Basic Aspects of the Theory of Grammatical Form

  • Helmut Schnelle
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 43)


In his book The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics Sneed analyzes the structure of a theory of mathematical physics through informal axiomatization. According to Sneed, a theory of mathematical physics is characterized by a matrix for the theory, which “‘determines’ the sort of mathematical entities the theory is going to employ”, and four other entities: the set of models, the frame, the core, and the expanded core of the theory. The latter entities are, in a sense, restrictions of the matrix determined by basic axiomatic considerations and by considerations determining the empirical content of the theory. Each of these entities, the matrix as well as the other four, are set-theoretically characterized in their general properties.


Deep Level Marked Point Lexical Entry Structural Linguistic Grammatical Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chomsky, N., 1955, The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, mimeographed, MIT– Library. 403Google Scholar
  2. Chomsky, N., 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, Mass..Google Scholar
  3. Chomsky, N., 1967, ‘The Formal Nature of Language’, in E. H. Lenneberg (ed.), Biological Foundations of Language, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N., 1971, ‘Deep Structure, Surface Structure, and Semantic Interpretation’, in D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N., 1972, ‘Some Empirical Issues in the Theory of Transformational Grammar’ in S. Peters (ed.) Goals of Linguistic Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J..Google Scholar
  6. Gregory, M., 1967, ‘Aspects of Varieties Differentiation’, Journal of Linguistics 3, 177–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lieb, H.-H., 1968, Communication Complexes and Their Stages, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  8. Lieb, H.-H., 1970, Sprachstudium und Sprachsystem, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  9. Lieb, H.-H., 1974, ‘Grammars as Theories: The Case for Axiomatic Grammars (Part I)’, Theoretical Linguistics 1, 39–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewis, D., 1970, ‘General Semantics’, in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1972, pp. 169–218.Google Scholar
  11. Montague, R., 1970, R., 1970, ‘Universal Grammar’, Theoria 36, 373–398; see also Montague (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Montague, R., 1972, ‘Universale Grammatik’, in R. Montague and H. Schnelle, Universale Grammatik, Vieweg, Braunschweig.Google Scholar
  13. Schnelle, H., 1973, Sprachphilosophie und Linguistik, Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg.Google Scholar
  14. Schnelle, H., 1974, ‘Review of Lieb (1970)’, Foundations of Language 11, 595–606.Google Scholar
  15. Schnelle, H., 1975, ‘Montague’s Universal Syntax — A Comparative Study’, to appear.Google Scholar
  16. Stegmüller, W., 1973, Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie, Vol. II, Zweiter Halbband, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht-Holland 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helmut Schnelle
    • 1
  1. 1.Technische Universität BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations