Thesis (Ph. D.)--Northeastern University, 2009. / Title from title page (viewed June 3, 2009). Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Dept. of English. Includes bibliographical references (p. 254-265).

Made available in DSpace on 2015-03-12T13:10:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 PabloMPC.pdf: 432107 bytes, checksum: 04fa3231d4d1357a885b58e4144d4d30 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-03-12 / This assignment ains to prove the pertinency of using the wittgenstein?s argument against private language as a criticism to cartesian fundacionism. Therefore, I want to demonstrate in the first chaper the conceptual viability of facing the cartesian argument of cogito not as a simple silogism but as an exemple of a private experience (process of thinking). At the second chaper, the subordination of the argument against private language give us the idea that rules can only be followed by means of corrections givem by a linguistic community that is external to the private subject, in a way to be unviable the assumption that is possible to name an internal experience without searching external rules of the use of terms. At the chaper 3 the pertinency of the hypothesis raised by A. Kenny, about the overtaking of the argument against private language can be extended to the idea of epistemic and ontologic privacy that would lend validity to the fundacion present at the argument at the cartesian cogito. In oder to become evident the pertinency of use of Wittgenstein?s argument agaist Descartes? fundation, it?s necessary, at the chaper 3, to demonstrate the impertinency of the objection to the A. Kenny?s hypothesis, based on the experiency of the thought of the brain at the recipient, to make clear the incompatibility existing between the cartesian idea of cogito and Wittgenstein?s notion that language is an activitie followed by rules, wich correction criterion may be external and intersubjective / A presente disserta??o tem o objetivo de comprovar a pertin?ncia do uso do argumento de Wittgenstein contra a linguagem privada como uma cr?tica ao fundacionismo cartesiano. Desta feita procura demonstrar: (1) num primeiro cap?tulo, a viabilidade conceitual de se encarar o argumento cartesiano do cogito, n?o como um simples silogismo, mas como um exemplo de uma experi?ncia privada de adequa??o de um termo (cogito) ? uma experi?ncia mental interna (processo de pensamento); (2) num segundo cap?tulo a depend?ncia do argumento contra a linguagem privada da id?ia de que regras s? podem ser seguidas mediantes crit?rios de corre??o fornecidos por uma comunidade ling??stica que seja externa ao sujeito privado, de modo a ser invi?vel a suposi??o de que ? poss?vel nomear uma experi?ncia interna sem recorrer a crit?rios externos de uso de termos; (3) num terceiro cap?tulo, a pertin?ncia da hip?tese levantada por Anthony Kenny, de que o alcance do argumento contra a linguagem privada pode ser estendido a id?ia de privacidade epist?mica e ontol?gica, que emprestaria validade ao fundacionismo presente no argumento do cogito cartesiano. A fim de tornar evidente a pertin?ncia do uso do argumento de Wittgenstein contra o fundacionismo de Descartes, faz-se necess?rio tamb?m, no terceiro cap?tulo da presente disserta??o, demonstrar a impertin?ncia das obje??es ? hip?tese de Anthony Kenny, com base na experi?ncia de pensamento do c?rebro no recipiente, de modo a deixar claro a incompatibilidade existente entre a id?ia cartesiana de cogito e a no??o wittgensteiniana de que a linguagem ? uma atividade seguida por meio de regras, cujos crit?rios de corre??o devam ser externos e intersubjetivos

Este trabalho tem como objetivo principal a análise do papel do conceito de regra nas Investigações Filosóficas de Wittgenstein. No decorrer do texto, deparamonos com as leituras de S. Kripke e G.P. Baker & P.M.S. Hacker. O primeiro defende que a noção de regra, apesar de apresentar um paradoxo, cumpre um importante papel no argumento contra a linguagem privada. E acredita que há uma solução cética para o paradoxo que flerta com o niilismo. Por outro lado, os comentadores ingleses apresentam o conceito de regra cumprindo um papel fundamental na explicação de Wittgenstein acerca do funcionamento da linguagem. Na medida em que estas se constituem como funções normativas de usos das palavras, são expressas na linguagem e determinadas contingentemente de acordo com os contextos de uso. / This work has as main objective the analysis of the role of the concept of rule in Wittgensteins Philosophical Investigations. Throughout the text we have the readings of S. Kripke and G.P. Baker & P M S. Hacker. The first argues that the notion of rule, inspite of presenting a paradox, it is a very important point in the argument against private language. He believes there is a skeptical solution to the paradox which flirts with nihilism. Furthermore, the Englishs commentators have the concept of rule fulfilling a key role in the explanation of Wittgenstein on the functioning of language. The rules are as functions of normative uses of words, they are expressed in the language and determinate according to the contexts of use.

