Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- Daniel Andler (1995). Can We Knock Off the Shackles of Syntax? Philosophical Issues 6:265-270.
Similar books and articles
Theme of two lectures: how does meaning work in grammar and lexicon? General question: Are morphemes the minimal meaningful units of language? Are the meanings of the parts of words of the same kind as those of syntax? The answer to this question has an obvious bearing on the question of the derivation of complex words "in the syntax." Is the split between syntax and morphology the proper division for asking the previous question? Answer: No. The crucial distinction is that between grammar and lexicon. Framework: model theoretic semantics and constructive categorial syntax..
........................................................................................................................ 3 2. A Fregian Conception of Syntax/Semantics ....................................................................... 4 3. The Syntax/Semantics interface in Generative Grammar................................................... 7 3.1. Generative conceptions of grammar ............................................................................ 7 3.2. Building Strucures: External and Internal Merge ........................................................ 9 3.3. Notes on the literature................................................................................................ 12 4. A -language and the Interpretation of External and Internal Merge............................... 12 4.1. Logical Form.............................................................................................................. 12 4.2. Syntax and Semantics of EL ...................................................................................... 13 4.3. Interpretations of External Merge.............................................................................. 15 4.4. Interpretation of Internal Merge................................................................................. 16 5. The Two Most Important Rules of Construal: FI and QR ............................................... 17 5.1. QR resolves type-clashes ........................................................................................... 17 5.2. QR and Scope Ambiguities........................................................................................ 20 5.3. QR binds pronouns .................................................................................................... 21 6. Relative Clause and Quantifying into XP: The Empty Pronouns WH and PRO.............. 23 7. Intensional Contexts: The Type Language IL ...................................................................
On the Notion "Type of Language" Petr Sgall It is well known that the high
frequency of terminological vagueness and confusion has been a serious obstacle
...
Split constructions are widespread in natural languages. The separation of the semantic restriction of a quantifier from that quantifier is a typical example of such a construction. This study addresses the problem that such discontinuous strings exhibit--namely, a number of locality constraints, including intervention effects. These are shown to follow from the interaction of a minimalist syntax with a semantics that directly assigns a model-theoretic interpretation to syntactic logical forms. The approach is shown to have wide empirical coverage and a conceptual simplicity. The book will be of interest to scholars and advanced students of syntax and semantics.
Syntax is better viewed as the dynamics of a morphogenetic field on a semantic universe of “content” words. This may take widely different forms, making the acquisition of any language by an aspiring speaker an entirely new experience. The existence of an underlying “universal syntax” might be illusory.
John Searle once said: "The Chinese room shows what we knew all along: syntax by itself is not sufficient for semantics. (Does anyone actually deny this point, I mean straight out? Is anyone actually willing to say, straight out, that they think that syntax, in the sense of formal symbols, is really the same as semantic content, in the sense of meanings, thought contents, understanding, etc.?)." I say: "Yes". Stuart C. Shapiro has said: "Does that make any sense? Yes: Everything makes sense. The question is: What sense does it make?" This essay explores what sense it makes to say that syntax by itself is sufficient for semantics.
The distinction between pragmatics, semantics, and syntax, at least as traditionally construed, is argued to be defective in various respects.
Along the way, Zero Syntax also examines issues of broad significance to current theoretical linguistic research in syntax and lexical semantics.Zero Syntax ...
No categories
Discussion of Daniel Andler, Can we knock off the shackles of syntax?
|
|
There are no threads in this forum |
Nothing in this forum yet.

