Grammar and Meaning

The study of linguistic meaning is normally divided into three fields: lexical semantics, compositional semantics, and pragmatics. Lexical semantics studies the meanings of words and relations between these meanings, as well as how these meanings are realized grammatically (i.e., morphosyntactically). Compositional semantics studies how the meanings of larger grammatical units — phrases, sentences, discourses — are built out of the meanings of their parts. Pragmatics studies how speakers enrich meanings contextually and the relation between context and meaning. Each of these aspects of meaning is related to grammatical aspects of linguistic structure (morphology, syntax, prosody), although pragmatics generally displays weaker strictly grammatical effects than the other two aspects of meaning, for which the relationship with grammar is intrinsic. In this paper, I understand grammar to be a productive system that characterizes the well-formed (potentially) meaningful units of a language. I do not take a crucial stance on what the minimal meaningful units are or what the precise relationship is between morphology and syntax, but I will tacitly assume a form of strong lexicalism (Lapointe 1980), such that the minimal units of syntax are words. The terms ‘grammar’ and ‘meaning’ are themselves open to a variety of interpretations, but a thoroughgoing consideration is not possible in this paper. I assume here that ‘grammar’ refers to syntax and that ‘meaning’ refers, on the one hand, to a truth-conditional conception of compositional and lexical semantics and, on the other hand, to how meanings produced by the linguistic system (syntax and semantics) are enriched contextually with knowledge from outside the linguistic system by speakers and hearers (pragmatics). The distinction between these two different aspects of meaning should be obvious in what follows. These decisions reflect my own background and competence, but also the currently predominant viewpoint in theoretical linguistics (see, e.g., Partee 1995 for a lucid introductory presentation of this view of grammar and meaning from first principles). As such, this seems like a natural starting point for students and researchers wishing to find an overview and an entry point into the literature. Nevertheless, this means that various other perspectives are not represented here. For example, I do not review morphological contributions to lexical and compositional semantics (see, e.g., Hewson 1972, Bolinger 1977, Leech 2004). Nor do I review theories of lexical semantics and its interaction with compositional semantics which emphasize the cognitive/conceptual underpinnings of meaning, most prominently Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, 1991, 1999, 2008, Taylor, this volume). I similarly focus on a particular view of the relationship between lexicon and grammar that has received wide currency in various linguistic theories, but set aside other views (see, e.g., Duffley 2014, Jaszczolt 2016).

[1]  J. Sadock,et al.  Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts , 1975 .

[2]  Corien Bary,et al.  Temporal anaphora across and inside sentences: The function of participles , 2011 .

[3]  James Pustejovsky,et al.  The Generative Lexicon , 1995, CL.

[4]  Patrick Duffley Reclaiming Control as a Semantic and Pragmatic Phenomenon , 2014 .

[5]  Mark Steedman,et al.  On the order of words , 1982 .

[6]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[7]  Steven Guy Lapointe,et al.  A theory of grammatical agreement , 1980 .

[8]  Y. Bar-Hillel A Quasi-Arithmetical Notation for Syntactic Description , 1953 .

[9]  Milton Stephen Seegmiller,et al.  Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar , 1983 .

[10]  S. J. Keyser,et al.  Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure , 2002 .

[11]  Gianluca Giorgolo,et al.  Flexible Composition for Optional and Derived Arguments , 2012 .

[12]  Relevance: Communication and Cognition (Chinese Edition) , 2002 .

[13]  Mary Dalrymple,et al.  Lexical Functional Grammar , 2001 .

[14]  D. Holdcroft Expression and Meaning. , 1982 .

[15]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[16]  Peter Geach,et al.  Reference and Generality: An Examination of Some Medieval and Modern Theories , 1965 .

[17]  Terje Lohndal,et al.  Phrase Structure and Argument Structure: A Case Study of the Syntax-Semantics Interface , 2014 .

[18]  Barbara H. Partee,et al.  Lexical semantics and compositionality. , 1995 .

[19]  J. Stanley Context and Logical Form , 2000 .

[20]  Jamie Y. Findlay The prepositional passive: a lexical functional account , 2015 .

[21]  Laurence R. Horn,et al.  The handbook of pragmatics , 2004 .