No description available.

Submitted by Mariana Dornelles Vargas (marianadv) on 2015-05-20T18:16:20Z No. of bitstreams: 1 linguagem_privada.pdf: 841449 bytes, checksum: 07ebf3d352878308a876b40eeb92565d (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-20T18:16:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 linguagem_privada.pdf: 841449 bytes, checksum: 07ebf3d352878308a876b40eeb92565d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Este trabalho tem como objeto principal de estudo o Argumento da Linguagem Privada, de Wittgenstein. Saul Kripke, em On Rules and Private Language (1982), propõe uma interpretação do argumento, vinculando-o à questão do seguir regras e do ceticismo. O resultado é a elaboração de uma visão comunitarista sobre ele. Assim, partimos de um estudo dos argumentos de Wittgenstein e do Wittgenstein de Kripke, para uma posterior confrontação entre ambos. Esta confrontação visa destacar os pressupostos característicos da interpretação kripkeana, possibilitando avaliá-la em termos de sua correção ou incorreção em relação à visão apresentada pelo próprio Wittgenstein. Visa também analisar fundamentalmente se ela faz justiça à questão comunitarista sobre o significado que o Argumentoda Linguagem Privada suscita. Assim, defendemos a possibilidade de uma visão comunitarista do significado partindo do Argumento da Linguagem Privada e uma abordagem de como ela pode ser desenvolvida em adequação ao pensamento wittgensteiniano das Investigações Filosóficas, apoiados no resultado da confrontação entre os já mencionados argumentos de Wittgenstein e de Kripke sobre Wittgenstein. / This work has as its main subject the study of the Private Language Argument, by Wittgenstein.Saul Kripke, in On Rules and Private Language (1982), developed an interpretation of the Private Language Argument, attaching it to the question of rule-following and skepticism. As a result, is the development of a communitarian view on Wittgensteins argument. Thus, we start from a study of the arguments of Wittgenstein and of Kripkes Wittgenstein, aiming to a confrontation between them. This confrontation seeks to throw some light in the characteristic presuppositions of Kripkes interpretation, making possible to evaluate it in terms of his correction or not concerning Wittgensteins own view. Too, it analyses if it correctly considers the communitarian question about meaning that the Private Language Argument raise. Taking this point in relation to the question of meaning, we defend the possibility of a communitarian view of the Private Language Argument and how it can be developed adequately concerning the wittgensteinean thought, based on the results of the confrontation between the arguments by Wittgensteinand by Kripke on Wittgenstein.

