Abstract
The question whether natural language can be captured in a formal system has been argued at length, and both a positive and a negative answer has been defended. The paper investigates the main lines of argument for both, and argues that the stalemate that appears to have been reached is an indication that the question itself rests on a wrong conception of the relation between natural languages and formal languages, and hence of the methodological status of formal modelling of natural language.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The most prominent example perhaps being Hans Reichenbach, whose Elements of symbolic logic, which dates from 1947, contained a substantial part devoted to systematic treatment of, among other things, tenses and other temporal expressions in natural language, which became known and very influential only much later.
- 3.
Which is what happened to Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, who, inspired by Carnap’s work in intensional logic, in the early fifties suggested that the formal methods of logic could be applied to the results of Chomsky’s early work in generative syntax so as to provide a formal semantics for natural language (cf., [1]). The proposal met with a brusque and negative response from Chomsky (cf., [3]), and it took another decade for other people to take up on this idea.
- 4.
Cf., e.g., Davidson: ‘Recent work by Chomsky and others is doing much to bring the complexities of natural languages within the scope of serious theory.’ [7], and Montague: ‘On this point [viz., that natural languages can be treated formally, MS] I differ from a number of philosophers, but agree, I believe, with Chomsky and his associates.’ [21].
- 5.
- 6.
Thus, in that respect aligning formal semantics with the generative tradition. Cf., Stokhof [30] for a diagnosis of how that came about.
- 7.
Cf., Kamp and Stokhof [16] for extensive discussion of this development.
- 8.
Cf., above on Chomsky’s distinction between the computational and the conceptual system. Cf., Higginbotham 1997 for extensive discussion of the implications of such a move for formal semantics.
- 9.
Cf., Maat [19].
- 10.
Page references are to the English translation in Van Heijenoort.
- 11.
The locus classicus is Tarski’s 1944 paper on the semantic conception of truth, where he writes: “The problem of the definition of truth obtains a precise meaning and can be solved in a rigorous way only for those languages whose structure has been exactly specified. For other languages – thus, for all natural, ‘spoken’ languages – the meaning of the problem is more or less vague, and its solution can have only an approximate character.”
- 12.
- 13.
Cf., Pullum and Scholz [27].
- 14.
In view of the fact that for example model-theoretic approaches to syntax (cf., [26]), though definite alternatives to generative ones, are committed to the formal specifiability of syntax just as well.
- 15.
Cf. Perry [25].
- 16.
The most well-known instance of such an approach is that of Kaplan, cf., [17].
- 17.
- 18.
Cf., Wittgenstein [37], section 122.
- 19.
Asterisks (*) indicate recommended readings.
References
Asterisks (*) indicate recommended readings.
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1954). Logical syntax and semantics. Language, 30, 230–237.
* Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2004). Insensitive semantics. A defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell. [Outspoken defence of semantic minimalism].
Chomsky, N. (1955). Logical syntax and semantics: their linguistic relevance. Language, 31, 36–45.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cresswell, M. (1973). Logics and languages. London: Methuen.
Davidson, D. (1965). Theories of meaning and learnable languages. In Y. Bar-Hillel (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1964 international congress for logic, methodology, and philosophy of science. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
* Davidson, D. (1967). Truth and meaning. Synthese, 17, 304–323. [One of the origins of formal semantics].
* Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift. Eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Halle a.S: Louis Nebert. English translation in Van Heijenoort 1970. [Introduces the distinction between grammatical form and logical form].
Frege, G. (1918). Der Gedanke: eine logische Untersuchung. Beiträge zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus, 2, 58–77. English translation by Peter Geach in Frege 1977.
Frege, G. (1977). Logical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Tecumseh Fitch, W. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 1569–1579.
van Heijenoort, J. (1970). Frege and Gödel. Two fundamental texts in mathematical logic. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1978). The way to language. In Basic writings (pp. 393–426). London: Routledge.
Higginbotham, J. (1993). Grammatical form and logical form. Philosophical Perspectives, 7, 173–196.
Higginbotham, J. (1997). Reflections on semantics in generative grammar. Lingua, 100, 101–109.
Kamp, H., & Stokhof, M. (2008). Information in natural language. In J. van Benthem & P. Adriaans (Eds.), Handbook of philosophy of information (pp. 49–112). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kaplan, D. (1979). On the logic of demonstratives. In P. French et al. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language (pp. 401–413). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lewis, D. K. (1970). General semantics. Synthese, 22, 18–67.
Maat, J. (2004). Philosophical languages in the seventeenth century: Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Moerdijk, I., & Landman, F. (1981). Morphological features and conditions on rules in Montague grammar. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
* Montague, R. (1970). Universal grammar. Theoria, 36, 373–398. [One of the origins of formal semantics].
Montague, R. (1973). The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In J. Hintikka, J. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 221–242). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Pagin, P., & Westerståhl, D. (2010a). Compositionality I: Definitions and variants. Philosophy Compass, 5, 250–264.
Pagin, P., & Westerståhl, D. (2010b). Compositionality II: Arguments and problems. Philosophy Compass, 5, 265–282.
Perry, J. (1979). The problem of the essential indexical. Noûs, 13, 3–21.
Pullum, G., & Scholz, B. (2001). On the distinction between model-theoretic and generative-enumerative syntactic frameworks. In P. de Groote et al. (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics (pp. 17–43). Berlin: Springer.
Pullum, G., & Scholz, B. (2007). Systematicity and natural language syntax. Croatian Journal of Philosophy, VII, 375–402.
* Recanati, F. (2005). Literalism and contextualism: Some varieties. In G. Preyer & G. Peter (Eds.), Contextualism in philosophy: Knowledge, meaning and truth (pp. 171–198). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Overview of the contextualism – minimalism debate].
Reichenbach, H. (1947). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Dover/McMillan.
Stokhof, M. (2007). Hand or hammer? On formal and natural languages in semantics. The Journal of Indian Philosophy, 35, 597–626.
Stokhof, M. (2011). Intuitions and competence in formal semantics. In B. Partee, M. Glanzberg, & J. Skilters (Eds.), The baltic international yearbook of cognition, logic and communication. Volume 6: Formal semantics and pragmatics. Discourse, context and models (pp. 1–23). Riga: University of Latvia Press.
Stokhof, M., & van Lambalgen, M. (2011a). Abstractions and idealisations: The construction of modern linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(1–2), 1–26.
Stokhof, M., & van Lambalgen, M. (2011b). Comments-to-comments. Theoretical Linguistics, 37(1–2), 79–94.
Tarski, A. J. (1944). The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4, 341–375.
Thomason, R. H. (1974). Introduction. In R. H. Thomason (Ed.), Formal philosophy. Selected papers of Richard Montague (pp. 1–71). New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
* Travis, C. (2006). Insensitive semantics. Mind and Language, 21, 39–49. [Outspoken defence of contextualism].
* Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. [Classical source of a practice-oriented approach to natural language meaning].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stokhof, M. (2018). Can Natural Language Be Captured in a Formal System?. In: Hansson, S., Hendricks, V. (eds) Introduction to Formal Philosophy. Springer Undergraduate Texts in Philosophy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77434-3_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77434-3_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77433-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77434-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)