Semantic structure

1983 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Semantic Structure ◽  
Semantic Representations ◽  
Rival Theory ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Language Semantics ◽  
Semantic Models ◽  
Syntactic Derivation

In generative–transformational theories of language, semantics has always played handmaiden to syntax. For example, the extended standard theory (EST) has as its core a component of base phrase structure rules and a lexicon which supplies lexical items for the deep syntactic trees generated by the base rules; ‘semantic representations’ are created from these lexicalized P-markers at various stages of their syntactic derivation from deep to surface structure (Jackendoif, 1972: 4 ff.). Similarly, the semantic representations of a rival theory, generative semantics (GS), are taken from deep pre-lexical syntactic P-markers generated by base PS rules (McCawley, 1971). Both of these models reflect the historical roots of generative–transformational grammar, for at its inception, this theory provided only a model of syntax with no description of semantic structure (Chomsky, 1957). So it is natural, though not necessary, that linguists working in this tradition would construct their semantic models as outgrowths of the original syntactic core.

Separating phonology from syntax: a reanalysis of Pashto cliticization

1981 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ellen M. Kaisse
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Interface Model ◽  
Full Information ◽  
Phonological Processes ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Phonological Rule ◽  
Syntactic Derivation ◽  
Phonological Rules

I. A pervasive, though not always explicit assumption of transformational grammar has been that syntactic and phonological rules form separate, discrete units in the organization of grammar; that phonological rules are not ordered among syntactic transformations, but rather apply in a block at the end of the syntactic derivation.1 Chomsky and Halle (1968) go even further in this separation, arguing that the surface structure is not the immediate input to the phonological component, but first undergoes certain ‘readjustment rules’, such as insertion of word boundaries. I have argued elsewhere (Kaisse, 1977) that this added step is unnecessary, and that there are in fact certain inter-word phonological processes that require the full information present in the labeled bracketing of the surface structure. However, my proposal is not a radical departure from the standard theory, in that it remains an INTERFACE model, in line with that proposed in Pullum and Zwicky (to appear). The claim remains that all syntactic rules apply before all phonological rules. In the case of word-internal phonological rules this is perhaps not crucial, but for rules of external sandhi, it is very important, both empirically and theoretically. For if we give up the requirement that no phonological rule apply during a syntactic derivation, we greatly increase the power of our theory of grammar and give up the ability to predict on a universal basis, the order of application of two rules, one phonological and the other syntactic.

scholarly journals Levels of Representation and Semantic Interpretation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 01-15
Author(s):  
Howard Lasnik
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Semantic Interpretation ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Important Concern ◽  
Sentence Form ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Syntactic Derivation ◽  
Anaphoric Relations

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.

Generative Semantics 2: The Heresy

2021 ◽  
pp. 107-144
Author(s):  
Randy Allen Harris
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Natural Extension ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Linguistic Landscape ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
George Lakoff

This chapter examines how Generative Semantics, which had emerged from Transformational Grammar as part natural extension of, and part challenge to, Noam Chomsky’s work, became a full-blown heretical divergence with Chomsky’s 1967 “Remarks on Nominalization” lectures, in which he took his theory in countervailing directions. Generative Semanticists had extended syntactic derivations deeper, diminished the lexicon, and enriched the scope of transformations. The lectures emphasized Surface Structure semantics, enriched the lexicon, and diminished the role of transformations. They were also dismissive of specific Generative Semantic innovations, especially those of George Lakoff. Lakoff attended the lectures. Sparks flew. Chomsky and his new proposals fared poorly across the linguistic landscape, where Generative Semantics rapidly took hold, but his own students, Ray Jackendoff at the fore, were inspired by the new direction (known variously as “Lexicalism,” “Extended Standard Theory,” and, contrapuntally to the heresy, “Interpretive Semantics”).

Remarks on directionality

1972 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnold M. Zwicky
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Semantic Structure ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Structure Surface ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Way

In several recent articles the issue of directionality in transformational grammar has been treated, rather unsatisfactorily to my mind. The question is this: are the relationships among the various levels of grammatical description (semantic structure, deep structure, surface structure, phonetic structure) such that certain levels are descriptively prior to others? That is, is there an inherent ‘direction’ to the relationship between two levels of description (say deep structure and surface structure)? Recent treatments suggest that the question is pointless, or that the answer is no. I maintain that this impression results entirely from the way previous discussions have been worded, and that the issues have yet to be approached properly.

scholarly journals Antithesis and argument in the hymns of Ephrem the Syrian

1988 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Botha
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Semantic Structure ◽  
Church Father ◽  
Ephrem The Syrian

This paper reflects research on the semantic structure of antitheses. The thesis being proposed is that the defining quality of antitheses was implemented by the Syrian church father Ephrem as a rhetoric technique to enhance the power of arguments in his hymns. Examples are being investigated to explain the function of antitheses in the surface structure of some of his arguments.

