Horwich's schemata meet syntactic structures
Mind 112 (447):399-432 (2003)
| Abstract | Paul Horwich (1998), following a number of others, proposes a schematic compositional format for the specification of the meanings of complex expressions. The format is schematic in the sense that it identifies grammatical schemata that do not presuppose any particular account of primitive word meanings: whatever the nature of meanings, the application of the schemata to them will serve to explain compositionality. This signals, for Horwich, that compositionality is a non-substantive constraint on theories of meaning. Drawing on a range of linguistic data, the present paper argues that while the bare idea of compositionality indeed does not presuppose any account of meaning, Horwich's format is empirically inadequate. The argument here goes back to Chomsky's early position on the descriptive inadequacy of rewrite grammars and the consequent need for transformations. It will also be seen that the data militates for a general claim that meaning relevant structure is projected from words rather than imposed on them schematically. Finally, it will be indicated how this reasoning from syntactic considerations is flush with a more traditional philosophical understanding of compositionality. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,705 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesR. M. Sainsbury (2001). Two Ways to Smoke a Cigarette. Ratio 14 (4):386–406.
Douglas Patterson (2005). Learnability and Compositionality. Mind and Language 20 (3):326–352.
Antonio Rauti (2009). Can We Derive the Principle of Compositionality (If We Deflate Understanding)? Dialectica 63 (2):157-174.
Richard Heck (forthcoming). Is Compositionality a Trivial Principle? Frontiers of Philosophy in China.
John Collins (2002). Horwich's Sting. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 2 (2):213-228.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore (2001). Why Compositionality Won't Go Away: Reflections on Horwich's 'Deflationary' Theory. Ratio 14 (4):350–368.
Peter Pagin (2003). Communication and Strong Compositionality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (3):287-322.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads10 ( #106,438 of 549,198 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,397 of 549,198 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
