Content deleted Content added
removing a distinguish tag which I don't think is a likely confusion (though please correct me if I'm wrong) |
nor |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Research program in theoretical linguistics}}
{{More citations needed}}▼
{{distinguish|text = [[formal semantics (natural language)|semantics]] as practiced within the framework of [[generative grammar]], nor with [[general semantics]]}}
{{Multiple issues|
'''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 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".▼
▲{{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".
Generative semantics is no longer practiced under that name, though many of its central ideas have blossomed in the [[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 some of its insights live on in mainstream generative grammar. [[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.
==Interpretive
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]]. In the 1960s, work in the generative tradition assumed that semantics was ''interpretive'' in the sense that the meaning of a sentence was computed on the basis of its syntactic structure rather than the other way around. In these approaches, syntactic structures were generated by rules stated in terms of syntactic structure alone, with no reference to meaning. Once generated, these structures would serve as the input to a semantic computation which would output a denotation. This approach captured the relationship between syntactic and semantic patterns, while allowing the syntax to work independently of the semantics, as Chomsky and others had argued for on the basis of empirical observations such as the famous "[[
The generative semantics framework took the opposite view, positing that syntactic 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. 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 have different surface forms despite their identical truth conditions.{{ref|2}} Generative semanticists wanted to account for ''all'' cases of synonymity in a similar fashion, which proved to be a challenge given the tools available at the time. 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.]]
* [[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. 479–518).
* Katz, Jerrold J.; & Postal, Paul M. (1964). ''An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions''. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
| |||