Submitted by Fabiano Vassallo (fabianovassallo2127@gmail.com) on 2017-05-16T17:55:02Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Dissertação_Carlos Fabiano de Souza.pdf: 2100997 bytes, checksum: dfb90abae1ff5347ce334bf6fb76735f (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Josimara Dias Brumatti (bcgdigital@ndc.uff.br) on 2017-06-06T15:05:56Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Dissertação_Carlos Fabiano de Souza.pdf: 2100997 bytes, checksum: dfb90abae1ff5347ce334bf6fb76735f (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-06-06T15:05:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Dissertação_Carlos Fabiano de Souza.pdf: 2100997 bytes, checksum: dfb90abae1ff5347ce334bf6fb76735f (MD5) / Instituto Federal Fluminense, Campus Cabo Frio, Cabo Frio, RJ / Este estudo tem por objetivo investigar a fala do professor de inglês sobre a sua atividade em cursos livres de idiomas (CLIs), trazendo à tona as imagens discursivas (DEUSDARÁ, ROCHA, 2006) que ele constrói sobre o seu trabalho e sobre si em instituições dessa natureza. Isso implica em desvendar os sentidos e a materialização, recuperados por meio do fio discursivo, do debate que perpassa a relação: formação e experiência/trabalho prescrito e trabalho real (GUÉRIN et al, 2001). Os pressupostos teórico-metodológicos que ancoram esta pesquisa se constituem na interlocução entre linguagem e trabalho. No que se refere aos estudos do trabalho, nosso aporte foi construído a partir de conceitos da Ergonomia Situada (LAVILLE, 1977; VIDAL, 1998; GUÉRIN et al, 2001) e da Ergologia (SCHWARTZ, 2010). No campo dos estudos de linguagem, nossa lente de análise debruçou-se sobre a concepção dialógica (BAKHTIN [VOLOSHÍNOV], 2009; 2011), em diálogo com a perspectiva de Análise do Discurso de base enunciativa (MAINGUENEAU, 1997; 2008a; 2008b; 2009; 2013; 2015). Nessa interface, privilegiou-se a fala sobre o trabalho (LACOSTE, 1998). Para a análise e interpretação dos excertos discursivos produzidos por uma professora licenciada e um professor não licenciado que lecionam inglês em CLIs, por meio do evento entrevista (DAHER, 1998), elaboramos um roteiro sistematizado em três blocos temáticos, quais sejam: (1) saberes da formação; (2) saberes da experiência; (3) tensão entre o trabalho prescrito e o real. Os resultados obtidos sinalizaram para o trabalho do professor enquanto uma construção permeada pela formação e pela experiência, em um processo inacabado, dinâmico, vivo, em que os valores que circulam na situação de trabalho desempenham um papel preponderante na construção e reconstrução de novos saberes, por meio do debate de normas. Além disso, a análise dos excertos também nos permitiu recuperar, por meio das imagens discursivas, dois tipos de étos de professores operando em situação de trabalho nesses ambientes de ensino e aprendizagem de LE, evidenciando, assim, maneiras singulares de ser/estar na profissão / This study aims at investigating the speech of the teacher of English about his/her activity within Private Language Courses (PLCs), revealing the discursive images (DEUSDARÁ, ROCHA, 2006) that they construct about their work and about themselves at institutions of that nature. That implies unveiling the meanings and the materialization, extracted from discursive resonances, of the debate which go through the relation: education and experience/prescriptive work and real work (GUÉRIN et al, 2001). The theoretical-methodological assumptions that support this research lie in the interlocution between language and work. With regard to the studies on work, our approach was built by concepts from Situated Ergonomics (LAVILLE, 1977; VIDAL, 1998; GUÉRIN et al, 2001) and Ergology (SCHWARTZ, 2010). In the field of language studies, our focus of analysis was based upon the Dialogical Conception (BAKHTIN [VOLOSHÍNOV], 2009; 2011), in dialogue with the Discourse Analysis perspective on enunciative basis (MAINGUENEAU, 1997; 2008a; 2008b; 2009; 2013; 2015). Within this interface, we gave preference to the speech about work (LACOSTE, 1998). To analyze and interpret the discursive excerpts produced by a female graduate teacher and a male non-graduate teacher that teach English at PLCs, through the event interview (DAHER, 1998), we elaborated a systematized guideline framed as a three thematic chart, i.e.: (1) knowledge from education; (2) knowledge from experience; (3) tension between the prescriptive work and real one. The analyses point to the work of the teacher as a construction encompassed by teacher education and experience, within an unfinished, dynamic and live process, in which the values that circulate in the situation of work play a major role in the construction and reconstruction of new pieces of knowledge, by means of debate of norms. Thus, by investigating the excerpts we had access, through the discursive images, to two sorts of ethos of teachers functioning in the situation of work at those environments of teaching and learning of foreign language, revealing unique ways of being within the profession

