philosophie du langage; sémantique; histoire de la philosophie; philosophie antique; philosophie médiévale; philosophie moderne et contemporaine
Leblanc Hélène (2020), Early Modern Semiotics, in Jalobeanu Dana, Wolfe Charles T. (ed.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1.
Leblanc Hélène (2020), Grammar in the Early Modern Period, in Jalobeanu Dana, Wolfe Charles T. (ed.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 1.
Cesalli Laurent (2020), De quibus est logica ? La position de Gauthier Burley dans le débat médiéval, in Germann Nadja (ed.), Brepols, Turnhout, 213-243.
Leblanc Hélène (2020), The Semiotic Foundation of Ingarden’s Analysis of Music, Wydawnictwo Akademickie, Warsaw, 173-189.
Bacigalupo Giuliano, Leblanc Hélène (ed.) (2019), Anton Marty and Contemporary Philosophy
, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
CesalliLaurent, GoubierFrédéric (2019), La notion de vérité dans la philosophie médiévale, in Rivenc François (ed.), ISTE, Paris, 2.
Cesalli Laurent (2019), Wyclif on Collectives, in Amerini Fabrizio (ed.), Edizioni della Normale, Pisa, 297-311.
CesalliLaurent, GoubierFrédéric (2018), Anton Marty on Naming (Nennen) and Meaning (Bedeuten). A Comparison with Medieval Supposition Theory, in Kann Christoph (ed.), Peeters, Leuven, 29-54.
GoubierFrédéric (2018), L’araignée et le camembert. Une fable méta-sophismatique, in Cesalli Laurent, Brenet Jean-Baptiste (ed.), Vrin, Paris, 7.
CesalliLaurent, FriedrichJanette, MajolinoClaudio (2018), Les actes de parole et la tradition austro-allemande, ISTE, London, 83-114.
CesalliLaurent, Rosier-CatachIrène (2018), Signum est in praedicamento relationis. Roger Bacon’s Semantics Revisited in the Light of His Relational Theory of the Sign, in Oxford Studies in Medieval Philosophy
, 6, 62-99.
Leblanc Hélène (2018), Transfert d’auctoritates du sémantique à l’indiciaire au XVIIe siècle : Gassendi et Hobbes, in Cygne noir
Goubier Frédéric (2017), The Role of the Speaker in Roger Bacon And William of Ockham’s Supposition Theories: A Contrast, in Pelletier Jeanine (ed.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 169-182.
CesalliLaurent, MulliganKevin (2017), Brentano and Marty, in Kriegel Uriah (ed.), Routledge, London, 251-263.
Roques Magali, Goubier Frédéric (ed.) (2017), Instants of Change
, Brill, Leiden.
CesalliLaurent (2017), L’universalité. De quoi parlons-nous exactement ? Quelques réflexions médiévales à partir des positions en présence au 14e siècle, in Grellard Christophe (ed.), Vrin, Paris, 13-33.
CesalliLaurent (2017), Pseudo-Campsall and Richard Brinkley on Universals, in Cesalli Laurent, Amerini Fabrizio (ed.), Edizioni della Normale, Pisa, 225-240.
CesalliLaurent (2016), Grammaire, logique et psychologie chez Anton Marty, in Bulletin d’analyse phénoménologique
, 12, 121-138.
Cesalli Laurent, Mentalism without Psychologism. Abelard’s Dicta as Mental, Objective Entities, in Medioevo
, 44, 17-37.
Cesalli Laurent, Roques Magali, Emamzadah Parwana, Goubier Frédéric (ed.), Ontological Commitment in Medieval Logic
, Medioevo, Padova.
CesalliLaurent, GoubierFrédéric, LiberaAlain de, Rosier-CatachIrène, Roger Bacon. De signis. Traduction et Commentaire.
, Vrin, Paris.
GoubierFrédéric, Sémantique, pragmatique et sémiotique de l’eucharistie chez John Wyclif, in Chukurian Aurélien, Zhand Ueli, Grandjean Michel (ed.), Vrin, Paris, 4.
Leblanc Hélène, Sign and Language in Anton Marty: before and after Brentano, in Dewalque , Richard , Gauvry (ed.), Palgrave Macmillan, sl, 1.
Goubier Frédéric, Signification et usage dans la philosophie médiévale du langage, in Laugier Sandra (ed.), ISTE, Paris, 3.
Leblanc Hélène, Théories sémiotiques à l'Age classique
, Vrin, Paris.
Goubier Frédéric, Rosier-Catach Irène, Trivium, in Cesalli Laurent (ed.), Schwabe, Bâle, Berlin, 1031-1079.
