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

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