Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T02:28:17.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Noun phrases: logical and linguistic properties*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Thomas G. Pavel
Thomas G. Pavel*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent linguistic research has explored the possibility of using standard logical analyses to explain some phenomena of natural languages. The logical notion of scope in modal contexts has yielded to the linguistic dichotomy of [±specific] indefinite NPs. Donnellan’s (1966) distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite description has been used to extend this dichotomy to include definite NPs. The behaviour of moods in Romance subordinate clauses has been tentatively explained by the same notions.

The purpose of this paper is to criticize some of these attempts to apply logical analyses to natural languages. Without denying the heuristic and even the explanatory value of standard logical analysis in linguistics, I will try to show that the correspondence between logical semantic notions and the categories of natural languages is much more approximate than is sometimes believed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , Fall 1976 , pp. 133 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by the Canada Council through grant No S 73-0620. I am indebted to my colleagues, M. L. Rivero and K. Arnold for their remarks on an earlier version. I must express my gratitude to all my informants and especially to Robert Marteau, who graciously accepted to study and comment on an endless list of doubtful cases.

References

Baker, Carl Leroy 1966 Definiteness and indefiniteness in English. M.A. thesis. U. of Illinois.Google Scholar
Bally, Charles 1944 Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Berne: A. Francke, 1944 2.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred 1971 On classifying semantic features. In Steinberg, & Jakobovits, , 1971: 410–35.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred & Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds.) 1970 Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. [Janua linguarum, series maior, 43].Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolph 1947 Meaning and necessity. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Damourette, J. & Pichon, E. 1931 Des mots à la pensée; essai de grammaire de la langue française. 7 volumes. Paris: d’Artrey, 1931–50.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald & Harman, Gilbert (eds.) 1972 Semantics of natural languages. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Davis, J. W., Hockney, D. J., & Wilson, W. K. (eds.) 1969 Philosophical logic. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith 1966 Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75. 281–304. [Reprinted in Steinberg, & Jakobovits, , 1971:100–14].Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1967 On the syntax of preverbs. Glossa 1.91–125.Google Scholar
Fujimura, Osamu (ed.) 1973 Three dimensions of linguistic theory. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter Thomas 1962 Reference and generality. Ithaca: Cornell U.P.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter Thomas 1972 Logic matters. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grevisse, Maurice 1969 Le bon usage. Gembloux: J. Duculot, 1969 9.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko 1969 Semantics for propositional attitudes. In Davis, Hockney & Wilson, , 1969:21–45. [Reprinted in Linsky, , 1971:145–67.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray Saul 1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Studies in linguistics, 2].Google Scholar
Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.) 1970 Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham: Ginn.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. 1969 Problems of reference in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation. Indiana University.Google Scholar
Linsky, Leonard (ed.) 1971 Reference and modality. London: Oxford.Google Scholar
Mccawley, James D. 1973a Syntactic and logical arguments for semantic structures. In Fujimura, , 1973:259–376.Google Scholar
Mccawley, James D. 1973b External NPs versus annotated deep structures. Linguistic Inquiry 4.221–40.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall 1972 Opacity, coreference and pronouns. In Davidson, & Harman, , 1972:415–41.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David 1970 On the article in English. In Bierwisch, & Heidolph, , 1970:233–48.Google Scholar
Quine, W. 1953 From a logical point of view. Cambridge: Harvard U.P.Google Scholar
Quine, W. 1966 Quantifiers and prepositional attitudes. In The Ways of Paradox pp. 183–94. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans 1947 Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rivero, María-Luisa 1975 Referential properties of Spanish noun phrases. Language 51.32–48.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert 1970 On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, & Rosenbaum, , 1970:222–72.Google Scholar
Sandfeld, Kristian 1936 Syntaxe du français contemporain; t.2: Les propositions subordonnées. Paris: Droz.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert C. 1972 Pragmatics. In Davidson, & Harman, , 1972:380–97.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Danny D. & Jakobovits, Leon A. (eds.) 1971 Semantics; an interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.Google Scholar
Stockwell, Robert P., Schachter, Paul, & Partee, Barbara Hall 1973 The major syntactic structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. L. & Pinchon, J. 1962 Grammaire du français classique et moderne. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Wartburg, Walther Von & Zumthor, Paul 1958 Précis de syntaxe du français contemporain. Berne: A. Francke, 1947; 1958 2. [Bibliotheca Romanica, Sér. 1: Manualia et commentationes, 2].Google Scholar