Cotutelle avec l'Université Panthéon Sorbonne - Paris I / Bien que Wittgenstein ait toujours douté de l’intérêt philosophique de ce genre de constat historique, il est généralement admis que l’auteur des Recherches philosophiques est l’inventeur d’une critique dévastatrice du «mythe de l’intériorité », qui représente l’une des tentations les plus constantes de la philosophie moderne. À l’encontre des pensées de la réflexion qui assignent pour tâche à la philosophie de clarifier la signification des concepts obscurs de notre langage (vérité, signification, pensée, etc.) en portant une attention réflexive à nos états mentaux (Locke et James sont de bons exemples de ce paradigme), Wittgenstein a montré qu’une telle entreprise philosophique repose sur une profonde incompréhension du fonctionnement du langage ordinaire et de sa grammaire. Wittgenstein n’est pas le premier à se lancer dans une initiative du genre, mais les moyens utilisés pour s’en acquitter expliquent la place qu’il a occupée dans les débats que n’a cessé de susciter la question de l’intériorité tout au long du vingtième siècle : on ne peut croire à la valeur d’un recours à l’introspection en philosophie qu’en se méprenant profondément sur la nature et le fonctionnement du langage nous permettant d’exprimer notre vie mentale. Étant donné que la phénoménologie husserlienne se propose de résoudre les problèmes philosophiques en adoptant pour méthode la réflexion et la description de l’expérience vécue, il est très tentant de voir en Husserl un héritier de cette tradition philosophique qui se trouve ruinée par les arguments de Wittgenstein. En partant du présupposé que la déconstruction du «mythe de l’intériorité» enclenchée par Wittgenstein est juste en son principe, il s’agira de montrer que l’on ne peut trouver chez Wittgenstein une réfutation implicite de la conception phénoménologique de l’intériorité qu’en faisant une lecture superficielle des Recherches logiques et des Idées directrices. En effet, si l’on sait porter attention aux détails des textes pertinents, on peut déceler chez Husserl une réflexion très fine sur la nature du langage qui débouche éventuellement sur une critique de la conception moderne et empiriste de l’intériorité du sujet très similaire à celle mise en chantier par les i Recherches philosophiques, critique qui, de surcroît, a l’avantage de désamorcer certaines difficultés rencontrées par Wittgenstein. Une telle étude comparative et polémique permettra de tirer deux grandes conclusions à l’égard de la méthode devant être employée en philosophie. Premièrement, il sera démontré que la réflexivité exigée par le discours philosophique se reflète dans l’usage que Husserl et Wittgenstein font des guillemets. Cette observation en apparence triviale permettra d’établir que le discours philosophique repose sur l’usage d’un dispositif typographique banal appartenant à la grammaire de notre langage ordinaire. Ensuite, la supériorité de la méthode « généalogique » de la phénoménologie génétique de Husserl sera mise en relief. Cette dernière a le mérite d’éviter les apories du conventionnalisme de Wittgenstein tout en désamorçant les difficultés soulevées par l’essentialisme de la phénoménologie statique des Idées directrices. / Wittgenstein is typically thought to have put forth a devastating critique of one of the most constant temptations of modern philosophy: the so-called "myth of interiority". Against philosophies of reflexion, which attempt to clarify the meaning of obscure philosophical concepts (e.g. truth, significance, thought, etc.) by reflecting upon our mental states (Locke and James come to mind as examples of this paradigm), Wittgenstein showed that such a philosophical project is premised on a profound misunderstanding of how ordinary language and its grammar function. Although Wittgenstein might not have been the first to propose this kind of criticism, his central role in the last century's debates over the