Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT: THEORY/CHAT: Re: Jackendoff's "Semantic (?) Structures"

From:Thomas R. Wier <trwier@...>
Date:Sunday, April 25, 2004, 5:35
From:    Jonathan Knibb <j_knibb@...>
> Is there any formal, qualitative difference between linguistic > semantics and other biological semiotic systems? For example, can > semantics be said to be generative (in and of itself, aside from its > relationship to syntax)?
Depends on exactly what you mean by "generative". Most theories do not now assume that there are functions like "BECOME" and "DO" and "CAUSE" having scope over semantic primitives like "be dead" (where CAUS[be dead]= "kill", while BECOME[be dead]= "die"). (However, cf. Van Valin and LaPolla 1997.) That is, "kill" and "die" are lexical atoms, and generative structures cannot peer inside. Many theories like Minimalism or some lexicalist theories like Autolexical grammar do assume that semantic structure broadly resembles syntax in both having tree structures (in MP, the same kinds of movement rules may apply at "Logical Form"; in Autolexical syntax, scopal differences are distinguished by mismatches between the syntactic and semantic module). Other lexical theories, like Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar or Lexical Functional grammar, assume entirely different structures of semantic and/or functional modules. It really depends entirely on the theory. ========================================================================= Thomas Wier "I find it useful to meet my subjects personally, Dept. of Linguistics because our secret police don't get it right University of Chicago half the time." -- octogenarian Sheikh Zayed of 1010 E. 59th Street Abu Dhabi, to a French reporter. Chicago, IL 60637