Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T15:37:42.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Logical form: the grammar cognition interface

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Ruth M. Kempson
Ruth M. Kempson
Affiliation:
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the course of the last twenty-five years, linguistic theory has established itself as providing one of the major routes towards an understanding of the human mind. With increasing precision we have been able to address the problem of articulating in detail the structured capacities the human mind brings to the problem of language acquisition. Along the way there have been doubters, much of the doubt having arisen because of the apparently unbridgeable gap the theory demands between the language user's capacity and the interaction of this capacity with more general cognitive skills. Such doubters as there were received little reassurance from looking at work on performance or language use, for there has been little more than speculative philosophy on the one hand (most notably by Paul Grice, 1975) and articulation of detailed processing mechanisms on the other (e.g. Fodor, 1978; Frazier, 1979; Frazier & Fodor, 1978), without any overall theory. J. A. Fodor (1982, 1983) has led the field in cognitive psychology with his representational theory of mind. But we have till now had no theory of the central cognitive mechanism. Relevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986) provides us with a contender. It makes specific claims about the central cognitive mechanism and about the relation of natural language to that central mechanism. Against this framework, we are at last able to formulate precise proposals about the grammar-cognition interface, and in so doing provide answers to the psychological reality questions which have gone unanswered for so long: What is the relation of grammars to utterance–interpretation? What is the nature of the link between grammars and the central cognitive mechanism? What is the relation between a speaker's knowledge of his language and his general knowledge?

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , September 1988 , pp. 393 - 431
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Aoun, J. (1982). A grammar of anaphora. Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bach, E. & Partee, B. (1981). Anaphora and semantic structure. CLS 16. 1–28.Google Scholar
Barss, A. (1986). Chains and anaphoric dependence. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
Brody, M. (1984). On contextual definitions of empty categories and the role of chains. LIn 15. 355–380.Google Scholar
Brody, M. & Manzini, R. (forthcoming). On implicit arguments. In Kempson, R. (ed.) Mental representations: the interface between language and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986a). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986b). Barriers. Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, R. (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1–40.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. (1979). The interpretation of pronouns. In Heny, F. & Schnelle, H. (eds), Syntax and semantics 10. New York & London: Academic Press. 61–92.Google Scholar
Cormack, A. (1984). VP anaphora, variables and scope. In Landman, F. & Veltman, F. (eds), Varieties of formal semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1987). The syntax and semantics of questions in Swedish. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1982). Representations. Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1978). Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. LIn 9. 427–473.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: syntactic parsing strategies. Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: a new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 6, 291–325.Google Scholar
Freidin, R. (1978). Cyclicity and the theory of grammar. LIn 9. 519–549.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds), Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts. New York & London: Academic Press. 41–58.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (1983). Focus, mode and nucleus. JL 19. 377–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haik, I. (1984). Indirect binding. LIn 15. 185–223.Google Scholar
Haik, I. (1987). Bound VP's that need to be. Linguistics and Philosophy 10. 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. LIn 7. 391–428.Google Scholar
Hausser, R. (1979). How do pronouns denote? In Heny, F. & Schnelle, H. (eds), Syntax and semantics 10. New York & London: Academic Press. 93–139.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics and definite and indefinite noun phrases. Ph.D. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1980). Pronouns and bound variables. LIn 11. 679–708.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. LIn 16. 547–593.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (1984). Logic as grammar. Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1983). Connectedness. LIn 14. 223–250.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1984). Anaphoric binding, the compositionality requirement and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. In C. Jones & Sells P. (eds), NELS XIV.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1986). Definite NP's and context-dependence. In Myers, T. et al. (eds), Reasoning and discourse processes. London & Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. 207–237.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (forthcoming). On the interface of grammar and cognition: the principle of full interpretation. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental representations: the interface between language and reality.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1988). Reconstruction and logical form. MS.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. & Matthews, C. (1986). On grammaticality. MS.Google Scholar
Lappin, S. (1984). VP anaphora, quantifier scope and logical form. Linguistic Analysis 14. 1.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H. & Saito, (1984). On the nature of proper government. LIn 15. 235–289.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1975). Adverbs of quantification. In Keenan, E. (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3–15.Google Scholar
Manzini, R. & Wexler, K. (1987). Parameters, binding theory and learnability. LIn 18. 413–444.Google Scholar
May, R. (1977). The grammar of quantification. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar
May, R. (1985). Logical form: its structure and derivation. Cambridge, Mass. & London. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. & Bach, E. (1981). Quantification, pronouns and VP anaphora. In Groenendijk, J. et al. Formal methods in the study of language. Amsterdam: Mathematical Centre Tract, 135–136. 445–481.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1984). WH in situ: movement and unselective binding. MS.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Coreference and bound anaphora: a restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 46–88.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. (1977). Does she or doesn't she? LIn 8. 763–767.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: cognition and communication. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, T. (1981). The theoretical interpretation of a class of ‘marked’ extractions. In Belletti, A. et al. , Theory of markedness in generative grammar. Pisa: Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. 475–516.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. & Williams, E. (1986). Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge, Mass. & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1977). Discourse and logical form. LIn 8. 101–139.Google Scholar