A view of formal semantics

Theoretical Linguistics, 2000

The history of modern semantics is characterised by two research tradi-tions which are based on radically different views concerning both con-ceptual motivation and the purpose of semantic research. Realistic semantics conceives of semantics as characterising the rela-tionsship ...

The Sign of the V: Papers in Honour of Sten Vikner, 2019

This joint article represents an attempt to clarify relations between two rather different approaches to the description of linguistic meaning: truthconditional semantics (as represented by Peter Widell) and functional semantics (as represented by Peter Harder). The two approaches are anchored in different traditions, are based on different theoretical premises, and have different objectives. Truth-conditional semantics is based on a philosophical tradition with strong relations to logic, while functional semantics is based on a linguistic tradition with borrowings from evolutionary biology (and also from speech acts philosophy). We argue that an integrated picture that accommodates both approaches can be achieved by a mutual recognition of the different aims as well as of a central area in which the different aims give rise to compatible insights about linguistic meaning.

The Philosophical Relevance of the Concept of Meaning – I, 1976

1994

This is a collection of excellent papers from a workshop, chaired by the editors, held in Lugano at IDSIA, an institute of the Dalle Molle Foundation. I believe the workshop was held in September 1988, but the book is not explicit. The" formal semantics"(FS) of the title refers to the theories of NL meaning derived from model theory and in standard use in theoretical linguistics. The title (and the preface) suggest a thematic cohesion among papers that is actually lacking.

Cognitio-Estudos, 2021

We want to explore in this article the characteristics of prescriptive semantics and its usefulness to solve pragmatic problems, both analytical and synthetic, on meaning. We will proceed in the following way: 1. arguing about the limitations of a non-prescriptive and purely extensional semantics, based on the prediction of formulas of an object-language system; and 2. projecting the advantages of a theory that can pragmatically regulate meaning schemes, to enrich our instruments of meaning and consensus production with the results of scientific innovation and the interaction between different languages. The two authors we used to show this path were Alfred Tarski and Rudolph Carnap on the classical extensionalist side, and Robert Brandom and C.I Lewis on the pragmatist side. The first two were mentioned for an exhibition of formal semantics and its limits; the second two were mentioned for an exposition of a prescriptive and intensional theory and its pragmatic advantages for regulating the prediction of new truths and adaptation to the old ones.

A major characteristic of the linguistic theories of the twentieth century, which stemmed from logical empiricism, is that the notion of reference was placed at the core of semantics. As a result, the meaning of a noun was associated with the object or the entity to which it referred, and the meaning of a statement was correlated with the state of affairs or the possible world it was meant to designate. This representational conception, which corresponds to the definition of semantics proposed by Charles Morris in 1938 (semantics studies " the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable "), became, however, the target of a number of criticisms at the end of the last century. Linguists objected that it only reduces language to a world that does not correspond to the semantic interpretation performed by the speakers. In his book Making It Explicit (1994), Robert Brandom argued that this representational conception had to be replaced by one that restores the value of the notion of inference. But, for the semantic explanation, by proposing such a reversal of perspective in prioritizing the concepts of " reference " and " inference " , the respective role and scope of investigation of semantics and pragmatics were deeply modified. The aim of this paper is thence to retrace the evolution of the connections between semantics and pragmatics by comparing some representational and inferential approaches. First, we will analyse the referential conception of meaning and we will show how a semantics based on a theory of models can be open to what Wilfrid Sellars (1956) and Willard Quine (1969) have respectively called the " myths of the Given and of the Museum ". Then we will examine the inferential approach to meaning by underlining the various theoretical changes in orientation it induces (primacy of the proposition over subsentential expressions, holistic conception, ...). Finally, this analysis will lead to highlighting some consequences of the modification of the role of semantics and pragmatics. More specifically, we will stress the fact that certain parameters, which in a referential conception belonged to pragmatics, now belong to semantics, while from an inferential perspective, the taking into account of the referential dimension of languages is understood as a social practice which is part of pragmatics.

Journal of Universal Computer Science, 2005

Most approaches to formal semantics are based on the assumption that all the constructs of a language are defined together. The details of the definition of each construct can (and usually do) depend on which other constructs are included in the given language. This limits reuse of definitions of common constructs.

Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 2018

Elements of Formal Semantics (EFS) has already been reviewed twice (Rett in Glossa 1(1):42, 2016; Erlewine in Comput Linguist 42(4):837–839, 2017). As well, the website for the work is accompanied by evaluative quotes by noted scholars. All are very positive concerning its clarity and its utility as an introduction to formal semantics for natural language. As I agree with these evaluations my interest in reiterating them in slightly different words is limited. So my reviews of the content chapters will be accompanied by a Reflections section consisting of my own reflections on the foundations of model theoretic semantics for natural language as laid out in EFS. The issues I address—alternate ways of accomplishing the tasks Winter treats—should not be included in an introductory work but they may be helpful for those who teach classes for which EFS is an appropriate text. They might also help with queries about the content of the text by those using it. I note that a mark of a clear ...