Procedural Meaning Explicatures in the Development of New Subordination Strategies in Romance

The sociocultural changes that led to the genesis of Romance languages widened the gap between oral and written patterns, which display different discoursive and linguistic devices. In early documents, discoursive implicatures connecting propositions were not generally codified, so that the reader should furnish the correct interpretation according to his own perception of real facts; which can still be attested in current oral utterances. Once Romance languages had undergone several levelling processes which concluded in the first standardizations, implicatures became explicatures and were syntactically codified by means of univocal new complex conjunctions. As a consequence of the emergence of these new subordination strategies, a freer distribution of the information conveyed by the utterances is allowed. The success of complex structural patterns ran alongside of the genesis of new narrative genres and the generalization of a learned rhetoric. Both facts are a spontaneous effect of new approaches to the act of reading. Ancient texts were written to be read to a wide audience, whereas those printed by the end of the XV th century were conceived to be read quietly, in a low voice, by a private reader. The goal of this paper is twofold, since we will show that: a) The development of new complex conjunctions through the history of Romance languages accommodates to four structural patterns that range from parataxis to hypotaxis. b) This development is a reflex of the well known grammaticalization path from discourse to syntax that implies the codification of discoursive strategies (Givón 2 1979, Sperber and Wilson 1986, Carston 1988, Grice 1989, Bach 1994, Blackemore 2002, among others]

Research and teaching: a holy or an unholy alliance?

Much of the self-image of the Western university hangs on the idea that research and teaching are intimately connected. The central axiom here is that research and teaching are mutually supportive of each other. An institution lacking such a set of relationships between research and teaching falls short of what it means to be a university. This set of beliefs raises certain questions: Is it the case that the presence of such a mutually supportive set of relationships between research and teaching is a necessary condition of the fulfilment of the idea of the university? (A conceptual question). And is it true that, in practice today, such a mutually supportive set of relationships between research and teaching characterises universities? (An empirical question). In my talk, I want to explore these matters in a critical vein. I shall suggest that: a) In practice today, such a mutually supportive set of relationships between research and teaching is in jeopardy. Far from supporting each other, very often research and teaching contend against each other. Research and teaching are becoming two separate ideologies, with their own interest structures. b) Historically, the supposed tight link between research and teaching is both of recent origin and far from universally achieved in universities. Institutional separateness between research and teaching is and has been evident, both across institutions and even across departments in the same institution. c) Conceptually, research and teaching are different activities: each is complex and neither is reducible to the other. In theory, therefore, research and teaching may be said to constitute a holy alliance but in practice, we see more of an unholy alliance. If, then, in an ideal world, a positive relationship between research and teaching is still a worthwhile goal, how might it be construed and worked for? Seeing research and teaching as two discrete and unified sets of activity is now inadequate. Much better is a construal of research and teaching as themselves complexes, as intermingling pools of activity helping to form the liquid university that is emerging today. On this view, research and teaching are fluid spaces, ever on the move, taking up new shapes, and themselves dividing and reforming, as the university reworks its own destiny in modern society. On such a perspective, working out a productive relationship between research and teaching is a complex project. This is an alliance that is neither holy nor unholy. It is an uneasy alliance, with temporary accommodations and continuous new possibilities