On the correspondence between semantics and syntax

One way of classifying semantic theories and descriptions is according to the distance that exists between them and the system of grammar. On the one hand we encounter theories and descriptions that use primitives that are very close to the system of grammar. On the other hand there are theories and descriptions that do not allow a well-defined relationship between their primitives and the grammar. These two cases are the extremes of a line expressing the distance between grammar and semantic primitives. (1) (see paper) The diagram in (1) basically reflects a distinction made in Hjelmslev's Prolegomenes. The line expresses the difference between sense and contents. Contents is that aspect of linguistic semantics that plays a role in an area very close to the grammar, which is on the left end of our line; sense is the aspect of semantics that is less close to the grammar and the term can be used to describe the semantics on the right hand side of the line in (1). Analyses of anaphora binding and quantifier scope can be placed on the left end. Many researchers active in these domains of research use the system of grammar to structure their analyses. One only has to think of the structural conditions on the semantic interpretation of anaphors and quantifiers such as those formulated in the Government and Binding framework. Studies done on argument structures in lexical frameworks such as Grimshaw (1990) can be placed at the right end of this line. Also studies done in conceptual semantics such as the theories proposed in the work of Jackendoff can be placed here. These studies do not use data pertinent to the system of grammar as rigidly as studies on anaphora or quantifiers. The purpose of this presentation is to explain the difference between the two kinds of relationships between grammar and semantics and to show why analyses that attempt to use data from the system of grammar in order to formulate their primitives are to be preferred.