Menu
Home
People
Places
Arts
History
Plants & Animals
Science
Life & Culture
Technology
Reference.org
Syntax–semantics interface
open-in-new
<h2 id="functionalist-approaches">Functionalist approaches</h2> <p>Within <a href="/facts/Linguistic_functionalism/kjkTVX2L">functionalist</a> approaches, research on the syntax–semantics interface has been aimed at disproving the formalist argument of the <a href="/facts/Autonomy_of_syntax/XaKtlJob">autonomy of syntax</a>, by finding instances of semantically determined syntactic structures.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:14" href="#fn:14"><sup>14</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:15" href="#fn:15"><sup>15</sup></a> </p><p><a href="/facts/Beth_Levin_(linguist)/fK8czq4m">Levin</a> and Rappaport Hovav, in their 1995 monograph, reiterated that there are some aspects of verb meaning that are relevant to syntax, and others that are not, as previously noted by <a href="/facts/Steven_Pinker/sPjcSD3B">Steven Pinker</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:16" href="#fn:16"><sup>16</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:17" href="#fn:17"><sup>17</sup></a> Levin and Rappaport Hovav isolated such aspects focusing on the phenomenon of <a href="/facts/Unaccusativity/9HHGWf4q">unaccusativity</a> that is "semantically determined and syntactically encoded".<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:18" href="#fn:18"><sup>18</sup></a> </p><p><a href="/facts/Van_Valin/Fcu0wHVB">Van Valin</a> and <a href="/facts/Randy_LaPolla/1ke0KwL7">LaPolla</a>, in their 1997 monographic study, found that the more semantically motivated or driven a syntactic phenomenon is, the more it tends to be typologically universal, that is, to show less cross-linguistic variation.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:19" href="#fn:19"><sup>19</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="formal-approaches">Formal approaches</h2> <p>In <a href="/facts/Formal_semantics_(natural_language)/FlWb7Hxp">formal semantics</a>, <a href="/facts/Interpretation_(logic)/goPmjjQG">semantic interpretation</a> is viewed as a <a href="/facts/Map_(mathematics)/FABF1l2f">mapping</a> from syntactic structures to <a href="/facts/Denotation/oABEtLtA">denotations</a>. There are several formal views of the syntax–semantics interface which differ in what they take to be the inputs and outputs of this mapping. In the <i>Heim and Kratzer</i> model commonly adopted within <a href="/facts/Generative_linguistics/Pm1AMX5U">generative linguistics</a>, the input is taken to be a special level of syntactic representation called <a href="/facts/Logical_form_(linguistics)/nCpyxGs2">logical form</a>. At logical form, semantic relationships such as <a href="/facts/Scope_(formal_semantics)/m6YdqU8y">scope</a> and <a href="/facts/Binding_(linguistics)/hW5us5Cd">binding</a> are represented unambiguously, having been determined by syntactic operations such as <a href="/facts/Quantifier_raising/BwUxyWgN">quantifier raising</a>. Other formal frameworks take the opposite approach, assuming that such relationships are established by the rules of semantic interpretation themselves. In such systems, the rules include mechanisms such as <a href="/facts/Type_shifter/Jm1cDtFr">type shifting</a> and <a href="/facts/Dynamic_semantics/QQvanPx6">dynamic binding</a>.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:20" href="#fn:20"><sup>20</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:21" href="#fn:21"><sup>21</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:22" href="#fn:22"><sup>22</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:23" href="#fn:23"><sup>23</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="history">History</h2> <p>Before the 1950s, there was no discussion of a syntax–semantics interface in <a href="/facts/American_linguistics/T0UazQ5n">American linguistics</a>, since neither syntax nor semantics was an active area of research.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:24" href="#fn:24"><sup>24</sup></a> This neglect was due in part to the influence of <a href="/facts/Logical_positivism/Dc6XMTsc">logical positivism</a> and <a href="/facts/Behaviorism/8DHljqrh">behaviorism</a> in psychology, that viewed hypotheses about linguistic meaning as untestable.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:25" href="#fn:25"><sup>25</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:26" href="#fn:26"><sup>26</sup></a> </p><p>By the 1960s, syntax had become a major area of study, and some researchers began examining semantics as well. In this period, the most prominent view of the interface was the <i><a href="/facts/Jerrold_Katz/WB7jnnQY">Katz</a>–<a href="/facts/Paul_Postal/GuW0z0Xd">Postal</a> Hypothesis</i> according to which <a href="/facts/Deep_structure/l00JHPXK">deep structure</a> was the level of syntactic representation which underwent semantic interpretation. This assumption was upended by data involving quantifiers, which showed that <a href="/facts/Syntactic_movement/H6Hkxacu">syntactic transformations</a> can affect meaning. During the <a href="/facts/Linguistics_wars/VJJuNkQB">linguistics wars</a>, a variety of competing notions of the interface were developed, many of which live on in present-day work.