problem of interiority is due to the distinctive means through which he carried out this criticism: believing in the value of introspection within philosophical inquiry requires a profound misunderstanding of the nature and operation of the language through which we express our mental life. Since Husserl's phenomenology purports to solve philosophical problems through description and reflection upon lived experience, it is extremely tempting to see him as an inheritor of the philosophical tradition that Wittgenstein's arguments demolished. Taking as its starting point the assumption that the deconstruction of the "myth of interiority" instigated by Wittgenstein is well founded, this project will attempt to show that Wittgenstein's arguments can only appear to refute Husserl's conception of interiority on the basis of a superficial reading of the Logical Investigations and of the Ideas I. Indeed, upon a close examination of the relevant texts, Husserl's reflexions on the nature of language can be shown to lead him to a critique of the modern and empiricist conception of interiority very similar to Wittgenstein's, a critique that turns out to have the resources to avoid some of the major difficulties that the latter faces. This comparative and polemical study will defend two more general theses about the method that philosophical inquiry ought to rely upon. First, it will be argued that the reflexiveness required for philosophical discourse is illustrated in both Husserl and Wittgenstein's use of quotation marks. This seemingly trivial observation will support the claim that philosophical discourse relies on the use of a banal i typographical devise belonging to the grammar of ordinary language. Second, a case will be made for the the superiority of the "genealogical" method of Husserl's genetic phenomenology, for it manages to avoid the pitfalls of Wittgenstein's conventionalism while also steering clear of the problems incurred by the essentialism of the Ideas I static phenomenology.

Bien que Wittgenstein ait toujours douté de l’intérêt philosophique de ce genre de constat historique, il est généralement admis que l’auteur des Recherches philosophiques est l’inventeur d’une critique dévastatrice du «mythe de l’intériorité », qui représente l’une des tentations les plus constantes de la philosophie moderne. À l’encontre des pensées de la réflexion qui assignent pour tâche à la philosophie de clarifier la signification des concepts obscurs de notre langage (vérité, signification, pensée, etc.) en portant une attention réflexive à nos états mentaux (Locke et James sont de bons exemples de ce paradigme), Wittgenstein a montré qu’une telle entreprise philosophique repose sur une profonde incompréhension du fonctionnement du langage ordinaire et de sa grammaire. Wittgenstein n’est pas le premier à se lancer dans une initiative du genre, mais les moyens utilisés pour s’en acquitter expliquent la place qu’il a occupée dans les débats que n’a cessé de susciter la question de l’intériorité tout au long du vingtième siècle : on ne peut croire à la valeur d’un recours à l’introspection en philosophie qu’en se méprenant profondément sur la nature et le fonctionnement du langage nous permettant d’exprimer notre vie mentale. Étant donné que la phénoménologie husserlienne se propose de résoudre les problèmes philosophiques en adoptant pour méthode la réflexion et la description de l’expérience vécue, il est très tentant de voir en Husserl un héritier de cette tradition philosophique qui se trouve ruinée par les arguments de Wittgenstein. En partant du présupposé que la déconstruction du «mythe de l’intériorité» enclenchée par Wittgenstein est juste en son principe, il s’agira de montrer que l’on ne peut trouver chez Wittgenstein une réfutation implicite de la conception phénoménologique de l’intériorité qu’en faisant une lecture superficielle des Recherches logiques et des Idées directrices. En effet, si l’on sait porter attention aux détails des textes pertinents, on peut déceler chez Husserl une réflexion très fine sur la nature du langage qui débouche éventuellement sur une critique de la conception moderne et empiriste de l’intériorité du sujet très similaire à celle mise en chantier par les i Recherches philosophiques, critique qui, de surcroît, a l’avantage de désamorcer certaines difficultés rencontrées par Wittgenstein. Une telle étude comparative et polémique permettra de tirer deux grandes conclusions à l’égard de la méthode devant être employée en