Recursion and Truth

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 43)

Abstract

The paper describes reasons for departing from a traditional ‘T-model’ architecture of grammar and moving towards the ‘no interface’ view, on which grammar, inherently, organizes certain kinds of semantic information which are hypothesized to not exist in the absence of grammatical organization. In this sense, these are forms of grammatical meaning, and the claim is that there is no such meaning in some pre-linguistic ‘semantic component’, located on the other side of some ‘interface’. The paper particularly articulates this view with regards to reference and truth as inherent aspects of grammatical semantics, and argues that apparent constraints on recursion fall out from the way in which grammar organizes the forms of intent/sional reference that we universally find in human language.

Keywords

Recursion Truth Reference Grammatical semantics X-within-X Intensionality Interfaces 

References

  1. Aboh, E. (2004). Topic and focus within D. Linguistics in The Netherlands, 21, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arsenijević, B., & Hinzen, W. (2013). On the absence of X-within-X recursion in human grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 43(3), 423–440.Google Scholar
  3. Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1999). The origins of complex language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In S. A. Anderson & P. Kiparsky (Eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle (pp. 232–286). New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (2000). New horizons in the study of language and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. (2008a). Approaching UG from below. In U. Sauerland & H.-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky’s minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (pp. 1–29). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. (2008b). On phases. In C. Otero (Ed.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (2010). Some simple evo devo theses: How true might they before language? In R. K. Larson, V. Déprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 45–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cinque, G. (1999). Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, D. (2005). Truth and predication. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. De Villiers, J. (2007). The interface of language and theory of mind. Lingua, 117(11), 1858–1878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. den Dikken, M. (2009). On the functional structure of locative and directional PPs. In G. Cinque & W. Schweikert (Eds.), The cartography of syntactic structure (Vol. 6). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Di Sciullo, A. M. (2005). Asymmetry in morphology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Field, H. (1994). Deflationist views of meaning and content. Mind, 103(411), 249–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fodor, J. A., & Lepore, E. (2002). The compositionality papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Freidin, R. (1999). Cyclicity and minimalism. In S. Epstein & N. Hornstein (Eds.), Working minimalism (pp. 95–126). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hauser, M. D. (2000). Wild minds. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  18. Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, T. W. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Higginbotham, J. (1985). On semantics. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 547–931.Google Scholar
  21. Higginbotham, J. (2009). Two interfaces. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Of minds and language (pp. 142–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hinzen, W. (2006). Mind design and minimal syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hinzen, W. (2007). An essay on names and truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hinzen, W. (2009). Hierarchy, merge, and truth. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini et al. (Eds.), Of minds and language (pp. 123–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hodges, W. (2001). Formal features of compositionality. Journal for Logic Language and Computation, 10(1), 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollebrandse, B., & Roeper, T. (2008). Recursion as a restrictive semantic interface. Handout from a presentation at the conference Biosemantics. Leiden.Google Scholar
  27. Hornstein, N. (2009). A theory of syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobson, P. (2009). Direct compositionality. In M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jayaseelan, K. A. (2008). Topic, focus, and adverb positions in clause structure. Nanzan Linguistics, 4, 43–68.Google Scholar
  31. Katz, J., & Pesetsky, D. (2009). The recursive syntax and prosody of tonal music. Ms., MIT.Google Scholar
  32. Larson, R. K. (2011). Clauses, propositions and phases. In A.-M. DiSciullo & C. Boeckx (Eds.), The biolinguistic enterprise: New perspectives on the evolution and nature of the human language faculty (pp. 366–391). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Lasnik, H. (2000). Syntactic structures revisited. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Leiss, E. (2009). Sprachphilosophie. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lycan, W. G. (2008). Philosophy of language: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Moro, A. (1997). The raising of predicates: Predicative noun phrases and the theory of clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pawley, A. (2006). On the argument structure of phrasal predicates in Kalam, a language of the Trans New Guinea family. The 32nd annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  38. Pietroski, P. (2003). Quantification and second-order monadicity. Philosophical Perspectives, 17, 259–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Potts, C., & Roeper, T. (2007). The narrowing acquisition path. In L. Progovac et al. (Eds.), The syntax of nonsententials. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Prusinkiewicz, P., & Lindenmeyer, A. (1996). The algorithmic beauty of plants (Reprint). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine-structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegemann (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281–337). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Searls, D. B. (2002, November 14). The language of genes. Nature, 420, 211–217.Google Scholar
  43. Semenza, C. (2009). The neuropsychology of proper names. Mind & Language, 24(4), 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Szabo, Z. (2009). The case for compositionality. In M. Werning, W. Hinzen, & E. Machery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tarski, A. (1933). Der Wahrheitsbegriff in formalisierten Sprachen. Studia Philosophica, 1, 261–405.Google Scholar
  46. Uriagereka, J. (2008). Syntactic anchors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Catalan Institute for Advanced Studies and Research (ICREA)BarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations