Generative semantics: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:09, 16 January 2021

Latest revision as of 04:17, 20 February 2024

(22 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Short description|Research program in theoretical linguistics}}

{{distinguish|General semantics}}

{{distinguish|text = [[formal semantics (natural language)|semantics]] as practiced within the framework of [[generative grammar]], nor with [[general semantics]]}}

'''Generative semantics''' is the name of a research program within [[linguistics]], initiated by the work of various early students of [[Noam Chomsky]]: [[John R. Ross]], [[Paul Postal]], and later [[James McCawley]]. [[George Lakoff]] and [[Pieter Seuren]] were also instrumental in developing and advocating the theory.{{ref|1}}

{{Multiple issues|

The approach developed out of [[transformational-generative grammar|transformational generative grammar]] in the mid-1960s, but stood largely apart from, and in opposition to, work by [[Noam Chomsky]] and his later students. This move led to a more abstract framework and lately to the abandonment of the notion of the [[context free language|CFG]] [[formal grammar]] induced [[deep structure]].

{{More citations needed|date=January 2021}}

{{Original research|date=December 2022}}

}}

'''Generative semantics''' was a research program in [[theoretical linguistics]] which held that [[syntax|syntactic structures]] are computed on the basis of [[meaning (linguistics)|meaning]]s rather than the other way around. Generative semantics developed out of [[transformational-generative grammar|transformational generative grammar]] in the mid-1960s, but stood in opposition to it. The period in which the two research programs coexisted was marked by intense and often personal clashes now known as the [[linguistics wars]]. Its proponents included [[John R. Ross|Haj Ross]], [[Paul Postal]], [[James McCawley]], and [[George Lakoff]], who dubbed themselves "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse".

AGenerative numbersemantics ofis ideasno fromlonger laterpracticed workunder inthat generativename, semanticsthough many of its central ideas have beenblossomed incorporatedin intothe [[cognitive linguistics]], tradition. It is also regarded as a key part of the intellectual heritage of [[head-driven phrase structure grammar]] (HPSG), and [[construction grammar]], and intosome of its insights live on in mainstream generative linguisticsgrammar. [[Pieter Seuren]] has developed a '''semantic syntax''' which is very close in spirit to the original generative semantics framework, which he played a role in developing.<ref>{{cite book|author=Newmeyer, Frederick, J.|title=Linguistic Theory in America|year=1986|publisher=Academic Press|edition=Second}} See p. 138.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Seuren |first1=Pieter |title=Essentials of Semantic Syntax: an Appetiser |journal=Cadernos de Linguística |date=28 January 2021 |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=01–20 |doi=10.25189/2675-4916.2021.V2.N1.ID290 |url=https://cadernos.abralin.org/index.php/cadernos/article/view/290 |access-date=27 March 2022|doi-access=free |hdl=21.11116/0000-0007-DAE7-F |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

=="Interpretive" vs.or "generative" semantics?==

The controversy surrounding generative semantics stemmed in part from the competition between two fundamentally different approaches to [[semantics]] within [[Transformational grammar|transformational]] [[Generative grammar|generative syntax]]. TheIn firstthe semantic1960s, theorieswork designedin tothe begenerative compatibletradition withassumed transformationalthat syntaxsemantics werewas ''interpretive''. Syntacticin rulesthe enumeratedsense that the meaning of a setsentence was computed on the basis of well-formedits sentencessyntactic pairedstructure withrather than the other way around. In these approaches, syntactic structures, eachwere generated by rules stated in terms of whichsyntactic wasstructure assignedalone, anwith ''interpretation''no byreference to meaning. Once generated, these structures would serve as the rulesinput ofto a separate semantic theorycomputation which would output a denotation. This leftapproach syntaxcaptured relativelythe (thoughrelationship bybetween nosyntactic meansand entirely)semantic "autonomous"patterns, withwhile respectallowing the syntax to work independently of the semantics, as Chomsky and wasothers had argued for on the approachbasis preferredof byempirical Chomskyobservations such as the famous "[[colorless green ideas sleep furiously]]" sentence.

