from structure to interpretation corregido

8/13/2019 From Structure to Interpretation Corregido

1/13

5 From Structure to Interpretation0 Aim and scope of this chapterThis chapter establishes a link between the domain of syntax and that of semantics: we examine some of theinterpretive aspects of syntax !e will try to establish relations between structure on the one hand andmeanin" on the otherIn the course of the discussion we will postulate that in addition to #$structured and S$structure% sentences areassociated with a level of representation called &o"ical Form '(F) This level was initially conceived torepresent interpretive properties of *uantifiers +owever% by extendin" the concept it will be shown that thelevel of &o"ical Form is also relevant for the study of lan"ua"e typolo"ies

This chapter is perhaps sli"htly more theoretical and less descriptive than the previous chapters It shows how%startin" from empirical ar"uments% the lin"uist can proceed to formulatin" more abstract concepts and models

( Introduction: syntax and interpretation(( Interpretation and semanticsIn very broad terms% the study of semantics involves the relation between the propositional content of asentence and the world The notion ,world, has to be interpreted as meanin" the discourse world in which thespeaker is locatedA declarative sentence such as '(a) contains a proposition or a claim about a state of affairs in the world:

'() a -ary invited Thelma.nderstandin" '(a) boils down to knowin" the circumstances under which its propositional claim is true or

false% '(a) is true if and only if the followin" conditions 'at least) obtain: there is a person called -ary andthere is another person called Thelma% and there is a relation of invitin" between -ary and Thelma% in which-ary is the A/1T of the invitation and Thelma is the 2ATI1T The passive sentence '(b) is true underthe same conditions as '(a) !e can say that '(a) and '(b) have the same truth conditions

'() b Thelma was invited by -aryIf meanin" were to be defined solely in terms of truth conditions then we mi"ht say that% thou"h structurallydifferent% '(a) and '(b) ,mean the same thin", +owever% the reader may well feel that this conclusion is notwarranted and that there are interpretive differences between '(a) and '(b) For instance% it could be felt that'(a) is a sentence about -ary and that '(b) is a sentence about Thelma !e return to this point presentlyAs seen above% semantics concerns the relation between a sentence and the world Semantics is alsoconcerned with the relation between propositions For instance% we can say that the proposition expressed by'(a) and that expressed by '(b) have the same truth conditions 3n the other hand% the proposition expressed

by '(a) and that expressed by '(c) are contradictory

'() c -ary did not invite ThelmaThere is no discourse world in which sentence '(a) and sentence '(c) can be simultaneously true The

proposition expressed by sentence '(d) can also be related to sentences '(a) and '(b):

'() d Thelma was invited4learly '(a) and '(d) are not paraphrases of each other: '(d) may be true while '(a) is false For '(d) to betrue it is sufficient that there be a person called Thelma% and that there be a relation of invitin" between someunmentioned person and Thelma% in which Thelma is the 2ATI1T of the invitation '(d) does not re*uirethat there be a person called -ary and that -ary is the A/1T In '(a) the A/1T of the invitation isspecified as -ary +owever% observe that whenever '(a) is true% '(d) is also true 2roposition '(d) can be

inferred from '(a)% or% puttin" it differently% '(a) entails '(d) !e can present entailment as in '(e):

'() e la67ld6Since '(a) and '(b) have the same meanin"% '(b) also entails '(d):

'() f lb6 7 ld63bserve that the reverse does not hold: '(d) does not entail '(a)% for instance

(8 Structure and interpretationIn this chapter we examine the relations between "rammatical structure and interpretation !e will not

provide an exhaustive description of the interpretive aspects of the syntactic representations we haveelaborated% but we will concentrate on a few of them In this section we introduce some "eneral concepts for

meanin" and structure In sections 8 and 9 we turn to some more concrete aspects of the interpretation ofsentences Section 8 concerns the interpretation of functional nodes section 9 concerns the interpretation ofoperators such as *uantifiers and wh$phrases

(9 4ompositionality(9( The interpretation of the sentence is a function of its parts


2/13

&an"ua"e is a means of communication that is% there is a relation between a form in a lan"ua"e and aninterpretation% a meanin" 4onsider sentence '8a)% with the structure in '8b):

'8) a -ary will invite Thelma

Sentence meanin" is compositional: the meanin" of the sentence is determined by its constituents and therelations between them The meanin" of '8a) contains a number of components which we can relate toelements of the structure:

'8) c Interpretive elements of '8b)

Structure Interpretation;: invite there is an action of invitin"AGENT involvin" an A/1TPATIENT#2%; and a 2ATI1TThelma #2%;26 the 2ATI1T is the referent of the #2

ThelmaMaryT: the A/1T is the referent of the #2Marywill the action is situated in the future4 $!+6 the proposition is presented as true

The meanin" of sentence '8a) is determined by the words it contains% but not solely by the words The meanin" of a sentence is also

determined by the relations between the words For instance% '8d) contains the same words as '8a) but its meanin" is different:

'8) d 42c$!+6 I2Thelma will ;2invite -ary666

e Interpretive elements of '8d)Structure Interpretation

;: invite there is an action of invitin"

A/1T involvin" an A/1T2ATI1T#2%;6

and a 2ATI1T

-ary #2%;26 the 2ATI1T is the referent of the #2 -aryThelma the A/1T is the referent of the #2 ThelmaT: will the action is situated in the future4 $!+6 the proposition is presented as true

'8f) also contains the same words as '8a) but a"ain its meanin" differs:(2) f. Will -ary invite Thelmaation of the sentence leads to a rearran"ement of constituents in which the #2 the ice

becomes the "rammatical sub?ect .nder passivi>ation% both readin"s of '9c) are retained:

'G) c The ice was broken by Cohn

Similarly% when the idiomatic expression break the ice is the ;2 of a non$finite clause% then the ob?ect #2 theice can under"o passivi>ation and raise into a hi"her clause:

'G) d The ice seems to have been broken already

'Gd) retains the two interpretationsThe interpretation of idiomatic expressions is not fully predictable from the interpretation of theircomponents 1or is the effect of syntactic operations on the idiomatic readin"s fully predictable'Ha) has two interpretations: one a literal% fully compositional% interpretation% in which there is a past act ofkickin" involvin" -ary as an A/1T and an ob?ect% the bucket% as a 2ATI1T and a second% idiomatic%readin" in which the expression kick the b"cket is not interpreted compositionally and means ,die,

'H) a -ary kicked the bucketb Interpretive elements of 'Ha): literal interpretation

Structure Interpretation;: kick there is an action of kickin"A/1T involvin" an A/1T

2ATI1T#2;6

and a 2ATI1T

the b"cket#2;26 the 2ATI1T is the referent of the #2 theb"cket

Mary the A/1T is the referent of the #2MaryT:past the action is situated in the past4 $wh6 the proposition is presented as true

c Interpretive elements of 'Ha): idiomatic interpretation#tr"ct"re $nter pretationV: kick the b"cket there is an action o% 'kickin& the b"cket'

PT$()T[DP*VP

]

involvin& a PT$()T

Mary the PT$()T is the re%erent o% the DP MaryT: past the action is sit"ated in the past + [wh] the proposition is presented as tr"e


6/13


7/13

Thelma #2;26 the 2ATI1T is the referent of the #2Thelma

-ary#26 the A/1T is the referent of the #2 -ary&ouise

from structure to interpretation corregido

Documents