The Experts below are selected from a list of 4044 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Edwin Williams - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Generative Semantics, Generative Morphosyntax
    Syntax, 2012
    Co-Authors: Edwin Williams
    Abstract:

    .  “GSGM” builds no syntactic structures; rather, Semantics and morphosyntax are both Generative and run in parallel, and so have no need of mediating syntactic structure. In this environment, positing different modes of embedding for NPs and clauses, as in Williams 2003, affords new minimal accounts of movement, scope, agreement, and the bounds on them. Syntax/morphosyntax is instantiated as a single parameterized function (“Combine”). Combine derives both mirroring and nonmirroring structure, as any theory must, but in distinctive “size-relative” patterns determined by its parameters.

Diego Gabriel Krivochen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • on trans derivational operations Generative Semantics and tree adjoining grammar
    Language Sciences, 2019
    Co-Authors: Diego Gabriel Krivochen
    Abstract:

    Abstract The possibility of formulating conditions that made reference to multiple derivations was a staple of early work in Generative Semantics. In this paper we explore the possibility of having constraints arise from the interaction between derivations in an extended Generative Semantics-type (GS) grammar. In GS syntactic operations apply to semantic material in phrase structure trees; in our extension, these operations can apply within and across derivations. To this end, we will appeal to Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAG; Joshi, 1985 and much subsequent work). The model we propose thus assumes two basic operations, which are the singulary and the generalized versions of a single compositional Generative operation. The singulary, tree-internal version is Predicate Raising, which ‘adjoins a predicate to the next higher predicate’ (McCawley, 1973a [1968]: 157); the generalized version is Adjoin, which ‘composes an auxiliary tree β with a tree γ’ (Joshi, 1985: 209), thus applying trans-derivationally. The empirical motivation for this expansion of Generative Semantics comes from the analysis of an apparently anomalous case of secondary predication in Spanish and English, which –we argue- shares properties with depictive and resultative constructions but in fact is neither.

Ray S Jackendoff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Generative vs interpretive Semantics
    2016
    Co-Authors: Ray S Jackendoff
    Abstract:

    This book is a polemic. It is intended to present one particular approach to the theory of Generative grammar, interpretivism, and to convince other linguists that their research should be done within this framework. The reader, therefore, must be cautious since this book is an attempt to sell something. This remark is not intended to cast dispersion on the integrity or scholarship of the author. Ray Jackendoff, one of the leading proponents of an interpretivist approach to the theory of grammar, states in the preface to this volume that it is his hope "that the publication of this material will stimulate further research and bring about a more widespread understanding of the interpretive theory." He also remarks in the preface that he is among a minority and that most people working on the problems to be discussed in the four hundred pages of this book have followed a course which has come to be known as Generative Semantics. In light of J's remarks in the preface, and in light of the historical controversy between the 'lexicalist interpretivists' (most notably Chomsky, Jackendoff, Akmajian, Emonds and Bresnan) and the 'Generative semanticists' (Ross, Postal, Lakoff, McCawley and many others), this book must be viewed as an attempt to convince other linguists that the formulation of semantic interpretation rules should be the thrust of linguistic research. The question that must be answered in a review of this book would seem to be "How good a job of salesmanship does Jackendoff do?"; in other words, "Is it convincing?". But the answer to this question seems to involve two separate determinations: (1) How well does J argue? Are his data correct, his scholarship good, his writing easy to follow, etc.? (2) Does he succeed? Does the reader finish the book convinced that the interpretive approach is correct? It is possible to have an affirmative answer for (1) and a negative answer for (2) or vice versa. Here lies my caution to the reader. J's writing is extremely clear and it is easy to follow his argumentation. He cites the work of many other linguists and he discusses alternative analyses of the data where he is aware of them. (Of course there is no foolproof way of determining an author's 'honesty', but with this book one gets the impression that J was extremely honest about acknowledging

John Goldsmith - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • on comparing linguistic theories further notes on the Generative Semantics interpretive Semantics debate in american linguistics
    Historiographia Linguistica, 1998
    Co-Authors: Geoffrey J. Huck, John Goldsmith
    Abstract:

    SUMMARYThe article examines several issues raised in recent critiques of Ideology and Linguistic Theory (Huck & Goldsmith 1995) and finds no reason either to reject or to revise the original conclusion that Interpretivist arguments purporting to establish the superiority of Interpretive Semantics over Generative Semantics were weak and were justifiably dismissed by proponents of the latter. It also briefly discusses the particular use of the term 'ideology' and its application in an analysis of linguistic thought.RESUMEL'article examine certaines questions soulevees dans les compte-rendus du livre Ideology and Linguistic Theory (Huck & Goldsmith 1995). Les auteurs n'y trouvent aucune raison de rejeter ou de reviser leur conclusion centrale, a savoir que les arguments interpretivistes qui visaient a etablir la superiorite de la Semantique Interpretive par rapport a la Semantique Generative etaient faibles, et que le rejet de ces arguments par les partisans de la Semantique Generative etait justifie. Ils discutent egalement brievement de leur usage particulier du terme 'ideologie' et de son role dans une analyse des theories linguistiques.ZUSAMMENFASUNGIn diesem Aufsatz werden verschiedene Kritikpunkte untersucht, die in Besprechungen des Buches Ideology and Linguistic Theory (Huck & Goldsmith 1995) erhoben wurden. Die Autoren legen dar, weshalb sie keinen Grund sehen, ihre ursprungliche Schlusfolgerung aufzugeben oder zu revidieren, derzufolge interpretivistische Argumente, die die Uberlegenheit der Interpretativen Semantik gegenuber der Generativen Semantik zeigen sollten, in der Tat schwach waren und zu Recht von Anhangern der letztereji zuruckgewiesen wurden. Die Autoren diskutieren auserdem kurz ihren besonderen Gebrauch des Begriffes 'Ideologic' und seine Anwendung in der Analyse linguistischen Denkens.

Seuren P. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Semantic syntax
    'Brill', 2018
    Co-Authors: Seuren P.
    Abstract:

    This book presents a detailed formal machinery for the conversion of the Semantic Analyses (SAs) of sentences into surface structures of English, French, German, Dutch, and to some extent Turkish. The SAs are propositional structures consisting of a predicate and one, two or three argument terms, some of which can themselves be propositional structures. The surface structures are specified up to, but not including, the morphology. The book is thus an implementation of the programme formulated first by Albert Sechehaye (1870-1946) and then, independently, by James McCawley (1938-1999) in the school of Generative Semantics. It is the first, and so far the only formally precise and empirically motivated machinery in existence converting meaning representations into sentences of natural languages