Skip to main content
Log in

What Is Context For? Syntax in a Non-Abstract World

  • Published:
Journal of Logic, Language and Information Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

An explanation for the uncertain progress of formalist linguistics is sought in an examination of the concept of syntax. The idea of analyzing language formally was made possible by developments in 20th century logic. It has been pointed out by many that the analogy between natural language and a formal system may be imperfect, but the objection made here is that the very concept of syntax, when applied to any non-abstract system of communication, is flawed as it is commonly used. Syntax is properly defined with respect to an individual transformation rule that might be applied to some message. Collections of syntax rules, however, are inevitably due to categories imposed by an observer, and do not correspond to functional features found in non-abstract systems. As such, these categories should not be relied upon as aids to understanding any natural system.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ancel, L.W., 2000, “Undermining the Baldwin expediting effect: Does phenotypic plasticity accelerate evolution?” Theoretical Population Biology 58, 307–319.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R.W., 1995, “Learning and evolution: A quantitative genetics approach,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 175, 89–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J.M., 1896, “A new factor in evolution,” American Naturalist 30, 441–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, Y., 1953, “A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description,” Language 29, 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, Y., 1954, “Logical syntax and semantics,” Language 30, 230–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, Y., 1964, Language and Information: Selected Essays on their Theory and Application, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Contains Bar-Hillel, 1953 and Bar-Hillel, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocheński, I.M., 1961, A History of Formal Logic, University of Notre Dame Press, Translated from the German edition of 1956 by Thomas Ivo.

  • Bresnan, J. (ed.), 1982, The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brillouin, L., 1962, Science and Information Theory, 2nd edition, New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carnap, R., 1937, The Logical Syntax of Language, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaitin, G.J., 1982, “GÖdel’s theorem and information,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 22, 941–954.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheney, D.L. and Seyfarth, R.M., 1990, How Monkeys See The World: Inside the Mind of Another Species, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, C., 1978, On Human Communication, 3rd edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., 1995, The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N., 2000, New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornillon, P., Gallagher, J., and Sgouros, T., 2003, “OPeNDAP: Accessing data in a distributed, heterogeneous environment,” CODATA Data Science Journal 2, 164–174. Online 5 November, 2003: http://journals.eecs.qub.ac.uk/codata/Journal/contents/2_03/2_03pdfs/DS247.pdf

  • Deacon, T.W., 1997, The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain, New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy, J.-P., 2001, The Mechanization of the Mind: On the Origins of Cognitive Science, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Translated from French (1994) by M.B. DeBevoise.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H., Masinter, L., Leach, P., and Berners-Lee, T., 1999, Hypertext Transfer Protocol – HTTP/1.1, RFC 2616, Network Working Group.

  • Fodor, J.A., 1994, The Elm and the Expert: Mentalese and its Semantics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graffi, G., 2001, 200 Years of Syntax: A Critical Survey, Vol. 98 of Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, R.V.L., 1928, “Transmittion of information,” Bell System Technical Journal 7, 535– 563.

    Google Scholar 

  • IEC, 1994, “Information technology – Open Systems Interconnection – Basic Reference Model: The Basic Model – ISO/IEC 7498,” Technical report, International Electrotechnical Commission.

  • IHGSC, 2001, “Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome,” Nature 409, 860–921.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R., 2002, Foundations of Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R., 1970a, “English as a formal language,” in Linguaggi nella societ’,a e nella tecnica, B. Visentini ed., Milan: Edizioni di Comunit’,a.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R., 1970b, “Universal grammar,” Theoria 36, 373–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papaj, D.R., 1993, “Automatic behavior and the evolution of instinct: Lessons from learning in Parasitoids,” in Insect Learning: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives, D.R. Papaj and A.C. Lewis eds., New York: Chapman & Hall, Chapter 10, pp. 243–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C. and Sag, I.A., 1994, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, P., 2001, Internet Message Format, RFC 2822, Network Working Group.

  • Rogers, J., 1999, A Descriptive Approach to Language-Theoretic Complexity, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C.E., 1948, “A mathematical theory of communication,” Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423, 623–656.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, J.A., 1999, “Genome system architecture and natural genetic engineering in evolution,” in Molecular Strategies in Biological Evolution, L. Caporale ed., Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 870, 23–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, W.R., 1999, UNIX Network Programming, 2nd edition, New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkel, W.J., 2002, “The learning guided evolution of language,” Chapter 8, pp. 235–254 in Linguistic Evolution Through Language Acquisition, T. Briscoe ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddington, C., 1961, “Genetic assimilation,” Advances in Genetics 10, 257–293.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, E., 1964, Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N., 1961, Cybernetics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Sgouros.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sgouros, T. What Is Context For? Syntax in a Non-Abstract World. J Logic Lang Inf 14, 235–251 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-005-3926-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-005-3926-z

Keywords

Navigation