philosophie. Premièrement, il sera démontré que la réflexivité exigée par le discours philosophique se reflète dans l’usage que Husserl et Wittgenstein font des guillemets. Cette observation en apparence triviale permettra d’établir que le discours philosophique repose sur l’usage d’un dispositif typographique banal appartenant à la grammaire de notre langage ordinaire. Ensuite, la supériorité de la méthode « généalogique » de la phénoménologie génétique de Husserl sera mise en relief. Cette dernière a le mérite d’éviter les apories du conventionnalisme de Wittgenstein tout en désamorçant les difficultés soulevées par l’essentialisme de la phénoménologie statique des Idées directrices. / Wittgenstein is typically thought to have put forth a devastating critique of one of the most constant temptations of modern philosophy: the so-called "myth of interiority". Against philosophies of reflexion, which attempt to clarify the meaning of obscure philosophical concepts (e.g. truth, significance, thought, etc.) by reflecting upon our mental states (Locke and James come to mind as examples of this paradigm), Wittgenstein showed that such a philosophical project is premised on a profound misunderstanding of how ordinary language and its grammar function. Although Wittgenstein might not have been the first to propose this kind of criticism, his central role in the last century's debates over the problem of interiority is due to the distinctive means through which he carried out this criticism: believing in the value of introspection within philosophical inquiry requires a profound misunderstanding of the nature and operation of the language through which we express our mental life. Since Husserl's phenomenology purports to solve philosophical problems through description and reflection upon lived experience, it is extremely tempting to see him as an inheritor of the philosophical tradition that Wittgenstein's arguments demolished. Taking as its starting point the assumption that the deconstruction of the "myth of interiority" instigated by Wittgenstein is well founded, this project will attempt to show that Wittgenstein's arguments can only appear to refute Husserl's conception of interiority on the basis of a superficial reading of the Logical Investigations and of the Ideas I. Indeed, upon a close examination of the relevant texts, Husserl's reflexions on the nature of language can be shown to lead him to a critique of the modern and empiricist conception of interiority very similar to Wittgenstein's, a critique that turns out to have the resources to avoid some of the major difficulties that the latter faces. This comparative and polemical study will defend two more general theses about the method that philosophical inquiry ought to rely upon. First, it will be argued that the reflexiveness required for philosophical discourse is illustrated in both Husserl and Wittgenstein's use of quotation marks. This seemingly trivial observation will support the claim that philosophical discourse relies on the use of a banal i typographical devise belonging to the grammar of ordinary language. Second, a case will be made for the the superiority of the "genealogical" method of Husserl's genetic phenomenology, for it manages to avoid the pitfalls of Wittgenstein's conventionalism while also steering clear of the problems incurred by the essentialism of the Ideas I static phenomenology. / Cotutelle avec l'Université Panthéon Sorbonne - Paris I

[pt] Este trabalho apresenta uma reflexão sobre a comensurabilidade entre as perspectivas chomskyana e wittgensteiniana da linguagem em geral e, em particular, no que diz respeito à questão do sentido. O objetivo da pesquisa foi examinar, nos textos do Wittgenstein maduro, nos desenvolvimentos mais recentes de Chomsky — levando em consideração as sucessivas mudanças na teoria gerativa — e nas obras de outros autores que se alinham com as ideias de um e outro ou se dedicam a estudá-los, convergências e divergências relevantes entre eles. A pesquisa adotou uma perspectiva pragmática e antiessencialista da linguagem, mais especificamente a versão dessa perspectiva oferecida pela filosofia mais madura de Wittgenstein, sobretudo nas suas Investigações filosóficas. Sem renunciar a essa perspectiva, foram analisadas as teorias sobre a linguagem humana defendidas por Noam Chomsky, geralmente tidas como opostas às do filósofo vienense, partindo da hipótese de que fosse possível encontrar, no diálogo entre elas, possíveis complementações