Cover not available

In:Above and Beyond the Segments: Experimental linguistics and phonetics
Edited by Johanneke Caspers, Yiya Chen, Willemijn Heeren, Jos Pacilly, Niels O. Schiller and Ellen van Zanten
[Not in series 189] 2014
► pp. 60–70

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Meaningful grammar is binary, local, anti-symmetric, recursive and incomplete

 | Universiteit Leiden
Published online: 10 December 2014
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.189.05cre
Meaning is computed best in the context of explicit grammar. Automated grammar for parsing and generation is formal. Its representations and its architecture are determined by the interaction of form and meaning. Serious form and serious meaning, however, cannot be projected on each other. Therefore, the representations and techniques for automation of grammar had better be as strict as possible, to limit the degree of imprecision and to maximize the linguistic coverage. In this article, we identify five aspects of formal grammar that according to our experience with grammar-in-action are worth to be observed when targeting logical form. Three aspects concern rules and representations: binarity, antisymmetry and locality. Two aspects relate to the architecture of meaningful grammar: recursion and incompleteness.
References (11)
References
Chierchia, G., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (2000). Meaning and grammar. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1955). The logical structure of syntactic theory. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cremers, C., Hijzelendoorn, M., & Reckman, H. (2014). Meaning versus grammar: An inquiry into the computability of meaning and the incompleteness of grammar. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hald, L.A., Steenbeek-Planting, E.G., & Hagoort, P. (2007). The interaction of discourse context and world knowledge in online sentence processing: Evidence from the N400. Brain research, 1146, 201–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1978). Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1974). Formal grammars in linguistics and psycholinguistics. Volume One. The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Montague, R.M. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. InK. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes(Eds.), Approaches to natural languages (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J.R. (1968). Constraints on variables in syntax. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stabler, E. (1992). The logical approach to syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (1996). Surface structure and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ruijgrok, Bobby
2017. Chapter 1. Bridging theoretical and experimental linguistic research. In Crossroads Semantics, ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue