplained, as parts of a larger whole, which has a rational basis.Methodologically, the rational explanation is a way to understand linguisticphenomena without trying to wrongly imitate the methods of hard sciences, andstill keep the explanations explicit and theoretically rigorous. The articlediscusses the nature of rational explanation in the light of several examples.Keywords: linguistic typology, explaining, rational explanationTämä artikkeli käsittelee kielitypologian metodiikkaa. Perusväite on, että rationaalinenselitys on ainoa todellinen tapa selittää kielitypologisia ilmiöitä. Kieli voidaan ymmärtäävälineeksi, jolla puhuja pyrkii saavuttamaan tavoitteensa. Vain rationaalinen selitystapavoi paljastaa, kuinka kielelliset muodot kielen funktiota palvelee. Tällainen rationaalinenselitys on ainoa tapa, jolla kielellisiä ilmiöitä voidaan laajasti ymmärtää. Tämänlisäksi, vaikka yksittäiset kielen muutokset ovat ennustamattomia, ne voidaan nähdäosana suurempaa kokonaisuutta ja näin ymmärtää - ja siten selittää - rationaalisesti.Metodologiselta kannalta rationaalinen selitys on keino ymmärtää kielen ilmiöitäpyrkimättä väärällä tavalla matkimaan kovien tieteiden metodeja - ja kuitenkin säilyttääselitykset eksplisiittisinä ja teoreettisesti tiukkoina. Artikkeli käsittelee rationaalisenselityksen luonnetta useiden esimerkkien valossa.Avainsanat: kielitypologia, selittäminen, rationaalinen selity
Analogy as Structure and Process Approaches in linguistics, cognitive psychology and philosophy of science
No full textThe concept of analogy is of central concern to modern cognitive scientists, whereas it has been largely neglected in linguistics in the past four decades. The goal of this thought-provoking book is (1) to introduce a cognitively and linguistically viable notion of analogy; and (2) to re-establish and build on traditional linguistic analogy-based research.As a starting point, a general definition of analogy is offered that makes the distinction between analogy-as-structure and analogy-as-process. Chapter 2 deals with analogy as used in traditional linguistics. It demonstrates how phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and diachronic linguistics make use of analogy and discusses linguistic domains in which analogy does or did not work. The appendix gives a description of a computer program, which performs such instances of analogy-based syntactic analysis as have long been claimed impossible.Chapter 3 supports the ultimate (non-modular) 'unity of the mind' and discusses the existence of pervasive analogies between language and such cognitive domains as vision, music, and logic. The final chapter presents evidence for the view that the cosmology of every culture is based on analogy. At a more abstract level, the role of analogy in scientific change is scrutinized, resulting in a meta-analogy between myth and science.Analogy as Structure and Process -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- dedication page -- Table of contents -- Preface -- Introduction -- 1. The concept of analogy -- 1.1 Analogy = Structural ~ functional similarity -- 1.2 Analogy as a context-dependent phenomenon -- 1.3 A taxonomy of the relations between two analogous systems -- 1.4 Analogy as generalization -- 1.5 Analogy vis-à-vis the various types of inference: Inductive, deductive, and abductive -- 1.6 Analogy and metaphor -- analogy and blend -- 1.7 Analogy and psychological reality -- 1.8 Analogical behavior: From mechanical to creative -- 1.9 Analogical ambiguity -- 1.10 The limits of analogy -- 2. Analogy inside linguistics -- 2.1 General remarks -- 2.2 Objections against the concept of analogy -- 2.3 Phonology -- 2.4 Morphology -- 2.5 Syntax -- 2.6 Semantics -- 2.7 Diachronic linguistics -- 2.8 The analogy between oral languages and sign languages -- 2.9 Conclusion -- 3. Analogy and/or overlap between language and other cognitive domains -- 3.1 General remarks -- 3.2 Iconicity revisited -- 3.3 Language and vision -- 3.4 Language and music -- 3.5 Language and logic -- 3.6 Conclusion -- 4. Analogy (mainly) outside linguistics -- 4.1 General remarks -- 4.2 Analogy in mythology/cosmology -- 4.3 Analogy in scientific (including philosophical) discovery -- 5. Concluding remarks -- Appendix -- 1. The program -- 2. Explaining the program -- 3. Summing-up -- Notes -- Chapter 1 -- Chapter 2 -- Chapter 3 -- Chapter 4 -- Appendix -- References -- Name index -- Subject index -- The series Human Cognitive ProcessingThe concept of analogy is of central concern to modern cognitive scientists, whereas it has been largely neglected in linguistics in the past four decades. The goal of this thought-provoking book is (1) to introduce a cognitively and linguistically viable notion of analogy; and (2) to re-establish and build on traditional linguistic analogy-based research.As a starting point, a general definition of analogy is offered that makes the distinction between analogy-as-structure and analogy-as-process. Chapter 2 deals with analogy as used in traditional linguistics. It demonstrates how phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and diachronic linguistics make use of analogy and discusses linguistic domains in which analogy does or did not work. The appendix gives a description of a computer program, which performs such instances of analogy-based syntactic analysis as have long been claimed impossible.Chapter 3 supports the ultimate (non-modular) 'unity of the mind' and discusses the existence of pervasive analogies between language and such cognitive domains as vision, music, and logic. The final chapter presents evidence for the view that the cosmology of every culture is based on analogy. At a more abstract level, the role of analogy in scientific change is scrutinized, resulting in a meta-analogy between myth and science.Description based on publisher supplied metadata and other sources.Electronic reproduction. Ann Arbor, Michigan : ProQuest Ebook Central, YYYY. Available via World Wide Web. Access may be limited to ProQuest Ebook Central affiliated libraries
Concerning the Synthesis between Intuition-based Study of Norms and Observation-based Study of Corpora
Get PDFAppropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
MODULARITY: THREE ARGUMENTS AGAINST, ONE PSEUDO-ARGUMENT FOR
Get PDFIn this article three arguments are offered against the view that language is amental module. First, language is not encapsulated vis-a-vis the extralinguisticreality, as shown by iconicity. Second, language is not encapsulated vis-a-vis theother cognitive domains, as shown by the pervasive analogies between all thesedomains, a fact which suggests their ultimate unity (or 'common source'). Third,language is not encapsulated vis-a-vis such cognitive domains as logic or socialcognition, because it is not only analogous to, but (partly) identical, or overlaps,with the latter. Finally, those reasons are exposed that have mis/ed somemembers of the field into thinking that language could be a mental module.Keywords: modularity, analogy, iconicityAvainsanat: modulaarisuus, analogia, ikonisuu
- …
