Résumé Le but de cet article est d’interroger les trois notions de texte, discours et cognition, et les modèles théoriques, complémentaires ou opposés, qui les illustrent et les défendent. Pour cela, les notions ne seront pas analysées à la suite, une par une, mais en parallèle, deux par deux. Reprenant les orientations de mes travaux actuels en linguistique textuelle et en linguistique cognitive, je les confronterai en deux temps : texte vs. discours et texte vs. cognition. Cette double confrontation, avec (...) le texte pour dénominateur commun, laisse ainsi entendre, d’une part, que si je prends en compte le discours comme le cadre contextuel, situationnel, générique, où apparaît le texte, je m’attache au texte comme objet d’analyse, suivant en cela une tradition « pragoise », à la fois structurale ou macro-syntaxique et fonctionnelle ; cela laisse entendre, d’autre part, que cette conception du texte permet de concilier les théories néo-pragoises à celles que développent les linguistiques cognitives d’aujourd’hui, centrées sur diverses compétences, activités ou opérations, mentales, sémantiques, pragmatiques et sémiotiques, souvent regroupées sous le terme englobant ou résultant de représentation : espaces mentaux, projections, mélange, émergence de sens. Pour finir je montre que la procédure de double intégration, conceptuelle et prédicative, permet d’illustrer la complémentarité des deux modèles, mental-cognitif et macrosyntaxique-textuel. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Cognitive Linguistics Jahrgang: 27 Heft: 2 Seiten: 299-306.

The conditions for an investigation of Achard of Saint Victor (who died in 1171) have only recently become available. Now the discovery of a very significant turn in the history of twelfth-century thought is open to examination. The author focuses on Achard’s claim concerning an ontologically primary plurality. In the very title of Achard’s main treatise, De unitate Dei et pluralitate creaturarum, it is the word ‘et’ that joins together unity and plurality, expressing the core of (...) class='Hi'>Achard’s ontological insight, whereby a plurality is said to be true if it is grounded in absolute unity. That is to say, this plurality is not derived from unity (as would be assumed in an emanative account of plurality) but rather “coheres” with unity. Unity, likeness, and equality are the three terms that dialectically constitute the primary plurality. In this sense, true plurality is plurality without difference, without alterity and is thus convertible with identity. The essay examines (a) Achard’s doctrine of true plurality as multiple unity, (b) its application to the question of the Trinity and (c) its application to the question of the plurality of creatures and the nature of individuation. (shrink)

Oxford, Exeter College Library, Ms. 23, ff. 195va-198ra, transmits a miscellany of psychological texts, divided into various sections. This article shows that the first sections of the miscellany reproduce most of Achard of Saint-Victor's De discretione animae, spiritus et mentis, but arrange its material in a different order from DASM and express similar ideas with different wording or word-order. OxDASM would seem to be, or derive from, an unknown version of DASM. The text in Oxford, Exeter College Library, Ms. (...) 23 certainly must be added to the medieval dissemination of DASM, of which before now only four manuscripts-and no indirect tradition-were known. This article has four parts. In the first part, I give an outline of Achard's works and their dissemination. Secondly, I discuss the content of DASM and some of choices made by the editor of the text, Nikolaus Häring. Thirdly, I present the Oxford manuscript, with particular reference to the relatio... (shrink)

The XIIIth meeting of the Symposium Aristotelicum, which took place in 1993 on the De Interpretatione, had a very strange and very sad history. True enough, it took place in the enchanting decor of the Certosa di Pontignano, near Siena ; and, as usual, it offered contributions and discussions of the highest order. But this time the publication of the papers met with insurmountable obstacles. It had been initially entrusted to Mario Mignucci and Michael Frede, two of the most faithful (...) and devoted participants in the Symposium. Most infortunately, however, they were both wrenched from our admiration and affection, Mario Mignucci in 2004, after a protracted and merciless disease, Michael Frede in 2007, owing to an unpredictable, sudden accident. The inevitable ensuing delay for the publication of the XIIIth Symposium has not been caught up with so far and those members of the Organization Committee whom I have been able to contact told me that, in their opinion, it ran a strong risk of never being caught up at all, alas. By a moving coincidence (at least for me), no more than three weeks before Michael’s death, my colleague and friend, Professor Thomas De Koninck, had asked me if I would agree to publish the present paper in the Laval théologique et philosophique. Thomas and his collaborators Paul Asselin and Martin Achard helped me to finally overcome my scruples ; I am deeply grateful to them. As for this long paper itself, it would be difficult to summarize it : it is, or tries to be, exactly what it looks like, namely a detailed reading of Ammonius’ commentary to the famous Chapter One of the De Interpretatione. If this reading has any dose of originality, it will be due not so much to the lights the ancient commentary may shed (or not shed) on the letter and the interpretation of the Aristotelician text as to what it may teach concerning the methods, selections, and intellectual behaviour of its author himself, as well as with regard to his own philosophical and pedagogical reactions before such a text as Aristotle’s own. (shrink)