Generative semantics: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 09:36, 21 May 2015

Latest revision as of 04:17, 20 February 2024

(36 intermediate revisions by 24 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]]}}

{{Multiple issues|

'''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]] was also instrumental in developing and advocating the theory.{{ref|1}}

{{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.<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>

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]].

==&ldquo;Interpretive&rdquo; vs.or &ldquo;generative&rdquo; semantics?==

A number of ideas from later work in generative semantics have been incorporated into [[cognitive linguistics]], [[Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar]] (HPSG), [[Construction Grammar]], and into mainstream Chomskyan linguistics.<ref>{{cite book|author=Newmeyer, Frederick, J.|title=Linguistic Theory in America (Second Edition)|year=1986|publisher=Academic Press}} See p. 138.</ref>

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.

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]].

== History ==

The nature and genesis of the program are a matter of some controversy and have been extensively debated. Generative semanticists took Chomsky's concept of [[Deep Structure]] and ran with it, assuming (contrary to later work by Chomsky and [[Ray Jackendoff]]) that deep structures were the sole input to [[semantics|semantic interpretation]]. This assumption, combined with a tendency to consider a wider range of empirical evidence than Chomskyan linguists, led generative semanticists to develop considerably more abstract and complex theories of deep structure than those advocated by Chomsky and his students—and indeed to abandon altogether the notion of "deep structure" as a locus of lexical insertion.

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>

Throughout the late 1960s and 1970s, there were heated debates between generative semanticists and more orthodox Chomskyans. The generative semanticists lost the debate, insofar as their research program ground to a halt by the 1980s. However, this was in part because the interests of key generative semanticists such as [[George Lakoff]] had gradually shifted away from the narrow study of [[syntax]] and [[semantics]].

==&ldquo;Interpretive&rdquo; vs. &ldquo;generative&rdquo; semantics==

The controversy surrounding generative semantics stemmed in part from the competition between two fundamentally different approaches to [[semantics]] within transformational generative syntax. The first semantic theories designed to be compatible with transformational syntax were ''interpretive''. Syntactic rules enumerated a set of well-formed sentences paired with syntactic structures, each of which was assigned an ''interpretation'' by the rules of a separate semantic theory. This left syntax relatively (though by no means entirely) "autonomous" with respect to semantics, and was the approach preferred by Chomsky.

In contrast, generative semanticists argued that interpretations were generated directly by the grammar as deep structures, and were subsequently transformed into recognizable sentences by transformations. This approach necessitated more complex underlying structures than those proposed by Chomsky, and 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/passive pairs such as "I hit John" and "John was hit by me", which despite their identical meanings have quite different surface forms.{{ref|2}} Generative semanticists wanted to account for ''all'' cases of synonymity in a similar fashion—an impressively ambitious goal before the advent of more sophisticated interpretive theories in the 1970s. 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]].

==Notes==

Line 25:

*[[Cognitive revolution]]

*[[Generative linguistics]]

*[[Minimal recursion semantics]]

*[[Origin of language]]

*[[Origin of speech]]

*[[Recursion]]

==References ==

Line 33:

== Bibliography ==

* [[Michael K. Brame|Brame, Michael K.]] (1976). ''Conjectures and refutations in syntax and semantics''. New York: North-Holland Pub. Co. {{ISBN |0-7204-8604-1}}.

* Chomsky (1957). ''[[Syntactic structuresStructures]]''. The Hague: Mouton.

* Chomsky (1965). ''[[Aspects of the theoryTheory of syntaxSyntax]]''. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

* Chomsky (1965). ''Cartesian linguistics''. New York: Harper and Row.

* [[Ray C. Dougherty|Dougherty, Ray C.]] (1974). Generative semantics methods: A Bloomfieldian counterrevolution. ''International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics'', ''3'', 255-286.

* Dougherty, Ray C. (1975). Reply to the critics on the Bloomfieldian counterrevolution. ''International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics'', ''4'', 249-271.

* [[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.

* [[George Lakoff|Lakoff, George]]. (1971). On generative semantics. In D. D. Steinberg & L. A. Jakobovits (Eds.), ''Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology'' (pp.&nbsp;232–296). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

* Lakoff, George. (1976 [1963]). [https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt64m2z2b1/qt64m2z2b1.pdf Toward generative semantics]. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.) (pp.&nbsp;43–61).

* Lakoff, George; & Ross, John R. [Háj]. (1976). Is deep structure necessary?. In J. D. McCawley (Ed.), ''Syntax and semantics 7'' (pp.&nbsp;159–164).

* [[James D. McCawley|McCawley, James D.]] (1975). Discussion of Ray C. Dougherty's "Generative semantics methods: A Bloomfieldian counterrevolution". ''International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics'', ''4'', 151-158.

Line 53:

* [[Paul M. Postal|Postal, Paul M.]] (1972). The best theory. In S. Peters (Ed.), ''Goals of linguistic theory''. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

* [[John R. Ross|Ross, John R.]] (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Free copy available at http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15166. (Published as Ross 1986).

* Ross, John R. (1986). ''Infinite syntax!''. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX, {{ISBN |0-89391-042-2}}.

* Ross, John R. [Háj]. (1970). On declarative sentences. In R. A. Jacobs & P. S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), ''Readings in English transformational grammar'' (pp.&nbsp;222–272). Washington: Georgetown University Press.

* Ross, John R. [Háj]. (1972). Doubl-ing. In J. Kimball (Ed.), ''Syntax and semantics'' (Vol. 1, pp.&nbsp;157–186). New York: Seminar Press.

* [[Pieter A. M. Seuren|Seuren, Pieter A. M.]] (1974). ''Semantic syntax''. Oxford: Oxford University Press. {{ISBN |0-19-875028-5}}.

[[Category:Generative linguistics]]