Syntax versus Semantics

Undergraduate, Linguistics, New York University

This course studies Hungarian from the perspective of theoretical linguistics, and asks what it tells us about the syntax/semantics interface in universal grammar. Hungarian is known as a language that wears its semantics on its syntactic sleeve. Constituent order transparently identifies the topic and the focus of the sentence, and disambiguates the scopes of operators like "everyone," "rarely," and "not." English, in contrast, signals those pragmatic and semantic relations by subtle intonational clues, if at all. Thus Hungarian offers a laboratory in which to isolate and study some otherwise elusive phenomena, and enables one to ask to what extent they are strictly part of grammar, what tools natural languages use to express them, in what ways natural languages vary in this domain, and so on.

2014

This essay describes and comments on some of the key developments in the history of formal semantics and its relation to syntax, focusing on the period from the beginnings of Chomskyan generative grammar in the 1950's up until the mature period of formal semantics in the 1980's, with only a few remarks about earlier background and later developments. One crucial theme is the challenge of developing a compositional semantic theory, and how that challenge has taken on different forms with respect to different syntactic and semantic theories. The ‚syntax-semantics interface‛ is a relatively young topic in the history of linguistics. In early Western linguistics, there was little syntax and essentially no semantics other than some non-formal lexical semantics. Formal syntax came first, with Zellig Harris's student Noam Chomsky revolutionizing the field of linguistics with his work on syntax. Chomsky shared the field's general skepticism about the possibility of semantics...

The Semantic Conception of Logic, 2021

Copyright © 1998 Annabel Cormack All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Cormack, Annabel, 1939- Definitions : implications for syntax, semantics, and the language of thought / Annabel Cormack. p. cm. — (Outstanding dissertations in linguistics) A slight ...

Mathematical and Computational Analysis of Natural Language, 1998

Journal of Pragmatics, 1983

2005

Language is a system of communication in which grammatical structures function to express meaning in context. While all languages can achieve the same basic communicative ends, they each use different means to achieve them, particularly in the divergent ways that syntax, semantics and pragmatics interact across languages. This book looks in detail at how structure, meaning and communicative function interact in human languages. Working within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG), Van Valin proposes a set of rules, called the 'linking algorithm', which relates syntactic and semantic representations to each other, with discourse-pragmatics playing a role in the linking. Using this model, he discusses the full range of grammatical phenomena, including the structures of simple and complex sentences, verb and argument structure, voice, reflexivization and extraction restrictions. Clearly written and comprehensive, this book will be welcomed by all those working on the interface between syntax, semantics and pragmatics. robert d. van valin jr.

PREPRINT 122415 : LOGIC TEACHING IN THE 21ST CENTURY-- XVIII EIDL 2015 KEYNOTE ADDRESS We are much better equipped to let the facts reveal themselves to us instead of blinding ourselves to them or stubbornly trying to force them into preconceived molds. We no longer embarrass ourselves in front of our students, for example, by insisting that “Some Xs are Y” means the same as “Some X is Y”, and lamely adding “for purposes of logic” whenever there is pushback. Logic teaching in this century can exploit the new spirit of objectivity, humility, clarity, observationalism, contextualism, and pluralism. Besides the new spirit there have been quiet developments in logic and its history and philosophy that could radically improve logic teaching. One rather conspicuous example is that the process of refining logical terminology has been productive. Future logic students will no longer be burdened by obscure terminology and they will be able to read, think, talk, and write about logic in a more careful and more rewarding manner. Closely related is increased use and study of variable-enhanced natural language as in “Every proposition x that implies some proposition y that is false also implies some proposition z that is true”. Another welcome development is the culmination of the slow demise of logicism. No longer is the teacher blocked from using examples from arithmetic and algebra fearing that the students had been indoctrinated into thinking that every mathematical truth was a tautology and that every mathematical falsehood was a contradiction. A fifth welcome development is the separation of laws of logic from so-called logical truths, i.e., tautologies. Now we can teach the logical independence of the laws of excluded middle and non-contradiction without fear that students had been indoctrinated into thinking that every logical law was a tautology and that every falsehood of logic was a contradiction. This separation permits the logic teacher to apply logic in the clarification of laws of logic. This lecture expands the above points, which apply equally well in first, second, and third courses, i.e. in “critical thinking”, “deductive logic”, and “symbolic logic”.

