Content deleted Content added
Added {{Original research}} tag |
→Interpretive semantics and generative semantics: CS and behaviorism |
||
Line 14:
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 were likewise opposed to [[behaviorism]], advocating the idea that language is [[Language acquisition|acquired]] and not learned.<ref><cite>https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-linguistics-wars-9780199740338</cite></ref> The notion that meaning generates grammar is itself old and is 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==
| |||