Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T20:24:56.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sentences in discourse: an analysis of a discourse by Bertrand Russell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Carlota S. Smith
Carlota S. Smith
Affiliation:
The University of Texas at Austin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I present a stylistic analysis of a short discourse by Bertrand Russell. My purpose is twofold: first, to suggest an approach to syntactically based stylistic analysis that goes beyond mere frequency counts, and, second, to draw out some linguistic ramifications of the approach.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , September 1971 , pp. 213 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1969). Deep structure, surface structure, and semantic interpretation. In Jakobson, R. & Kawamoto, S. (eds.), Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics. Tokyo.Google Scholar
Elliot, D., Legum, S. & Thompson, S. A. (1969). Syntactic variation as linguistic data. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1970). Subjects, speakers, and roles, Working papers in linguistics No. 4. Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1970). Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 4.Google Scholar
Fodor, H. & Garrett, M. (1966) Some reflections on competence and performance. In Lyons, J. & Wales, R. (eds.), Psycholinguistict papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Gopnik, I. (forthcoming). The style of Richardson's Clarissa. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English, Part 2, JL 3, 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). The linguistic study of literary texts. In Chatman, S. & Levin, S. R. (eds.), Essays on the language of literature. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Hiz, H. (1968). Referentials. Transformations and discourse analysis papers, 76. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). The language of poetry. In Sebeok, T. R. (ed.), Style and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1966). Grammatical parallelism and its Russian facet, Lg. 42. 2, 399–429.Google Scholar
Keenan, E. (1969). A theory of extended discourse. Unpublished paper, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Peters, S. (1969). Phrasal conjunction and symmetric predicates. In Reibel, D. and Schane, S. (eds.), Modern studies in English. Englewood: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Langedoen, D. (1970). The accessibility of deep structures. In Jabobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar
Levin, S. (1962). Linguistic structures in poetry. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Milic, L. (1967). A quantitative approach to the style of Jonathan Swift. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Mukarovsky, J. (1967). Standard language and poetic language. In Chatman, S. & Levin, S. R. (eds.), Essays in the language of literature. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.Google Scholar
Ohmann, R. (1964). Generative grammars and the concept of literary style. Word 20, 423–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. (Unpublished MIT dissertation.)Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1967). Philosophical essays. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1969). Ambiguous sentences with And. In Reibel, D. & Schane, S. (eds.), Modern studies in English, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Smith, C. S. (1970). An experimental approach to children's linguistic competence. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley Press.Google Scholar
Watt, W. (1970). Two issues concerning psycholinguistics. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the study of language. New York: John Wiley Press.Google Scholar