Sajavaara, K. 2006. Kontrastiivinen analyysi, transfer ja toisen kielen oppiminen. In A. Kaivapalu & K. Pruu-li (eds.), Lähivertailuja 17. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 53. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto, 9-26. Sloboda, M. and Ivanecky, J. (in prep). How similar are Slavonic languages? Linguistic distances between thirteen standard varieties based on spoken test. Manuscript. Van Beezooijen, R. & C. Gooskens 2007. Interlingual text comprehension. Linguistic and extralinguistic determinants. In J.D. ten Thije & L. Zeevaert (eds.), Receptive multilingualism. Linguistic analyses, lan- guage policies and dialectic concepts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 249263. Verschik, A. 2012. Practicing Receptive Multilingualism: Estonian-Finnish communication in Tallinn. In J. D. ten Thije, J. Rehbein & A. Verschik (eds.), Receptive Multilingualism. Special issue of International Journal of Bilingualism. Zeevaert, Ludger 2007
a sentence's meaning with that sentence's verification condition. But as we shall now see, the matter does not quite end here. Two Quinean issues In the 1950s and 1960s, W. V. Quine posed two challenges to the positivists' philosophy of language. First, he attacked the notion of analyticity (Quine 1953, 1960); that is, he attacked the claim that some sentences are true entirely in virtue of what they mean and not because of any contribution from the extralinguistic world. Quine gives a number of different arguments against analyticity. Some of those are unconvincing. Others are better, and have kept "analytic" a fairly dirty word ever since, or at least till a recent resurgence. I will not itemize them, but only give a general idea of what I think is at the bottom of Quine's repudiation of analyticity. Quine shares and maintains the positivists' epistemological bent, and believes that if linguistic meaning is anything it is a function of evidential
annaabi.ee 
