Abstract
In this chapter, it is argued on two different grounds that sentences in natural languages can be seen as systems. First, beyond their linear order, sentences exhibit a syntactic hierarchical structure. Therefore, they are structured entities. Although this structure is usually interpreted as independent of meaning, many semanticists believe that syntactic structure indicates the order in which the meanings of the parts are combined. Second, although the principle of compositionality—which states that the meaning of a sentence is a function of the meanings of the parts of that sentence—is valid in general for natural languages, this principle has been shown to have many exceptions, where interpretation does not proceed bottom-up but top-down, from the meaning of the whole to the meaning of the parts. For this reason, a radical version of the principle of compositionality is untenable; if the whole depends on its parts and the parts on the whole, then the sentence is a system that cannot be dissected into separate parts without losing something essential.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For written texts, “follow” is intended in a spatial sense; for oral texts, it is intended in a temporal sense.
- 2.
This statement simplifies a more complex definition. A regular grammar is a quadruple G = <T, N, E, R>, where T is a set of terminal symbols, N is a set of non-terminal symbols, E is the start symbol, and R is a set of transforming rules A → β, where A is a non-terminal symbol and β is either a terminal symbol or a symbol formed by a terminal symbol and a non-terminal symbol. Given the start symbol, the grammar can generate all the strings of symbols allowed by the rules. Transformation rules can be applied only if the string contains a non-terminal symbol; otherwise, the string is terminal. In natural languages, the start symbol is S (sentence); the non-terminal symbols are constituents larger than words, and the terminal symbols are words. We have already seen an example of a transformation rule (S → NP + VP).
- 3.
More precisely, a context-sensitive grammar is a quadruple G = <T, N, E, R>, where T is a set of terminal symbols, N is a set of non-terminal symbols, E is the start symbol, and R is a set of transforming rules αAβ → αγβ, where A is a non-terminal symbol, and α, β, and γ are either terminal symbols or strings of terminal and non-terminal symbols. α and β may be empty; these provide the “context” for A.
- 4.
This is not the usual interpretation of these sentences, which usually is related to the different logical forms underlying the sentence rather than to semantic indeterminacy. In Frigerio (2010), I demonstrated that this solution has many drawbacks and that an interpretation in terms of semantic indeterminacy is preferable.
- 5.
Grice (1989) emphasizes that participants presuppose that their interlocutors say true and pertinent things.
References
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague-Paris: Mouton.
Frigerio, A. (2010). L’unità dell’enunciato. Indeterminatezza semantica e determinazioni pragmatiche. Milano: Mimesis.
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Partee, B., ter Meulen, A., & Wall, R. (1990). Mathematical methods in linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
Predelli, S. (2005). Painted leaves, context, and semantic analysis. Linguistics and Philosophy, 28, 351–374.
Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1980). The background of meaning. In J. Searle, F. Kiefer, & M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Speech acts theory and pragmatics (pp. 221–232). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Frigerio, A. (2019). Sentences as Systems: The Principle of Compositionality and Its Limits. In: Urbani Ulivi, L. (eds) The Systemic Turn in Human and Natural Sciences. Contemporary Systems Thinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00725-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00725-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00724-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00725-6
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)