Semantics

[Gert Webelhuth]

Please see my comment below:

On Tue, 7 May 1996, Stephen M. Wechsler wrote:

> Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 11:28:12 -0500
> From: Stephen M. Wechsler <wechsler at mail.utexas.edu>
> To: lfg at lists.Stanford.EDU
> Subject: Re: Semantics
> 
> Alex discusses two views of the syntax/semantics interface, which he calls
> 
> >"Reduced Autonomy of Semantics" or RAS, in GB, and the "Full Autonomy of
> >Semantics" of FAS, typical of LFG.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the distinction between Alex's RAS and FAS reduces to
> the following:  In RAS ('GB'), but not FAS, an ambiguous string (e.g. "Some
> girl kicked every boy") must be assignable to multiple syntactic
> representations, one for each semantic interpretation.  

Hi,

I have enjoyed following the discussion about the syntax-semantics
mapping that Alex has kicked loose. I agree with everything Steve
says in the present message, except for the last statment above. 
It is not necessary for GB to make the strong claim that every
sentence that is n times ambiguous have n distinct syntactic
representations. Bob May, for instance, in his book on LF (was it
May (1985) ?) allows for one LF to have more than one distinct
semantic interpretations. Thus two quantifiers adjoined to the same
node at LF have their relative scopes fixed only in "true" semantic
representation, but not at LF (I think the slogan was: if two
quantifiers govern each other at LF, then the syntax does NOT
disambiguate their scope relative to each other).
	What I personally find most worrisome about the relationship
between syntax and semantics in GB is the claim that there are
universal syntactic configurations that must exist in sentences
with certain meanings (e.g. the Kratzer/Diesing claims about 
VP-internal vs. external subjects of different types of predicates).
I am very skeptical that one can press all languages into the same
pattern in this regard, see for instance Carol Rosen's empirical
arguments against the universal alignment hypothesis in RG.

Best,

Gert




The GB view gains
> support to the extent that these distinct syntactic representations can be
> independently motivated (so far unconvincing in my opinion).  I tend to
> agree with Alex that the FAS is a more reasonable model.  It allows one to
> approach the syn-sem interface as an open empirical question.
> 
> Steve
> 
> o----------------------------------------------------------------o
> | Stephen Wechsler, Assistant Prof. of Linguistics.  403 Calhoun |
> | Spring 95 office hrs: Tu 2-4, F 11-12. MAIL: Linguistics Dept.,|
> | 501 Calhoun, U. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712-1196.(512) 471-1701 |
> |       http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~wechsler/                      |
> o----------------------------------------------------------------o
> 
> 
>