para uma melhor compreensão do funcionamento da linguagem humana. As teses que resultam do trabalho são as seguintes: (1) Que os pontos de vista de Chomsky e Wittgenstein sobre a linguagem não são inteiramente irreconciliáveis e podem existir convergências, divergências e possíveis complementações que valem a pena serem exploradas, (2) Que as versões contemporâneas das teorias de Chomsky estão mais abertas à aproximação com Wittgenstein do que versões passadas, (3) Que algumas contradições entre as análises de Wittgenstein e Chomsky podem ser atribuídas à diferença entre o ponto de vista e os métodos de um filósofo e os de um cientista da linguagem, ou a confusões conceituais provocadas pelas armadilhas da própria linguagem — termos usados por eles próprios ou por seus mais destacados comentadores de formas que parecem altamente contraditórias, podendo nos levar à conclusão de que existe uma incompatibilidade insuperável entre seus pontos de vista, (4) Que, ao menos parcialmente, algumas dessas contradições podem ser atribuídas ao choque entre a tese chomskyana da autonomia da sintaxe e a preocupação quase exclusiva de Wittgenstein pelo sentido. Entre outros aspectos relevantes das ideias de ambos os pensadores, analisamos o uso que eles fazem de termos como representação, mente, descrição e explicação; de questões fundamentais para ambos, como suas ideias sobre o que seja aprender uma língua e seguir uma regra, e de algumas noções distintivas do pensamento de cada um, como a noção wittgensteiniana de forma de vida e a hipótese inatista de Chomsky. Por último, analisamos de forma mais aprofundada duas controvérsias explícitas entre Chomsky e Wittgenstein, a partir de dois textos do primeiro que fazem detalhadas críticas a aspectos importantes da filosofia do segundo: o argumento da linguagem privada e a crítica à ideia de que existem processos cerebrais correlacionados com o pensamento. / [en] This work reflects on the commensurability between the Chomskyan and the Wittgenstenian perspectives of language in general, and in particular it deals with issues on meaning. The goal of the research was to examine, in the mature texts of Wittgenstein, in the most recent developments of Chomsky — taking into consideration the successive changes in generative theory — and in the works of other authors that align themselves with the ideas of one or the other or devote themselves to study them, convergences and divergences relevant to them. The research adopted a pragmatic and anti-essentialist approach to language, more specifically the version of this approach offered by Wittgenstein s more mature philosophy, mostly in his Philosophical Investigations. Without renouncing this approach, the theories of human language supported by Noam Chomsky were analyzed, which are generally considered as opposed to those of the Viennese philosopher, starting from the hypothesis that it is possible to find, in the dialog between them, possible complementarities for a better understanding of how human language works. The present work are guided by following thesis: (1) Chomsky s and Wittgenstein s points of view about language are not completely irreconcilable and there can be convergences, divergences and possible complementarities that are worth exploring; (2) the contemporary versions of Chomsky s theories can be more open to a rapprochement with Wittgenstein than past versions; (3) some contradictions between the analysis of Chomsky and Wittgenstein can be attributed to the difference between the points of view and methods of a philosopher and those language of a scientist, or to conceptual confusions originated in the tricks of language itself – terms used by them or by their more outstanding commentators in ways that seem highly contradictory, leading us to the conclusion that there is an insurmountable incompatibility between their points of view; (4) at least partially, some of those contradictions can be attributed to the conflict between the Chomskyan hypothesis about the Autonomy of Syntax and the almost exclusive preoccupation of Wittgenstein for the meaning. Among other relevant aspects of the ideas of both authors, we will analyze how they use terms like representation, mind, description and explanation; fundamental questions for both, like their ideas about what it is to learn a language and follow a rule, and about distinctive notions of their thought, like the Wittgenstenian notion of form of life and the Chomskyan innate hypothesis. Finally, we