{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":19,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":19,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[4,2,4,3],[6,2,6,3],[7,2,7,3],[14,2,14,3],[15,2,15,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910315241103321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Abramovici Jean-Christophe"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Condillac, philosophe du langage ? / / Aliènor Bertrand"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"Lyon, : ENS Éditions, 2016"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"2-84788-811-X"]
[{"$nulls":4},"2-84788-812-8"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"1 online resource (196 p.)"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Philosophy"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Linguistics"]
[{"$nulls":4},"philosophy"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Condillac (Étienne Bonnot de)"]
[{"$nulls":4},"philosophie"]
[{"$nulls":4},"langage"]
[{"$nulls":4},"langage d'action"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Francese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,null,"Sommario/riassunto","Que Condillac soit un « philosophe du langage » est une cause entendue. Encore faut-il savoir en quel sens il peut l’être. Qu’il soit philosophe, au sens du XVIIIe siècle, et qu’il ait beaucoup écrit sur le langage suffit-il à faire de lui un « philosophe du langage » au sens où le XXe siècle en a consacré l’expression ? Ses commentaires sur la tradition des grammairiens ou son étonnant Dictionnaire des synonymes relèvent-ils vraiment de la « philosophie du langage » ? Comment juger de son intérêt pour l’origine du langage, longtemps tenu comme obscur par les linguistes ? Fait-il de lui aujourd’hui un précurseur de la paléo-linguistique ? Au fil d’une enquête rigoureuse menée par des chercheurs de diverses disciplines, historiens de la philosophie, philosophes du langage, linguistes, lexicographes, ce volume propose un parcours surprenant, menant de la philosophie contemporaine du langage à l’analyse de la langue française, en passant par la théorie de la langue. De la « philosophie du langage » à l’art d’écrire, en somme.  Condillac is undoubtedly a philosopher of language, but in what sense can he be thus described? Is the fact that he is a philosopher, in the 18th century sense of the word, and that he "]
[{"$nulls":4},"wrote extensively on the subject of language enough to qualify him as a “philosopher of language”? Do his comments on grammarian tradition and his stunning Dictionnaire des synonymes belong to the realm of “philosophy of language”? How should we view his interest in the origins of language, which were long considered obscure by linguists? Does this make him a pioneer of paleolinguistics? With the help of scholars from various disciplines, philosophers of history, philosophers of language, linguists and lexicographers, this volume suggests various ways of exploring Condillac’s interest in language: contemporary philosophy of language, the analysis of the French language, and the theory of language. In other words, from the “philosophy of language” to the art of…"]