<a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:27" href="#fn:27"><sup>27</sup></a><a class="footnote-ref" id="fnref:28" href="#fn:28"><sup>28</sup></a> </p> <h2 id="see-also">See also</h2> <ul><li><a href="/facts/Active%25E2%2580%2593stative_alignment/L4fR5hKd">Active–stative alignment</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Antecedent-contained_deletion/hko6nDGz">Antecedent-contained deletion</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Coercion_(linguistics)/mJwvJgyr">Coercion (linguistics)</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Colorless_green_ideas_sleep_furiously/UEhoTEUm">Colorless green ideas sleep furiously</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Principle_of_compositionality/yP2hR4Le">Compositionality</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/David_Dowty/Sxnk5J1B">David Dowty</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Form-meaning_mismatch/XKdf3Nlk">Form-meaning mismatch</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Morphosyntactic_alignment/Ly8YuLY2">Morphosyntactic alignment</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Role_and_reference_grammar/rkKEvlmX">Role and reference grammar</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Selection_(linguistics)/QRHCmEqa">Selection (linguistics)</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Semantic_class/gydu6fgj">Semantic class</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Semantic_feature/65fJXfFn">Semantic feature</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Semantic_primes/xqbtt9xD">Semantic primes</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Semantic_property/kRQKggRx">Semantic property</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Shifting_(syntax)/DVFLGBqQ">Shifting (syntax)</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Split_intransitivity/L4fR5hKd">Split intransitivity</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Thematic_relation/T57IHVuS">Thematic relation</a></li> <li><a href="/facts/Type_shifter/Jm1cDtFr">Type shifter</a></li></ul> <h2 id="notes">Notes</h2> <ul><li><a href="/facts/Chris_Barker_(linguist)/4CkpCNpd">Barker, Chris</a> (2015). <a href="https://www.nyu.edu/projects/barker/barker-scope-handbook.pdf">"Scope"</a> (PDF). In Lappin, Shalom; Fox, Chris (eds.). <i>Handbook of Contemporary Semantics</i> (2 ed.). Wiley Blackwell. Section 4.3. <a href="/facts/Doi_(identifier)/muM9Etpq">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002%2F9781118882139.ch2">10.1002/9781118882139.ch2</a>. <a href="/facts/ISBN_(identifier)/15AdSPa9">ISBN</a> 9781118882139.</li> <li><a href="/facts/Gennaro_Chierchia/y5jBBlqF">Chierchia, G.</a> (1999) <i><a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/chierchia/files/1999_syntaxsemanticsinterface.pdf">Syntax-semantics interface</a></i>, pp. 824–826, in: <i><a href="http://web.mit.edu/morrishalle/pubworks/papers/1999_Halle_MIT_Encyclopedia_Cognitive_Sciences-paper.pdf">The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences</a></i>, Edited by Keil & Wilson (1999) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.</li> <li>Hackl, M. (2013) <i><a href="https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/GS398/Hackl%202013%20syntax-semantics%20interface.pdf">The syntax–semantics interface</a></i>. Lingua, 130, 66–87.</li> <li><a href="/facts/Irene_Heim/Jlje4L3P">Heim, Irene</a>; <a href="/facts/Angelika_Kratzer/dQWRfUoJ">Kratzer, Angelika</a> (1998). <i>Semantics in Generative Grammar</i>. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. pp. 194–198.</li> <li><a href="/facts/Beth_Levin_(linguist)/fK8czq4m">Levin, B.</a>, & <a href="/facts/Steven_Pinker/sPjcSD3B">Pinker, S.</a> (1992) Introduction in Beth Levin & Steven Pinker (1992, Eds) Lexical & conceptual semantics. (A Cognition Special Issue) Cambridge, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. Pp. 244.</li> <li><a href="/facts/Beth_Levin_(linguist)/fK8czq4m">Levin, B.</a>, & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). <i><a href="https://www.fulcrum.org/concern/monographs/37720d24n">Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface</a></i>. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press</li> <li><a href="/facts/Barbara_Partee/bHjMrbbv">Partee, Barbara</a> (2014). <a href="https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/zJjODVlN/ParteeSyn-SemHistory.pdf">"A brief history of the syntax-semantics interface in Western formal linguistics"</a> (PDF). <i>Semantics-Syntax Interface</i>. 1 (1): 1–20. <a href="https://www.academia.edu/download/40460288/SSI11.2014.pdf#page=4">[1]</a>[<i>dead link</i>]</li> <li><a href="/facts/Steven_Pinker/sPjcSD3B">Pinker, S.</a> (1989) <i>Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure</i>. New edition in 2013: <i>Learnability and Cognition, new edition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure</i>. MIT press.</li> <li>Taylor, J. (2017) <i><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-cognitive-linguistics/lexical-semantics/798AB6901B9AD5B0AC42C94A52EC8ECF/core-reader">Lexical Semantics</a></i>. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics, pp. 246–261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. <a href="/facts/Doi_(identifier)/muM9Etpq">doi</a>:<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017%2F9781316339732.017">10.1017/9781316339732.017</a></li> <li>Tenny, C. (1994). Aspectual roles and the syntax-semantics interface (Vol. 52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.</li> <li><a href="/facts/Robert_Van_Valin_Jr./Fcu0wHVB">Van Valin, R. D. Jr.</a> & <a href="/facts/Randy_LaPolla/1ke0KwL7">LaPolla, R. J.</a> (1997) <i>Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function</i>. Cambridge University Press.</li> <li>Van Valin Jr, R. D. (2003) <i>Functional linguistics</i>, ch. 13 in <i><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=rl8LDiR11nYC">The handbook of linguistics</a></i>, pp. 319–336.</li> <li><a href="/facts/Robert_Van_Valin_Jr./Fcu0wHVB">Van Valin, R. D. Jr.</a> (2005). <i><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=HuX-3xV5BpwC&pg=PR67">Exploring the syntax-semantics interface</a></i>, Cambridge University Press.</li> <li><a href="/facts/Zeno_Vendler/Yxxz4Bn6">Vendler, Z.</a> (1957) <i>Verbs and times</i> in <i>The Philosophical Review</i> 66(2): 143–160. Reprinted as ch. 4 of <i>Linguistics and Philosophy</i>, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 1967, pp. 97–121.</li></ul> <h2 id="further-reading">Further reading</h2> <ul><li><a href="/facts/Ray_Jackendoff/T9rKpW9q">Jackendoff, R.</a>, Levin, B., & Pinker, S. (1991). <i>Lexical and conceptual semantics</i>.</li> <li>Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty (No. 28). MIT Press.</li> <li><a href="/facts/Pauline_Jacobson/bBhtauNA">Jacobson, Pauline</a> (2014). <i>Compositional semantics: An introduction to the syntax/semantics interface</i>. Oxford University Press. <a href="/facts/ISBN_(identifier)/15AdSPa9">ISBN</a> 9780199677153.</li> <li><a href="/facts/James_Pustejovsky/TlTBySNk">Pustejovsky, James</a> (1995). <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=p2GJBNpBVg4C&q=%22lexical+semantics%22"><i>The Generative Lexicon</i></a>. MIT Press. <a href="/facts/ISBN_(identifier)/15AdSPa9">ISBN</a> 9780262661409.</li> <li>Wechsler, S. (2020) <i><a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011619-030349">The Role of the Lexicon in the Syntax–Semantics Interface</a></i>. Annual Review of Linguistics, 6, 67–87.</li> <li>Yi, E., & Koenig, J. P. (2016) <i><a href="https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110720297-003/html">Why verb meaning matters to syntax</a></i>, in Fleischhauer, J., Latrouite, A., & Osswald, R. (2016) <i>Explorations of the syntax-semantics interface</i> (pp. 57–76). düsseldorf university press.</li></ul> <h2 id="references">References</h2> <ol> <li id="fn:1"><p>Chierchia (1999) <a href="#fnref:1" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:2"><p>Partee (2014) <a href="#fnref:2" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:3"><p>Hackl (2013) <a href="#fnref:3" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:4"><p>Partee (2014) <a href="#fnref:4" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:5"><p>Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) <a href="#fnref:5" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:6"><p>Van Valin & LaPolla (1997) <a href="#fnref:6" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:7"><p>Vendler (1957) <a href="#fnref:7" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:8"><p>Tenny (1994) <a href="#fnref:8" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:9"><p>Van Valin (2005) p.67 <a href="#fnref:9" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:10"><p>Van Valin (2005) p.67 <a href="#fnref:10" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:11"><p>Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) <a href="#fnref:11" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:12"><p>Van Valin 2003, p.334 <a href="#fnref:12" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:13"><p>Hackl (2013) <a href="#fnref:13" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:14"><p>Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) <a href="#fnref:14" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:15"><p>Since the 1970s, as a response to syntactic-oriented approaches like Chomsky's generativism, the assumption underlying many studies on lexical semantics has been that "syntactic properties of phrases reflect, in large part, the meanings of the words that head them" (Levin& Pinker, 1992) <a href="/wiki/Lexical_semantics" target="_blank">/wiki/Lexical_semantics</a> <a href="#fnref:15" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:16"><p>Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) ch.1 p. 9 <a href="#fnref:16" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:17"><p>Pinker 1989 <a href="#fnref:17" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:18"><p>Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) ch.5 p.179, Afterword p.279 <a href="#fnref:18" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:19"><p>Van Valin (2005), ch.5 "Linking syntactic and semantic representations in simple sentences" p.128 <a href="#fnref:19" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:20"><p>Chierchia (1999) <a href="#fnref:20" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:21"><p>Heim & Kratzer (1998) <a href="#fnref:21" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:22"><p>Baker (2015) <a href="#fnref:22" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:23"><p>Partee (2014) <a href="#fnref:23" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:24"><p>Partee (2014).pp.2, 6 <a href="#fnref:24" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:25"><p>Partee (2014).pp.2, 6 <a href="#fnref:25" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:26"><p>Taylor (2017) <a href="#fnref:26" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:27"><p>Partee (2014).pp.2, 6 <a href="#fnref:27" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> <li id="fn:28"><p>Partee (2014) <a href="#fnref:28" class="footnote-back-ref">↩</a></p></li> </ol>