User:Phlsph7/Formal semantics - Methodology
Methodology
Unlike other approaches to semantics, formal semantics relies heavily on various formal tools and methods from fields like logic, mathematics, and philosophy of language to analyze meaning. One central assumption is the attempt to grasp the meaning of sentences by studying their truth conditions. A truth condition of a sentence is a specific situation or set of circumstances under which the sentence would be considered true. For example, a truth condition of the sentence "It is raining" is that rain drops are falling outside.
A closely related methodological consideration is the problem of entailment. Entailment is a relation between sentences—called premise(s) and conclusion—in which the truth is preserved. For example, the sentence "Tina is tall and thin" entails the sentence "Tina is thin" because the truth of the first sentence guarantees the truth of the second sentence. One aspect of understanding the meaning of a sentence is understanding what it does and does not entail.
To analyze the truth conditions and entailment relations in a precise manner, formal semanticists typically employ model theory. In this context, a model is an abstract representation of a hypothetical situation. Models rely on set theory and introduce abstract objects for all the entities in this situation. For example, a model of a situation in which Tina is tall and thin may include an abstract object corresponding to Tina and two sets of objects—one for all tall entities and one for all thin entities. Using this approach, it is possible to define truth conditions through mathematical relations between abstract objects, for example, that the object corresponding to Tina is a member of both sets.
The principle of compositionality is another key methodological assumption to analyze the meaning of natural language sentences and connect them to abstract models. The principle states that the meaning of compound expressions is determined by the meanings of its parts and the way they are combined. This rule states that by knowing the meanings of the name Tina, the verb is, and the adjective thin, a person can understand the sentence "Tina is thin" even if they have never heard this sentence before. The principle of compositionality explains how language users can comprehend an infinite number of sentences based on their understanding of a finite set of words and rules.[1][2]
Using this approach, formal semanticists connect natural language sentences to abstract models, for example, by defining an interpretation function that maps the name "Tina" to an abstract object and the adjective "thin" to a set of objects. This makes it possible to precisely calculate the truth values of sentences relative to abstract models. This general method also reflects how formal semantics is typically committed to an externalist theory of meaning since the meaning of an expression is interpreted as the entities it denotes in the abstract model, without focusing on cognitive processes internal to language users.
Different approaches to formal semantics propose different ways of constructing models and relating linguistic expressions to them.[3][4] Some rely on the contrast between grammatical and logical form. The grammatical form of an expression is the arrangement of words and phrases on its surface, following rules of syntax that can vary between languages. The logical form of an expression abstracts away from linguistic conventions to reveal the underlying logical relations.[5]
- rel btw lang & world as central methodological assumption
- underlying assumptions: Availability Assumption, Determinacy Assumption(Stokhof 2007)
- grammatical form and logical form(Stokhof 2007)
- methodological individualism, the distinction between grammatical form and logical form, and methodological psychologism(Stokhof 2013)
- standard model-theoretic view, minimal meta-theory is Typed Predicate Logic(fox 2014)
- underlying assumption: "(i) entailment as an empirical phenomenon revealing important aspects of meaning (ii) the compositionality principle as a bridge between meaning and form"(Winter 2016)
- use logic & math & fcts
- criticism: nat lang too complex[7]
grammatic vs logical form[8]
References
Notes
Citations
- ^ Lappin 2008, p. 374.
- ^ Winter 2016, pp. 28–29.
- ^ a b Lappin 2003, pp. 370–371.
- ^ a b Moeschler 2007, pp. 32.
- ^ Stokhof 2007, pp. 609–611.
- ^ Lappin 2003, pp. 369–370.
- ^ Barba 2007, pp. 637–639.
- ^ Stokhof 2007, pp. 614–615.