Conclusions
We started from the fact that type theory, in the way it was implemented in IL, makes it costly to deal with nominalization processes. We have also argued that the type hierarchy as such doesn't play any real role in a grammar; the classification it provides for different semantic objects is already contained, in some sense, in the categorial structure of the grammar itself. So, on the basis of a theory of properties (Cocchiarella's HST*) we have tried to build a language (IL*) whose syntax does not contain any explicit typing of expressions. Some of the consequences that this move brings about in the overall organization of the grammar can be summarized as follows:
-
(a)
it allows for a simple treatment of infinitives, gerunds, factives and, in general, all those phenomena which might be analyzed as cases of nominalization;
-
(b)
it provides a simpler and more constrained semantics than IL, since IL* doesn't go beyond second order, and its non-modal basis is axiomatizable;
-
(c)
it suggests that the role of logical form in a theory of grammar could be that of a family of theories of semantic objects;
-
(d)
it eliminates the extrinsic limitations of a type hierarchy on the choice of the system of syntactic categories.
I think that it is interesting to notice how having an explicit semantic framework helps to provide a sense in which it is legitimate to regard the syntax of a language as ‘autonomous’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bach, E.: 1979, ‘On Time, Tense and Aspect’, An essay in English metaphysics, ms., Univ. of Mass., Amherst.
Bach, E.: 1980, ‘In Defense of Passive’, Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 297–341.
Bach, E. and B. H. partee: 1980, ‘Anaphora and Semantic Structure’, Chicago Linguistic Society, p. 16.
Bach, E. and B. H. Partee: 1981, ‘Quantification, Pronouns and VP Anaphora’, in Groenendijk et al., 1981.
Barwise, J. and R. Cooper: 1981, ‘Generalized Quantifiers and Natural Languages’, in Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 159–220.
Barwise, J. and J. Perry: 1980, ‘The Situation Underground,’ ms. Standford.
Bealer, G.: 1979, ‘Theories of Properties, Relations and Propositions’, Journal of Philosophy 11, 634–648.
Bennett, M.: 1976, Some Extensions of a Montague Fragment of English, Ph.D. Diss., UCLA, distributed by Indiana University Linguistic Club.
Bigelow, J.: 1978, ‘Believing in Semantics’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 2, 101–144.
Carlson, G.: 1977a, Reference to Kinds in English, Ph.D. Diss., Univ. of Mass. at Amherst, distributed by Indiana Univ. Linguistic Club.
Carlson, G.: 1977b, ‘A Unified Analysis of English Bare Plural’, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, 413–456.
Carlson, G.: 1979, ‘Generics and the Atemporal When’, Linguistics and Philosophy 3, 48–98.
Chierchia, G.: 1981, ‘English Bare Plurals, Mass Nouns and the Structure of the World’, ms., Univ. of Mass., Amherst.
Chomsky, N.: 1970, ‘Remarks on Nominalization’, in Jacobs, R. and Rosembaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Gill Waltham, Massachusetts.
Cresswell, M.: 1973, Logics and Languages, Methuen, London.
Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1976, ‘On the Logic of Natural Kinds’, Philosophy of Science, 43, 202–222.
Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1977, ‘Sortals, Natural Kinds and Reidentification’, Logique et Analyse 80, 439–474.
Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1978, ‘On the Logic of Nominalized Predicates and Its Philosophical Interpretations’, Erkenntniss 13, 339–369.
Cocchiarella, N. B.: 1979, ‘The Theory of Homogeneous Simple Types as a Second Order Logic’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 20, 505–524.
Davis, S. and M.Mithun: 1979, Linguistics, Philosophy and Montague Grammar, Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, Texas.
Delacruz, E.: 1976, ‘Factives and Proposition Level Constructions in Montague Grammar’, in Partee, 1976.
Dowty, D.: 1976, ‘Montague Grammar and the Lexical Decomposition of Causative Verbs’, in Partee, 1976.
Dowty, D.: 1980, ‘Tenses, Time Adverbials and Compositional Syntactic-semantic Theory’, ms., presented at the 4th Groningen Round Table.
Dowty, D., R.Wall, and S.Peters: 1980, An Introduction to Montague Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Gazdar, G.: 1980, ‘Phrase Structure Grammar’, to appear in Pullum, G. and P. Jacobson, On the Nature of Syntactic Representation.
Groenendijk, J., T. Jansen, and M. Stokhof: 1981, Formal Methods in the Study of Language: Proceedings of the Third Amsterdam Colloquium, the Mathematical Center, Amsterdam.
Kamp. H.: 1981, ‘A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation’, in Groenendijk et al., 1981.
Lakoff, G.: 1971, ‘On Generative Semantics’, in Steinberg, D. and L. Jacobovits (eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader, Cambridge.
McCawley, J.: 1968, ‘The Role of Semantics in a Grammar’, in Bach, E. and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, New York.
Milsark, G.: 1974, Existential Sentences in English, Ph. D. Diss., M.I.T., distributed by Indiana Univ. Linguistic Club.
Moneglia, M.: 1980, ‘Aspect in Italian: Semantics, Perception and Grammar’, ms., Accademia della Crusca, Firenze.
Montague, R.: 1970, ‘Pragmatics and Intensional Logic’, Synthese, 22, 68–94, reprinted in Montague, 1974.
Montague, R.: 1973, ‘The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English’, in J.Hintikka, J.Moravcsik and P.Suppes (eds.), Approaches to Natural Languages: Proceedings on the 1970 Standford Workshop in Grammar and Semantics, Reidel, Dordrecht, reprinted in Montague, 1974.
Montague, R.: 1974, Formal Philosophy, ed. by R.Thomason, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven.
Parsons, T.: 1979, ‘The Theory of Types and Ordinary Language’, in Davis and Mithun, 1979.
Partee, B. H.: 1976, Montague Grammar, Academic Press, New York.
Partee, B. H.: 1977, ‘John Is Easy to Please’, in Zampolli (ed.), Linguistic Structure Processing, North Holland, Amsterdam.
Siegel, E. A.: 1976, Capturing the Adjective, Ph.D. Diss., Univ. of Mass., Amherst.
Simms, J. C.: 1980, ‘A Realist Semantics for Cocchiarella's T *’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 21, 1–30.
ter Meulen, A.: 1981, ‘An Intensional Logic for Mass Terms’, in Groenendijk et al., 1981.
Thomason, R.: 1979, On the Semantic Interpretation of the Thomason 1972 Fragment, distributed by Indiana Univ. Linguistic Club.
Thomason, R.: 1980, ‘A Model Theory for Propositional Attitudes’, Linguistics and Philosophy 4, 47–70.
Williams, E.: 1980, ‘Predication’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 203–238.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I am indebted for many valuable criticisms and suggestions to E. Bach, W. Chao (who also helped me in getting the paper organized), E. Engdahl, E. Gettier, F. R. Higgins, M. Moneglia, and two anonymous referees. I wish also to thank N. B. Cocchiarella whose comments have been extremely useful, especially to improve the formal part of the present paper. A special thanks is due to B. H. Partee; without her help and teaching I could not have written this paper. None of these persons is in the least responsible for the remaining mistakes and inadequacies. Thanks also to J. Martin for a good typing job.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chierchia, G. Nominalization and Montague Grammar: A semantics without types for natural languages. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 303–354 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351458
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00351458