The aim of the subject of study is to give a brief introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Semantics is the study of meaning. More precisely it is the study of the relation between linguistic expressions and their meanings. Pragmatics is the study of context. More precisely it is the study of the way context can influence our understanding of linguistic utterances. The term semantics simply means the study of meanings. The study explores how meaning in language is produced or created. Semantics not only concentrates on how words express meaning but also on how words, phrases and sentences come together to make meaning in language. To start with, you will be motivated to focus on the nature and scope of semantics. Hence, here in this unit, you will be introduced to the concept and definition semantics, brief history of semantics, semantics and other disciplines, major concern of semantics, and the different approaches to the study of semantics. The symbols employed in language must be patterned in a systematic way. You have been already informed that language is organized at four principal levels – sounds (i.e. Phonetics/phonology), words (i.e. Morphology), sentences (i.e. syntax) and meaning (i.e. semantics). Phonology and syntax are concerned with the expressive power of language while semantics studies the meaning of what has been expressed. Knowledge of grammar is an aspect of the innate cognitive ability of human beings. The power of interpretation complements that innate ability. Interpretation is an aspect of semantics. Therefore, language acquisition or learning includes not only the knowledge of the organization of sounds and structures, but also how to associate meaning to the structures. Semantics can, therefore, be characterized as the scientific study of meaning in language. Semantics has been the subject of discourse for many years for philosophers and other scholars but later was introduced formally in literature in the late 1800’s. Hence, we have philosophical semantics and linguistic semantics among other varieties of semantics. Earlier scholars in philosophical semantics were interested in pointing out the relationship between linguistic expressions and identified phenomena in the external world. In the contemporary world, especially in the United States philosophical semantics has led to the development of semiotics. In some other parts of the world, and especially, France, the term semiology has been favoured. The reliance on logical calculations in issues of meaning has led to the development of logical semantics. However, for your purpose in this course, emphasis is on linguistic semantics, with our interest on the properties of natural languages. You shall see how this study relates to other disciplines. We shall also examine the real issues in linguistic semantics. Semantics has been identified as a component of linguistics. In its widest sense, linguistics is the scientific study of language. As a field of study, semantics is related to other disciplines. In semantics, we study the meaning of words and also how the meanings of words in a sentence are put together to form sentential meaning. Linguistic semantics studies meaning in a systematic and objective way. Since meaning as a concept is not static, a great deal of the idea of meaning still depends on the context and participants in the act of communication (discourse). There is a strong connection between meaning and pragmatics. The exchange or relay of information, message, attitude, feelings or values from one person to another contributes to the interpretation of meaning. This is done mainly by the use of language. It is often expressed that language is a system which uses a set of symbols agreed upon by a group to communicate their ideas or message or information. These symbols can be spoken or written, expressed as gestures or drawings. Depending upon the focus of study, semantics can be compartmentalized as lexical semantics, grammatical semantics, logical semantics and semantics in relation to pragmatics.

This practical coursebook introduces all the basics of semantics in a simple, step-bystep fashion. Each unit includes short sections of explanation with examples, followed by stimulating practice exercises to complete the book. Feedback and comment sections follow each exercise to enable students to monitor their progress. No previous background in semantics is assumed, as students begin by discovering the value and fascination of the subject and then move through all key topics in the field, including sense and reference, simple logic, word meaning, and interpersonal meaning. New study guides and exercises have been added to the end of each unit (with online answer key) to help reinforce and test learning. A completely new unit on non-literal language and metaphor, plus updates throughout the text, significantly expand the scope of the original edition to bring it up-to-date with the modern teaching of semantics for introductory courses in linguistics as well as intermediate students.

Journal of Indian Philosophy, 1992

This practical coursebook introduces all the basics of semantics in a simple, step-bystep fashion. Each unit includes short sections of explanation with examples, followed by stimulating practice exercises to complete the book. Feedback and comment sections follow each exercise to enable students to monitor their progress. No previous background in semantics is assumed, as students begin by discovering the value and fascination of the subject and then move through all key topics in the field, including sense and reference, simple logic, word meaning, and interpersonal meaning. New study guides and exercises have been added to the end of each unit (with online answer key) to help reinforce and test learning. A completely new unit on non-literal language and metaphor, plus updates throughout the text, significantly expand the scope of the original edition to bring it up-to-date with the modern teaching of semantics for introductory courses in linguistics as well as intermediate students.

Philosophy Study , 2015

In this paper, I will focus on the debate between descriptivism and anti-descriptivism theory about proper names. In the introduction, I will propose an historical reconstruction of the debate, and focus in particular on Russell and Kripke's treatments of proper names. Strong criticisms will be advanced against Kripke's hypothesis of rigid-designator and, more clearly, against the consequent distinction between the epistemic and metaphysical level that Kripke proposes to explain identity assertions between proper names. Furthermore, I will argue, that, pace Kripke, Russellian treatment of proper names allows to capture all our semantic intuitions, and also those semantic interpretations which concern context-belief sentences. I will close the introduction by focusing on a criticism that Kripke rightly points out against an example that Russell proposes in his On Denoting. Section 2 will be devoted to Russellian solution: I will show that not only Russell's logical treatment of proper names allows to answer to Kripke's criticism to Russell's example, but also that such treatment can disambiguate and express all our semantic intuitions about Frege's puzzle sentence "Hesperus is Phosphorus." I will then show that, contrarily, Quinian solution (discussed in section 3) and Kripkian one (see section 4) are not satisfactory to capture our semantic knowledge about Frege's sentence. Furthermore, in section 5, I will focus on Kripke's distinction between epistemic and metaphysical level to deal with identity assertions between proper names, and I will logically show that such distinction is not plausible. In section 5, then, I will show that Russellian solution allows to explain context-belief sentences, contrarily to what Kripke thinks. In Conclusions, I will summarize what I have argued in the text.