analyze in deep two explicit disputes between Chomsky and Wittgenstein, taking as a starting point two texts of the former that formulate detailed criticism to important aspects of the latter s philosophy: the argument of private language and the criticism of the idea that there are brain processes correlated to thought. / [es] Este trabajo presenta una reflexión sobre la conmensurabilidad entre las perspectivas chomskyana y wittgensteiniana del lenguaje en general y, en particular, en lo que se refiere a la cuestión del sentido. El objetivo de la investigación fue examinar, en los textos del Wittgenstein maduro, en los desarrollos más recientes de Chomsky —teniendo en cuenta los sucesivos cambios en la teoría generativa— y en las obras de otros autores que se alinean con las ideas de uno y otro o se dedican a estudiarlos, convergencias y divergencias relevantes entre ellos. La investigación adoptó una perspectiva pragmática y antiesencialista del lenguaje, más específicamente la versión de esta perspectiva ofrecida por la filosofía más madura de Wittgenstein, sobre todo en sus Investigaciones filosóficas. Sin renunciar a esa perspectiva, fueron analizadas las teorías sobre el lenguaje humano defendidas por Noam Chomsky, generalmente consideradas como opuestas a las del filósofo vienés, partiendo de la hipótesis de que fuese posible encontrar, en el diálogo entre ellas, posibles complementaciones para una mejor comprensión del funcionamiento del lenguaje humano. Las tesis que resultan de este trabajo son las siguientes: (1) Que los puntos de vista de Chomsky y Wittgenstein sobre el lenguaje no son completamente irreconciliables y pueden existir convergencias, divergencias y posibles complementaciones que vale la pena explorar, (2) Que las versiones contemporáneas de las teorías de Chomsky están más abiertas a la aproximación con Wittgenstein que las versiones pasadas, (3) Que algunas contradicciones entre los análisis de Wittgenstein y Chomsky pueden ser atribuidos a la diferencia entre el punto de vista y los métodos de un filósofo y los de un científico del lenguaje, o a confusiones conceptuales provocadas por las armadillas del propio lenguaje — términos utilizados por ellos mismos o por sus más destacados comentadores de maneras que parecen altamente contradictorias, pudiendo llevarnos a la conclusión de que existe una incompatibilidad insuperable entre sus puntos de vista, (4) Que, al menos parcialmente, algunas de esas contradicciones pueden ser atribuidas al choque entre la tesis chomskyana de la autonomía de la sintaxis y la preocupación casi exclusiva de Wittgenstein por el sentido. Entre otros aspectos relevantes de las ideas de ambos pensadores, analizamos el uso que realizan de términos como representación, mente, descripción y explicación; de cuestiones fundamentales para ambos, como sus ideas sobre lo que sea aprender una lengua y seguir una regla, y de algunas nociones distintivas del pensamiento de cada uno, como la noción wittgensteiniana de forma de vida y la hipótesis innatista de Chomsky. Por último, analizamos más profundamente dos controversias explícitas entre Chomsky y Wittgenstein, a partir de dos textos del primero que hacen detalladas críticas a aspectos importantes de la filosofía del segundo: el argumento del lenguaje privado y la crítica a la idea de que existan procesos cerebrales correlacionados con el pensamiento.

The diploma thesis focuses on teaching grammar in the context of in-company language courses. What needs to be taken into consideration are both the psychological aspects of adult learners and the sociological characteristics of a typical course participant, their position of a client which is connected to high expectations of the service provided - language tuition. The role of the teacher in an in-company course is much less authoritative than in a traditional course and teachers become rather partners or coaches for the learners. The pedagogical research conducted among 172 Czech in-company learners with the help of an electronic questionnaire shows that the main aim of in-company students is to be able to communicate efficiently in real-life situations from their private and working lives. It is the role of the teacher, or the coursebook author, to choose which grammar structures are necessary to succeed in the respective situations. Therefore, the most suitable method for teaching grammar in the context of in-company courses is the Engage, Study, Activate method combined with the eclectic method.