Abstract

The nature of the relationship between sentence form and meaning has been an important concern in generative grammar from the inception of the program. Chomsky (1955) raised the question of whether transformations preserve meaning. The suggested answer was negative at that time, and the locus of interpretation was the T-marker, the entire derivational history. In the standard theory of Chomsky (1965), it was proposed, based on work of Katz, Fodor, and Postal, that Deep Structure, a level newly proposed in that work, is the locus of semantic interpretation, though it was acknowledged that quantifiers raise certain difficulties. Those difficulties, along with similar ones involving anaphoric relations, led to the Extended Standard Theory, where Deep and Surface Structure jointly input interpretation, and soon, with the advent of traces, Surface Structure alone. In subsequent models within the GB framework, the derived syntactic level of LF becomes the sole locus of interpretation. Finally, in more recent Minimalist Chomskyan work, there is argued to be no one level of LF; rather, semantic interpretation is interspersed among cyclic steps of the syntactic derivation, reminiscent of the LSLT proposal, though more restricted, and very similar to proposals of Jackendoff and Lasnik in the 1970's. I will try to sort through the motivations for these changes, focusing especially on the problem of quantifier interpretation.

Highlights

  • While the overwhelming majority of Chomsky’s work in linguistics has centered on syntactic theory, from the earliest days he has been deeply concerned with phonology, semantics, and the connections between them and syntax

  • We find a clear indication of the importance Chomsky ascribed to the connection between syntax and semantics already in Chomsky (1957), where the notion ‘linguistic level [of representation]’ is crucial: What we are suggesting is that the notion of ‘understanding a sentence’ be explained in part in terms of the notion of ‘linguistic level’

  • It is first necessary to reconstruct its analysis on each linguistic level; and we can test the adequacy of a given set of abstract linguistic levels by asking whether or not grammars formulated in terms of these levels enable us to provide a satisfactory analysis of the notion of ‘understanding’. (CHOMSKY, 1957, p. 87)

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

While the overwhelming majority of Chomsky’s work in linguistics has centered on syntactic theory, from the earliest days he has been deeply concerned with phonology, semantics, and the connections between them and syntax. In this brief note, I will be concerned with the syntax-semantics interface and Chomsky’s proposals about the nature of that interface. We find a clear indication of the importance Chomsky ascribed to the connection between syntax and semantics already in Chomsky (1957), where the notion ‘linguistic level [of representation]’ is crucial: What we are suggesting is that the notion of ‘understanding a sentence’ be explained in part in terms of the notion of ‘linguistic level’. The question is exactly how levels of representation provide suitable input to semantic interpretation

T-MARKER AS LOCUS OF INTERPRETATION
DEEP STRUCTURE AS LOCUS OF INTERPRETATION
DEEP STRUCTURE AND SURFACE STRUCTURE AS THE LOCUS OF INTERPRETATION
AN EMPIRICAL DIFFICULTY
TOWARDS A THEORY?
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call