Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Cohesion: Cohesion in linguistics refers to the grammatical and lexical devices used to create connections and maintain the flow of a text, enhancing its coherence and aiding in understanding._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
John Lyons on Cohesion - Dictionary of Arguments
I 205 Cohesion/Linguistics/Word/Sentence/Lyons: here we have to consider two criteria: 1. positional mobility 2. non-separability. (inner stability) Both are independent of each other! Positional mobility: e.g. the-boy-s – walk-ed – slow-ly – up – the – hill 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Further positioning options: 67123458910 or 8910 6745123 ((s) This shows that certain units can be repositioned in a sentence, but these units themselves cannot be torn apart. These units can then be called words). >Words, >Sentences, >Expressions. I 207 Lyons: this criterion is more prevalent in languages with free word order than in other languages. N.B.: positional mobility and inner stability are independent of each other! Mobility/Lyons: to my knowledge no language has been found yet where the individual units of the word are freely interchangeable e.g. "girl-the-s en-have-be-eat-ing s-apple". "Free order"/Lyons: seems to occur rather at the "higher" levels (word, sentence). Yet: N.B.: but even at the lower levels it would not only be logically conceivable, it would also define the word no less clearly 2. Inner Stability/non-separability/Lyons: the independence from mobility is shown as follows: for example, the article "the" cannot be defined by positional mobility, because it cannot be moved away from the noun. >Articles, >Syntax, >Grammar. I 208 Different in Swedish, Bulgarian Romanian, Macedonian: here it is appended at the end. Example Romanian: "lup">"wolf", "lupul">"the wolf". Thus, the article appears in English, French and German rather like a word. Separability: the sequence e.g. the - boy can be separated. ((s)Vs: but "lup" can also stand without "ul", but probably not "ul" without "lup", But: only if "ul" could not be appended to any word other than "lup", one could say that it is less separable than the - boy). LyonsVs(s): this is not the point: for example, adjectives can be inserted between "the" and" boy". Article/Word/Lyons: that only the first, not the second criterion can be applied to the article in English, implies that it is not a word in its entirety._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Ly II John Lyons Semantics Cambridge, MA 1977 Lyons I John Lyons Introduction to Theoretical Lingustics, Cambridge/MA 1968 German Edition: Einführung in die moderne Linguistik München 1995 |
||
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-20