Content deleted Content added
nor |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Research program in theoretical linguistics}}
{{distinguish|text = [[formal semantics (natural language)|semantics]] as practiced within the framework of [[generative grammar]], nor with [[general semantics]]}}
{{Multiple issues|
Line 8:
'''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.<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
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 "[[colorless green ideas sleep furiously]]" sentence.
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>
==Notes==
{{note|1}} There is little agreement concerning the question of whose idea generative semantics was. All of the people mentioned here have been credited with its invention (often by each other). <!-- Will add reference to RAH's "The Linguistics Wars when I get a chance. -->
Line 24 ⟶ 25:
*[[Cognitive revolution]]
*[[Generative linguistics]]
*[[Minimal recursion semantics]]▼
*[[Origin of language]]
*[[Origin of speech]]
▲*[[Minimal recursion semantics]]
==References ==
| |||