In contrast,The generative semanticistssemantics arguedframework took the opposite view, positing that interpretationssyntactic structures are computed on the basis of meanings. In this approach, meanings were generated directly by the grammar as [[Deep structure and surface structure|deep structures]], and were subsequently transformed into recognizable sentences by transformations. This approach necessitated more complex underlying structures than those proposed by Chomsky, and thus more complex transformations as a consequence. Despite this additional complexity, the approach was appealing in several respects. First, it offered a powerful mechanism for explaining synonymity. In his initial work in generative syntax, Chomsky motivated transformations using [[active voice|active]]/[[passive voice|passive]] pairs such as "I hit John" and "John was hit by me", which despitehave theirdifferent identicalsurface meaningsforms havedespite quitetheir differentidentical surfacetruth formsconditions.{{ref|2}} Generative semanticists wanted to account for ''all'' cases of synonymity in a similar fashion—anfashion, impressivelywhich ambitiousproved goalto beforebe thea adventchallenge ofgiven morethe sophisticatedtools interpretiveavailable theories inat the 1970stime. Second, the theory had a pleasingly intuitive structure: the form of a sentence was quite literally ''derived'' from its meaning via transformations. To some, interpretive semantics seemed rather "clunky" and ''ad hoc'' in comparison. This was especially so before the development of [[trace (linguistics)|trace theory]].

Despite its opposition to generative grammar, the generative semantics project operated largely in Chomskyan terms. Most importantly, the generative semanticists, following Chomsky, were opposed to [[behaviorism]] and accepted his idea that language is [[Language acquisition|acquired]] and not learned.<ref>{{cite book | url=https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-linguistics-wars-9780199740338 | isbn=978-0-19-974033-8 | title=The Linguistics Wars: Chomsky, Lakoff, and the Battle over Deep Structure | date=15 October 2021 | publisher=Oxford University Press }}</ref> Chomsky and Lakoff were united by their opposition to the establishment of [[Formal semantics (natural language)|formal semantics]] in the 1970s.<ref name="Partee">{{cite book |last=Partee |first=Barbara |title=The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication |publisher=BIYCLC |year=2011 |volume=6 |pages=1–52 |chapter=Formal Semantics: Origins, Issues, Early Impact |doi=10.4148/biyclc.v6i0.1580}}</ref> The notion that meaning generates grammar is itself old and fundamental to the [[Port-Royal Grammar]] (1660), [[Ferdinand de Saussure|Saussure's]] [[Course in General Linguistics]] (1916), and [[Lucien Tesnière|Tesnière's]] [[dependency grammar]] (1957) among others. By contrast, generative semantics was faced with the problem of explaining the emergence of meaning in [[Neuroscience|neuro-biological]] rather than social and rational terms. This problem was solved in the 1980s by Lakoff in his version of [[Cognitive linguistics#Cognitive Linguistics (linguistics framework)|Cognitive Linguistics]], according to which language generates through [[sensory experience]]. Thus, engaging with the physical world provides the person with [[Visual system|visual]], [[Somatosensory system|tactile]] and other sensory input, which crystallizes into language in the form of [[Conceptual metaphor|conceptual metaphors]], organizing [[rational thinking]].<ref name="Lakoff_1990">{{cite journal |last=Lakoff |first=George |date=1990 |title=Invariance hypothesis: is abstract reasoning based on image-schemas? |journal=Cognitive Linguistics |volume=1 |issue=1 |pages=39–74 |doi=10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39 |s2cid=144380802}}</ref> Such a view of the mind has not been fully approved by neuroscientists.<ref name="Freeman">{{Cite journal |last=Freeman |first=Jeremy |year=2008 |title=Mind Games |url=https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/books/mind-games-1.233084 |volume=9 |issue=Jul 03}}</ref>

==Notes==

Line 19 ⟶ 25:

*[[Cognitive revolution]]

*[[Generative linguistics]]

*[[Minimal recursion semantics]]

*[[Origin of language]]

*[[Origin of speech]]

*[[Minimal recursion semantics]]

==References ==

Line 35 ⟶ 41:

* [[Jerry A. Fodor|Fodor, Jerry A.]]; & [[Jerrold J. Katz|Katz, Jerrold J.]] (Eds.). (1964). ''The structure of language''. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

* [[Randy Allen Harris|Harris, Randy Allen]]. (1995). ''The linguistics wars''. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0-19-509834-X}}.

* [[Geoffrey J. Huck|Huck, Geoffrey J.]]; & [[John Goldsmith (linguist)|Goldsmith, John A.]]. (1995). ''Ideology and Linguistic Theory: Noam Chomsky and the deep structure debates''. New York: Routledge.

* [[Jerrold J. Katz|Katz, Jerrold J.]]; & Fodor, Jerry A. (1964). The structure of a semantic theory. In J. A. Fodor & J. J. Katz (Eds.) (pp.&nbsp;479–518).

* Katz, Jerrold J.; & Postal, Paul M. (1964). ''An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions''. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.