Nominalization and Montague Grammar: A semantics without types for natural languages

ConclusionsWe started from the fact that type theory, in the way it was implemented in IL, makes it costly to deal with nominalization processes. We have also argued that the type hierarchy as such doesn't play any real role in a grammar; the classification it provides for different semantic objects is already contained, in some sense, in the categorial structure of the grammar itself. So, on the basis of a theory of properties (Cocchiarella's HST*) we have tried to build a language (IL*) whose syntax does not contain any explicit typing of expressions. Some of the consequences that this move brings about in the overall organization of the grammar can be summarized as follows:(a)it allows for a simple treatment of infinitives, gerunds, factives and, in general, all those phenomena which might be analyzed as cases of nominalization;(b)it provides a simpler and more constrained semantics than IL, since IL* doesn't go beyond second order, and its non-modal basis is axiomatizable;(c)it suggests that the role of logical form in a theory of grammar could be that of a family of theories of semantic objects;(d)it eliminates the extrinsic limitations of a type hierarchy on the choice of the system of syntactic categories. I think that it is interesting to notice how having an explicit semantic framework helps to provide a sense in which it is legitimate to regard the syntax of a language as ‘autonomous’.

[1]  Nino B. Cocchiarella,et al.  The theory of homogeneous simple types as a second-order logic , 1979, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[2]  M. Siegel,et al.  CAPTURING THE RUSSIAN ADJECTIVE , 1976 .

[3]  Emmon Bach,et al.  In defense of passive , 1980 .

[4]  Michael Bennett,et al.  A VARIATION AND EXTENSION OF A MONTAGUE FRAGMENT OF ENGLISH , 1976 .

[5]  Alice G. B. ter Meulen,et al.  An intensional logic for mass terms , 1981 .

[6]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  A model theory for propositional attitudes , 1980 .

[7]  Emmon Bach.  Time, Tense, and Aspect: An Essay in English Metaphysics , 1981 .

[8]  David R. Dowty,et al.  Introduction to Montague semantics , 1980 .

[9]  N. Cocchiarella.  On the Logic of Natural Kinds , 1976, Philosophy of Science.

[10]  E. DeLaCruz.  FACTIVES AND PROPOSITION LEVEL CONSTRUCTIONS IN MONTAGUE GRAMMAR , 1976 .

[11]  John Carson Simms.  A realist semantics for Cocchiarella's T* , 1980, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[12]  N. Cocchiarella.  On the logic of nominalized predicates and its philosophical interpretations , 1978 .

[13]  N. Cocchiarella.  Sortals, Natural Kinds and Re-Identification , 1977 .

[14]  Max J. Cresswell,et al.  Logics and languages , 1973 .

[15]  Greg Carlson,et al.  A unified analysis of the English bare plural , 1977 .

[16]  Richard Montague,et al.  The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English , 1973 .

[17]  Richmond H. Thomason,et al.  A semantic theory of sortal incorrectness , 1972, J. Philos. Log..

[18]  George Bealer,et al.  Theories of properties, relations, and propositions , 1979 .

[19]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Remarks on Nominalization , 2020, Nominalization.

[20]  J. Bigelow,et al.  Believing in semantics , 1978 .

[21]  David R. Dowty.  MONTAGUE GRAMMAR AND THE LEXICAL DECOMPOSITION OF CAUSATIVE VERBS , 1976 .

[22]  Greg N. Carlson,et al.  Generics and atemporalwhen , 1979 .

[23]  George Lakoff,et al.  On Generative Semantics , 1969 .

[24]  Muffy Emily Ann Siegel,et al.  Capturing the adjective , 1976 .

[25]  Michael Ruisdael Bennett,et al.  Some extensions of a montague fragment of English , 1974 .

[26]  Marianne Mithun,et al.  Linguistics, Philosophy, and Montague Grammar , 1979 .