« Why do we need linguistic signs ? » « What is a linguistic sign and how does it mean what it means ? »« What effects do linguistic signs have and what precautions are called for when we avail ourselves of them in order to convey our thoughts and feelings, argue with other people or try to influence their behaviour in some way ? »This complex set of issues, whose roots go back at least as far as Plato and Aristotle, is still of paramount importance today, insofar as it governs the most fundamental questions we ask about language, its meaning and its uses. Through debates whose emphasis has shifted hence and forth between logic, grammar, theology, as well as rhetoric and literature, our understanding of what it takes for a linguistic expressions to be meaningful has come in a variety of ways. In order to make sense of this diversity, it is not enough to consider recent results in linguistics, cognitive sciences and information sciences. Although 20th century analytic and continental philosophy of language have certainly proven themselves able to address many of these issues, one could nevertheless ask whether the different answers provided can be soundly considered as variants of more general patterns, already sketched and/or fully instantiated in other historical periods, schools and authors. In order to answer such questions, what is thus required first and foremost is a second-order model allowing us to catalogue, classify and differentially analyse theoretical patterns that have been implemented throughout history in order to account for the complex phenomenon of meaning as a property of linguistic expressions, as a correlate to contents of thought, or else as a product of communication practices. The SÊMAINÔ research project is meant to develop such a methodological device by way of historical comparison between relevant authors and theories. Used as a heuristic filter, it will help us discover and assess (filter “in” and “out”) differences and similarities between them. These as well as other elements of continuity and discontinuity, whose charting is one of the project’s priorities, will be instrumental in identifying both past patterns and margins for future development. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAMME. Through preparatory works carried out both in Lille and Geneva , a view emerged from oft-repeated observations, namely that philosophical inquiries into how language works and what signification is have much to gain from comparative description and mapping of transformations. Both are distinctive features of historical approaches which range from archaeological investigation to questions and answers oriented analysis. Together with a micrological reading of sources , all these methods of diachronic analysis will be discussed as such and eventually combined in order to organise a research field whose complexity lies no less in the vast array of data to process than in their relative uniformity, which makes them all the more difficult to assess precisely. In fact, rather than aiming to provide an answer to the questions mentioned above, what characterises the SÊMAINÔ project in the first place is (1) its focus on methodological-historical issues and (2) its attempt to chart and systematize the set of options that have been historically, i.e. factually formulated, as to show their mutual links and (3) to highlight and identify some counter-factual options that could or might still be developed. As a matter of fact, a close look to the history of our topic shows quite a complex picture. On the one hand, we are confronted with a wide variety of theories which differ one from another by the emphasis they place on different aspects, be it physical (linguistic signs have a materiality and a physiology of their own), semantic (meaning, reference and everything that falls between), psychological (the actual handling of signs in its intellectual and affective dimension) or pragmatic (usage situations of linguistic expressions, both successful and biased). On the other hand, for all their differences and peculiarities, linguistic and semantic theories are rooted in conceptual networks whose divergences often boil down to differences in detail and local calibration. As a matter of fact, a number of different authors, who all have their own historical contexts, have been asking time and again similar questions about what are, in fact, linguistic signs, how can they be lent significance and what precautions are required when we make use of them. Having a map of such positions is going to help us to show, for instance, the relationship between the formulation of a question, its historical background, the set of problems in which it is framed with its specific commitments and constraints etc., and the kind of answers that have been given. Since an historical inquiry into language and meaning as philosophical problems must take into account a number of variables - the two most important ones being: i) their object, namely the language facts linguistic theories are about; ii) each complex of questions and answers through which linguistic theories define, gather and cope with relevant data in their own institutional, disciplinary and intellectual framework - the SÊMAINÔ project will set out to meet four main objectives : 1.The study of linguistic theories, from Antiquity to the present day, is to lead to the discovery of underlying patterns whose recurrent features have a structuring effect on the various ways philosophers have understood what linguistic signs are and how they are to be used. At this stage, it will be our priority to identify in each case and analyse the first-order model explaining the complex phenomenon of linguistic expressions’ behaviour. 2.Through point-in-time comparisons, these first-order models are to be superimposed in order to show the extent of their isomorphism while restoring as much as possible the historical singularity of each as a result of the contextual factors which influence and limit their respective scopes (such as assumptions, disciplinary constraints, available corpus).3.The comparative assessment of first-order models will enable us to construct a second-order model (or heuristic filter ) whose aim is to draw a chart of language and signification’s theories outlining, in each case, which elements are being highlighted and which ones are left in the background. It is of paramount importance to stress that the result will not be an average model. This is precisely what a “heuristic filter” is meant to avoid in so far as it functions as an exhaustive grid allowing for differential readings. 4.The application of such a meta-model or “heuristic filter” to historical information is not only likely to revisit the history of philosophy of language in a rather new perspective, but it will also help clarify contemporary debates by, on one hand, reinstating today’s ideas about language in the long tradition they belong to, while, on the other hand, suggesting avenues for future research.