Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:54:11.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Katz on “Chomsky on Meaning”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Sarah J. Bell
Sarah J. Bell*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Katz (1980:1) views the meaning of a sentence and its logical form as identical and believes that this logical form should receive an intensional rather than an extensional interpretation. He sees Chomsky’s proposal to separate semantic interpretation into two parts, a logical form (LF), which is strictly determined by rules of sentence grammar, and whatever aspects of meaning remain, which are determined by discourse rules and possibly by other cognitive faculties, as pernicious. He further objects to what he interprets as Chomsky’s supporting extensionalism. He argues that Chomsky’s grounds for separating LF from other aspects of meaning are not compelling, that LF is itself incoherent, and that the results of making such a separation are harmful to the study of semantics in linguistics and philosophy alike.

Type
Remarks/Remarques
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , Fall 1981 , pp. 219 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1981

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

Barcan, Ruth (1946) “A functional calculus of first order based on strict implication.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 11 (1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1975) Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam (1977) “Conditions on Rules of Grammar” in Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Cole, R., ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 3–49.Google Scholar
Church, Alonzo (1951) “A formulation of the logic of sense and denotation” in Henle, , Kallen, , and Langer, , 3–24.Google Scholar
Henle, P., Kallen, H., and Langer, S., eds. (1951) Structure, Method, and Meaning. New York: The Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold (1980) “Chomsky on meaning.” Language 56:1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, C. I. (1951) “Notes on the logic of intension” in Henle, , Kallen, , and Langer, , 25–34.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno (1967) “Each and Every, Any and All” in his Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 70–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar