1 / 26

Linguistic Theory

Linguistic Theory. Lecture 8 Meaning and Grammar. A brief history. In classical and traditional grammar not much distinction was made between grammar and meaning: Word categories (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) and syntactic functions (subject, object, etc.) were defined in semantic terms

winola
Download Presentation

Linguistic Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Linguistic Theory Lecture 8 Meaning and Grammar

  2. A brief history • In classical and traditional grammar not much distinction was made between grammar and meaning: • Word categories (noun, verb, adjective, etc.) and syntactic functions (subject, object, etc.) were defined in semantic terms • In American structuralism meaning was shunned as it was not observable • In Generative grammar, meaning was considered relevant, but separate from grammar

  3. The generative position • Grammaticality and ‘semanticality’ are not the same thing: • Colourless green ideas sleep furiously • * Furiously sleep ideas green colourless • Grammatical facts have semantic consequences because semantics ‘interprets’ what syntax provides:

  4. The generative position Syntax  structure  Semantics (produces) (interprets)

  5. Problems • How do we know what are syntactic facts and what are semantic facts? • E.g. ‘selectional restrictions’ • Sincerity frightens John • John frightens sincerity • Is the oddity of the second sentence a syntactic or semantic fact? • It depends on your theory – we do not have reliable intuitions about this.

  6. How do grammar and meaning interact? • An early theory was that transformations do not change meaning (Katz Postal Hypothesis) • This lead to the idea that meaning was associated with Deep Structure, while Surface Structure was associated with phonology:

  7. How do grammar and meaning interact? • Deep Structure meaning transformations Surface Structure phonology

  8. How do grammar and meaning interact? • But this is problematic as there are certain surface structure facts that influence meaning: • It seems to John that he is smart • He1 seems to John [ t1 to be smart] • John believes the king of France is bald • The king of France1 is believed [t1 to be bald]

  9. How do grammar and meaning interact? • So it seems that the situation should be: • Deep Structure meaning transformations Surface Structure phonology • But what is the nature of D-structure and S-structure meaning?

  10. Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure • In 1965 Chomsky proposed to account for the oddity of ‘John frightens sincerity’ through a lexical property (=selectional restriction): • Frighten: sentient object • These restrictions apply at D-structure: • * John frightens sincerity • * sincerity is frightened by John

  11. Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure • In 1967 Fillmore proposed a limited set of ‘cases’ which play a role in determining the interpretation of elements accompanying verbs:

  12. Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure • Agentive (perceived instigator of an action): John broke the window • Instrumental (object used to put into effect an action): the stone broke the window • Dative (affected object): the window broke • Factive (resulting object): bake a cake • Locative (place at, also to): put the pen on the table, went to London • Objective (dustbin category)

  13. Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure • These roles were stated in the verb’s lexical entry, restricting the contexts which they can be used: • Break: [(A) (I) D] • John broke the window • John broke the window with a brick • The brick broke the window • The window broke • Case hierarchy – determines what will be subject • A > I > D

  14. Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure • These ideas transformed into ‘theta theory’ in GB syntax (1981) • ‘theta’ = thematic = semantic relations between predicates and their arguments (who does what to who)

  15. Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure • Theta theory operated with a set of theta roles (agent, experiencer, goal, theme, patient, etc.) • Theta roles are stated in a predicate’s lexical entry but assigned to elements in certain positions • John hit Bill agent patient • But: • No one agrees on how many or what the definitions of these roles are • There is disagreement over how involved in syntax they are

  16. Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure • A theory of minimal involvement: • The theta criterion • All theta roles must be assigned to an argument • All arguments must be assigned a theta role • * John hit (not enough arguments) • * John smiled Mary (not enough theta roles) • Theta roles are assigned to governed positions

  17. Aspect of meaning associated with D-structure • But this theory cannot account for why subjects tend to be agents not patients • For this you seem to need to refer to specific theta roles • Solutions • Grimshaw: specific theta roles play a role in determining the ‘prominence’ of an argument • Hale and Keyser: the lexicon stores argument structure as sub-trees so the positions of arguments are given in the lexicon

  18. Aspects of meaning associated with S-structure • Binding relations: • John1 seems to himself1 [t1 to be smart] • * it seems to himself1 [that John1 is smart] • It seems to John1 [that he1 is smart] • * he1 seems to John1 [t1 to be smart] • These relations seem to be established after movement and therefore do not apply at D-structure but at S-structure

  19. Aspects of meaning associated with S-structure • Binding relations: • But there are problems: • [Which picture of himself1]2 did Mary say John1 thinks Susan likes t2 • At S-structure the reflexive is not in a position where it can be properly bound by John • --- Mary (did) say John1 thinks Susan likes [Which picture of himself1] • At D-structure the reflexive is not in a position where it can be properly bound by John • So where are binding relations established?

  20. Aspects of meaning associated with S-structure • Binding relations: • Due to restrictions on movement, the wh-phrase cannot move in one go, but moves to the beginning of each clause • wh-P1 did Mary say [t1 John believes [t1 Susan likes t1]]] • In one of the intermediate positions it is in the relevant relation with John • But these are neither D- or S-structure positions

  21. A new level of representation • The following sentence is ambiguous: • Every man loves a woman • For every man there is a woman (a different one) who he loves • There is a woman (the same one) and every man loves her • In some languages these meanings are associated with different sentences: • Minden férfiszeret egy nőt • Egy nőt minden férfi szeret • It is not accident that the quantified phrase at the beginning is interpreted like this (see English examples too)

  22. A new level of representation • It has been proposed that these quantified expressions undergo a movement to the front of the clause and their order determines the interpretation: • Every man1 a woman2 [t1 loves t2] • A woman1 every man2 [t2 loves t1] • But where does this movement take place and why can’t we see it (in English)

  23. A new level of representation • Suppose there is another level of representation after S-structure which is associated with semantic interpretation = Logical Form • Suppose S-structure feeds phonological interpretation = Phonological Form

  24. A new level of representation • D-structure movement S-structure LF PF

  25. A new level of representation • Any movement that takes place between S-structure and LF will not affect PF, but will affect meaning • Therefore we have semantically motivated but phonologically invisible movement

  26. A new level of representation • This helps to unify languages even more • Chinese does not have (overt) wh-movement • But the Chinese can still ask questions • Thus we either assume that asking questions in Chinese involves a very different process • Or we assume that Chinese does have wh-movement, but only at LF

More Related