* 현재 컨텐츠 정보를 준비 중에 있습니다.

[닫기]

I have argued that the unitary approach to connectives as linking elements is inadequate because it cannot account for free standing utterances with connectives and because it misses a number of empirical differences between distinct classes of connectives and thus fails to draw some interesting theoretical generalizations relating to the semantics of these devices.
Adopting the relevance theoretical approach, a more promising one, I have argued that trere is more than one semantic type of connectives: some connectives encode concepts and others encode procedures. Conceptual connectives may contribute to the explicit content of an utterance, whereas procedural connectives may constrain the derivation of either the explicit content of an utterance or its implicit import. Conceptual connectives may be thought of as establishing conceptual links between propositions; procedural connectives, on the other hand, do not link propositions at any stage of the interpretation process: they indicate the computations such representations are intended to undergo.

[닫기]