Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
10 - Limiting Semantic Types
from Part II - Interfaces
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 October 2018
Book contents
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Computational Component
- Part II Interfaces
- 7 Linearizing Chains at LF
- 8 On the Rationality of Grammar
- 9 The Warped Forge
- 10 Limiting Semantic Types
- 11 Why Is Phonology Different? No Recursion
- 12 Nothing in Syntax Makes Sense Except in the Light of Change
- 13 Neurology and Experience: The Language Organ and Externalization
- Part III Linguistics and Other Sciences
- Index
- References
Summary
Semanticists often say that expressions of a human language are instances of types that exhibit a Fregean hierarchy. More specifically, the expressions of a human language are said to include truth-evaluable sentences of a basic type , entity designators of a basic type , and unsaturated expressions of types characterized by the recursive principle (R). (R) if <α> and <β> are types, so is <α, β>. I offer a sparer proposal according to which human linguistic expressions exhibit no such hierarchy, and almost no semantic typology, because meanings are only minimally relational. I end with a speculation about several respects in which human languages are only a little more interesting than languages of an especially simple kind.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language, Syntax, and the Natural Sciences , pp. 192 - 211Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Baker, M. 1997. “Thematic Roles and Grammatical Categories,” in Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 73–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. 1981. “Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Language,” Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 2005. Structuring Sense (vols. I and II). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. 1973. “Reference and Proper Names,” Journal of Philosophy 70: 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1999. The Origins of Complex Language: An Inquiry into the Evolutionary Beginnings of Sentences, Syllables, and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chierchia, G. 1984. “Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000. “Minimalist Inquiries,” in Martin, R., Michaels, D., Uriagereka, J., and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chung, S. and Ladusaw, W. 2003. Restriction and Saturation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, A. 1941. The Calculi of Lambda Conversion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. 1967. “The Logical Form of Action Sentences,” in Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–122.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1879. Begriffsschrift. Halle: Louis Nebert. English translation in From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931, ed. van Heijenoort, J.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1884. Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik. Breslau: Wilhelm Koebner. English translation in The Foundations of Arithmetic, trans. Austin, J. L.. Oxford: Blackwell, 1974.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1892. “Function and Concept,” in Geach, P. and Black, M. (eds. and trans.), Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980, pp. 192–205.Google Scholar
Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. University of Massachusetts: Ph.D. dissertation; published 1989, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Heinz, J. and Idsardi, William J. 2011. “Sentence and Word Complexity,” Science 333: 295–297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinz, J. and Idsardi, William J. 2013. “What Complexity Differences Reveal about Domains in Language,” Topics in Cognitive Science 5: 111–131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herburger, E. 2000. What Counts: Focus and Quantification. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. and May, R. 1981. “Questions, Quantifiers, and Crossing,” The Linguistic Review 1: 47–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N. 2009. A Theory of Syntax: Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horty, J. 2007. Frege on Definitions: A Case Study of Semantic Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, A., Shanker, K., and Weir, D. 1990. “The Convergence of Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms.” University of Pennsylvania Technical Reports (CIS). Paper 539. http://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/539.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. 1981. “A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation,” repr. in Portner and Partee 2002, pp. 189–222.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1996. “Severing the External Argument from its Verb,” in Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2014. Phrase Structure and Argument Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, B. 2006. “Do We Need Two Basic Types?” in 40–60 Puzzles for Manfred Krifka. www.zas.gwz-berlin.de/40-60-puzzles-for-krifka.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2005. Events and Semantic Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2014. “Lexicalizing and Combining,” in de Almeida, R. and Manouilidou, C. (eds.), Verb Concepts: Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing. New York: Springer, pp. 43–66.Google Scholar
Pietroski, P. 2018. Conjoining Meanings: Semantics Without Truth Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietroski, P. Forthcoming. “Semantic Typology and Composition,” to appear in Rabern, B. and Ball, D. (eds.), The Science of Meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Portner, P. and Partee, B. (eds.) 2002. Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. 1963. “On What There Is,” in From a Logical Point of View. New York: Harper and Row, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Schein, B. 2002. “Events and the Semantic Content of Thematic Relations,” in Preyer, G. and Peters, G. (eds.), Logical Form and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 91–117.Google Scholar
Tarski, A. 1944. “The Semantic Conception of Truth,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4: 341–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, J. and Pietroski, P. 2001. “Dimensions of Natural Language,” University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 10. Repr. 2002, in Uriagereka, J., Derivations. London: Routledge, pp. 266–287.Google Scholar
Williams, A. 2007. “Patients in Igbo and Mandarin,” in Dölling, J. and Heye-Zybatow, T. (eds.), Event Structures in Linguistic Form and Interpretation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Williams, A. 2015. Arguments in Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar