Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 1
  • Online publication date: March 2017

A context principle

Summary

Abstract. Starting from any language provided with sentence meanings and a grammar, and using the principle that the meaning of a phrase is what it contributes to the meanings of sentences containing it, we derive a semantics for the whole language. The semantics is necessarily compositional and carries a structure of semantic categories. With a further assumption on the grammatical heads of phrases, we can assume that the meanings of head words are functions from meanings to meanings, in the Frege style. The paper sketches these results and considers how far the semantics of Husserl, Frege and Tarski can be seen as examples of this pattern.

When Alfred Tarski wrote his famous definition of truth [20] (1933) for a formal language, he had several stated aims. His chief aim was to define truth of sentences. Giving correct meanings of other expressions of the language was nowhere in his list of aims at all; it was a happy accident that a general semantics fell out of his truth definition.

So the following facts, all very easily proved, came to me as a surprise. Given any notion of meaning for sentences (for example, a specification of when they are true and when not), and assuming some simple book-keeping conditions, there is a canonical way of extending this notion to a semantics for the whole language. I call it the fregean extension; it is determined up to the question which pairs of expressions have the same meaning. Tarski's semantics for first-order logic is the fregean extension of the truth conditions for sentences. Afewmore book-keeping conditions guarantee that the fregean extension can be chosen to have good functional properties of the kind often associated with Frege and with type-theoretic semantics.

Tarski himselfwas certainly interested in the question howfar his solution of his problem was canonical, and we can learn useful things from his discussion of the issue. But the main results below on fregean extensions come closer to the linguistic and logical concerns of Frege and Husserl, a generation earlier than Tarski. Husserl has been unjustly neglected by logicians, and Frege's innovations in linguistics deserve to be better known.

[1] Yehoshua, Bar-Hillel, On categorial and phrase structure grammars, Language and information, Addison-Wesley, Reading Mass., 1964, pp. 99–115.
[2] Richard, Baum, Dependenzgrammatik, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1976.
[3] Johann Gustav Friedrich, Billroth, Lateinische Schulgrammatik für die obern Klassen gelehrter Schulen, Leipzig, 1832.
[4] Gottlob, Frege, Die Grundlagen der Arithmetik, Koebner, Breslau, 1884.
[5] Gottlob, Frege, Grundgesetze der Arithmetik I, Hermann Pohle, Jena, 1893.
[6] Gottlob, Frege, Ü ber Sinn und Bedeutung, Gottlob Frege, Kleine Schriften (I., Angelelli, editor), Georg Olms, Hildesheim, 1967, pp. 143–162.
[7] Gottlob, Frege, Begriffsschrift, Georg Olms Verlag, Hildesheim, 1998, (original 1879).
[8] Haim, Gaifman, Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems, Information andControl, vol. 8 (1965), pp. 304–337.
[9] Zellig S., Harris, Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure, Language, vol. 33 (1957), pp. 283–340.
[10] Jaakko, Hintikka and Gabriel, Sandu, Game-theoretical semantics, Handbook of logic and language (Johan van, Benthem and Alice ter, Meulen, editors), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996, pp. 361–410.
[11] Wilfrid, Hodges, Compositional semantics for a language of imperfect information, Logic Journal of the IGPL, vol. 5 (1997), pp. 539–563.
[12] Wilfrid, Hodges, Some strange quantifiers, Structures in logic and computer science (J., Mycielski et al., editors),Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1261,Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997, pp. 51–65.
[13] Wilfrid, Hodges, Formal features of compositionality, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 10 (2001), pp. 7–28.
[14] Edmund, Husserl, Logische Untersuchungen II/1, Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, 1993, (originally published 1900); trans. by J. N., Findlay as Logical Investigations Vol. II, Humanity Books, Amherst, New York, 2000.
[15] Shalom, Lappin and W., Zadrozny, Compositionality, synonymy, and the systematic representation of meaning, Preprint, 2000.
[16] Alfonso, Maier `u, The grammar of the Modistae, History of linguistics: II, classical and medieval linguistics (Giulio, Lepschy, editor), Longman, London, 1994, pp. 288–302.
[17] Walter, J. Ong, Ramus: Method, and the decay of dialogue, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,Mass., 1958.
[18] Jonathan, Owens, The foundations of grammar: an introduction to medieval Arabic grammatical theory, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 1988.
[19] Jan, Pinborg, Speculative grammar, The Cambridge history of later medieval philosophy (Norman Kretzmann et al., editors),CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge, 1982, pp. 254–269.
[20] Alfred, Tarski, The concept of truth in formalized languages, Logic, semantics, metamathematics (J., Corcoran, editor), Hackett Publishing Co., Indianapolis, 1983, pp. 152–278.
[21] Lucien, Tesnieŕe, É lÉments de syntaxe structurale, Klincksieck, Paris, 1959.
[22] Dag, Westerståhl, On the compositional extension problem, Journal of Philosophical Logic (to appear).
[23] W., Zadrozny, From compositional to systematic semantics, Linguistics and Philosophy, vol. 17 (1994), pp. 329–342.