scholarly journals A Brief Account of the Base Component of Transformational Generative Grammar

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmed M. S. Alduais
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Base Component ◽  
Recent Modification

Purpose: To briefly introduce base component of transformational generative grammar (TGG). Method: The study is mainly descriptive where previous and related studies are reviewed and presented to reach a view about the base component of TGG. Results: Base component serves as input to two basic elements of language which are semantic rules and deep structure. Semantic rules give semantic representation. Deep structure leads to transformational rules or transformations which again lead to surface structure. Conclusions: Base component has been introduced and modified in different stages under standard theory (ST) and then it has been modified to extended standard theory (EST). Later on and as a recent modification of this theory, it has been introduced in terms of what is known in nowadays as revised extended standard theory (REST).

Linguistics, Technical Writing, and Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Allen Harris
Keyword(s):  
Technical Writing ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Writing Pedagogy ◽  
Writing Classroom ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Writing Students ◽  
Recent Developments

Linguistics has been largely misunderstood in writing pedagogy. After Chomsky's revolution, it was widely touted as a panacea; now it is widely flogged as a pariah. Both attitudes are extreme. It has a number of applications in the writing classroom, and it is particularly ripe for technical writing students, who have more sophistication with formalism than their humanities counterparts. Moreover, although few scholars outside of linguistics are aware of it, Transformational Grammar is virtually obsolete; most grammatical models are organized around principled aversions to the transformation, and even Chomsky has little use for his most famous innovation these days. Among the more recent developments is Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, a model with distinct formal and pedagogical advantages over Chomsky's early transformational work.

Natural deduction and semantic models of justification logic in the proof assistant Coq

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesús Mauricio Andrade Guzmán ◽  
Francisco Hernández Quiroz
Keyword(s):  
Natural Deduction ◽  
Axiomatic Approach ◽  
Proof Assistant ◽  
Justification Logic ◽  
Possible World ◽  
Possible World Semantics ◽  
Language Semantics ◽  
Semantic Models

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to present a formalization of the language, semantics and axiomatization of justification logic in Coq. We present proofs in a natural deduction style derived from the axiomatic approach of justification logic. Additionally, we present possible world semantics in Coq based on Fitting models to formalize the semantic satisfaction of formulas. As an important result, with this implementation, it is possible to give a proof of soundness for $\mathsf{L}\mathsf{P}$ with respect to Fitting models.

Coordination and grammatical relations

1988 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Hudson
Keyword(s):  
Recent Work ◽  
Temporal Order ◽  
Syntactic Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure ◽  
Sentence Structure ◽  
Grammatical Structure ◽  
Phrase Structure Grammar ◽  
Transformational Grammar ◽  
Constituent Structure ◽  
Syntactic Features

The most serious recent work on the theory of coordination has probably been done in terms of three theories of grammatical structure: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG–see especially Gazdar, 1981; Gazdaret al., 1982; 1985; Saget al., 1985; Schachter & Mordechay, 1983), Categorial Grammar (CG–see especially Steedman, 1985; Dowty, 1985) and Transformational Grammar (TG–notably Williams, 1978, 1981; Neijt, 1979; van Oirsouw, 1985, 1987). Each of these approaches is different in important respects: for instance, according to whether or not they allow deletion rules, and according to the kinds of information which they allow to be encoded in syntactic features. However, behind these differences lies an important similarity: in each case the theory concerned makes two assumptions about grammatical structure in general (i.e. about all structures, including coordinate ones):I The basic syntagmatic relations in sentence-structure are part-whole relations (consituent structure) and temporal order; note that this is true whether or not syntactic structure is seen as a ‘projection’ of lexical properties, since these lexical properies are themselves defined in terms of constituent structure and temporal order.

Generative Grammar (GG)

2009 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-304
Author(s):  
Karim Nazari Bagha
Keyword(s):  
Surface Structure ◽  
Deep Structure ◽  
Semantic Representation ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Standard Theory ◽  
Semantic Component ◽  
Structure Surface ◽  
Phonetic Representation ◽  
Phonological Rules

This article consists of eight parts: introduction, the organization of a Generative Grammar, operation of the system of base rules, deep structure, surface structure and transformational rules, standard theory, extended standard theory, revised extended standard theory, and minimalism. According to Chomsky, the grammar of a language establishes a relationship between sound and meaning, i.e., between phonetic representation and semantic representation. To discover this grammar is the primary goal of linguistics. One of Chomsky's attempts to accomplish this goal is the standard theory grammar, which has been outlined in the article. We note that the grammar consists of three distinct components: the syntactic component, which consists of a Lexicon and two types of syntactic rules, the Base and the Transformational, the phonological component which consists of phonological rules, and the semantic component, which consists of Semantic rules.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document