[22]  Jeffrey Gruber Studies in lexical relations , 1965 .

[23]  Stephen Wechsler,et al.  Lexical approaches to argument structure , 2014 .

[24]  Gennaro Chierchia,et al.  Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics , 1990 .

[25]  L. Martí,et al.  Unarticulated Constituents Revisited , 2006 .

[26]  F. Guenthner Review: David R. Dowty, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ , 1983 .

[27]  Rob A. van der Sandt,et al.  Presupposition Projection as Anaphora Resolution , 1992, J. Semant..

[28]  Geoffrey Leech,et al.  Meaning and the English Verb , 1971 .

[29]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From Discourse to Logic - Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory , 1993, Studies in linguistics and philosophy.

[30]  Zoltán Gendler Szabó,et al.  Semantics vs. pragmatics , 2005 .

[31]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Information-based syntax and semantics , 1987 .

[32]  Arshia Asudeh,et al.  Resumption as resource management , 2004 .

[33]  A. Goldberg,et al.  The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions , 2004 .

[34]  Van Valin,et al.  Exploring the Syntax–Semantics Interface: List of abbreviations , 2005 .

[35]  Frederick J. Newmeyer,et al.  Linguistic Theory In America , 1980 .

[36]  Stefan Müller Flexible phrasal constructions, constituent structure and (cross-linguistic) generalizations: A discussion of template-based phrasal LFG approaches , 2016 .

[37]  C. Barker The Dynamics of Vagueness , 2002 .

[38]  Pauline Jacobson Towards a Variable-Free Semantics , 1999 .

[39]  Benjamin Russell,et al.  Against Grammatical Computation of Scalar Implicatures , 2006, J. Semant..

[40]  L. T. F. Gamut Intensional logic and logical grammar , 1991 .

[41]  C. Fillmore FRAME SEMANTICS AND THE NATURE OF LANGUAGE * , 1976 .

[42]  Glyn Morrill,et al.  Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs , 1994 .

[43]  S. Ariel,et al.  Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. , 1968 .

[44]  Ronald M. Kaplan,et al.  Lexical Functional Grammar A Formal System for Grammatical Representation , 2004 .

[45]  木村 和夫 Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[46]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[47]  J. Sadock Speech acts , 2007 .

[48]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Surface structure and interpretation , 1996, Linguistic inquiry.

[49]  Christopher Kennedy,et al.  Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates , 2005 .

[50]  Ronald M. Kaplan,et al.  The Formal Architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar , 1989, J. Inf. Sci. Eng..

[51]  H. Kamp A Theory of Truth and Semantic Representation , 2008 .

[52]  Dan Flickinger,et al.  Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction , 2005 .

[53]  D. Bolinger Meaning and form , 1979 .

[54]  J. Perry,et al.  Thought without Representation , 1986 .

[55]  B. Carpenter,et al.  Type-Logical Semantics , 1997 .

[56]  Stephen Wechsler Word Meaning and Syntax: Approaches to the Interface , 2015 .

[57]  Lulu Wang,et al.  Regularity and Idiomaticity in Chinese Separable Verbs , 2013, CLSW.

[58]  Richard Montague,et al.  ENGLISH AS A FORMAL LANGUAGE , 1975 .

[59]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[60]  Ash Asudeh,et al.  The Logic of Pronominal Resumption , 2012 .

[61]  O. Kiselyov Categorial Grammars , 2006 .

[62]  Edward L. Keenan,et al.  The Intensional Logic , 1985 .

[63]  Paul D. Elbourne Situations and individuals , 2005 .

[64]  Judith Degen,et al.  How Projective is Projective Content? Gradience in Projectivity and At-issueness , 2018, J. Semant..

[65]  Michael Franke,et al.  Quantity implicatures, exhaustive interpretation, and rational conversation , 2011 .

[66]  Irene Heim,et al.  Semantics in generative grammar , 1998 .

[67]  J. Toomasian The Case for the Case , 2016, Perfusion.

[68]  Christopher Potts The logic of conventional implicatures , 2004 .

[69]  Gisa Rauh Syntactic Categories: Their Identification and Description in Linguistic Theories , 2010 .