Jump to content

User:Femke 01/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Logical grammar or rational grammar is a term used in the history and philosophy of linguistics to refer to certain linguistic and grammatical theories that were prominent until the early 19th century and later influenced 20th-century linguistic thought. These theories were developed by scholars and philosophers who sought to establish a logical and rational basis for understanding the relationship between reality, meaning, cognition, and language. Examples from the classical and modern period represent a realistic approach to linguistics, while accounts written during the Age of Enlightenment represent rationalism focusing on human thought.[1][2]

Logical, rational or general grammar was the dominant approach to language until it was supplanted by romanticism.[3] Since then, there have been attempts to revive logical grammar. The idea is today at least partially represented by categorial grammar, formal semantics, and transcendental phenomenology,

Method and history

[edit]

Subject and predication

[edit]

The foundation of logical grammar was laid out by the Greek philosophers. According to Plato, the task of the sentence is to predicate about the subject. In the Sophist, he uses the example of "Theaetetus is sitting" to illustrate the idea of predication. This statement involves the subject "Theaetetus" and the predicate "is sitting". Plato then delves into questions about the relationship between these two elements and the nature of being and non-being.[4]

In the Parmenides, Plato uses examples like "Theaetetus is a man" and "Theaetetus is not a man" to illustrate the complexities and challenges of predication, particularly concerning the relationship between particulars and universal concepts. Plato's discussions of predication in these dialogues are part of his broader exploration of metaphysics, epistemology, and the nature of reality.

Following Plato, Aristotle's syllogism relies on the concept of predication, as it forms the basis for his system of deductive reasoning. In Aristotelian syllogism, predication plays a central role in establishing the relationships between different terms within categorical statements. Syllogistic reasoning consists of a series of subjects (S) and predicates (p).

  • Premise 1: All humans (S) are mortal (p).
  • Premise 2: Socrates (S) is a human (p).
  • Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates (S) is mortal (p).

The analysis of the sentence into a subject-predicate structure became the cornerstone of classical grammar. Building on the Greek classics, Thomas of Erfurt's 14th-century Latin grammar expounds the role of linguistics within natural sciences. The task of language is to make statements of reality by means of predication. His "Modistae" grammar also includes a transitive sentence. In his example "Plato strikes Socrates," Plato is the subject and "strikes Socrates" is the predicate relating to Plato.[5]

More examples of predication are found in the rational grammars of the Age of Enlightenment, such as the Port-Royal grammar. This approach is also elaborated in the second edition of Edmund Husserl's Logical Investigations (1921). Husserl's phenomenological pure logical grammar entails the study of the interconnectedness of language and the structures of consciousness.[6] It influenced Rudolph Carnap's 1935 logical syntax, which later formed the basis of categorial grammar. Such logical concepts of language, constructed by mathematicians and philosophers, represent the first approaches to generative grammar.[7] Linguists adopted the technique replacing the logical and rational concept with biologism and psychologism.[8]

In the 20th century, the subject-centered view was replaced in mathematical logic by predicate-argument structure, which is focuses on the event (cf. predicate) and the relationship of the arguments, whose number is in principle unlimited: P(x,y,...). In modern linguistics, the mechanism familiar from classical predication often goes under the name of information structure but is considered as part of innate syntax in generative grammar. Formal semantics, as well as dependency grammar, employs transitive or n-ary predicates, but categorial grammar remains based on the unary predicate. Predicate-argument structure has been proposed for phenomenological linguistics, but such an enterprise is yet to materialize.[9]

Categories and substitution

[edit]

The first philosopher to extensively discuss categories (or "predicables") in Western philosophy is Aristotle. In his work "Categories" (also known as "Categories of Being"), Aristotle systematically examined different types of predicables or categories, which are fundamental concepts for understanding the nature of reality and how language represents it. These include ten basic types that he identified as fundamental for understanding and classifying things in the world.[10]

  • substances (individual entities like humans or animals),
  • quantities (measurements of size, number, etc.),
  • qualities (attributes or characteristics such as color or shape),
  • relations (ways things are related to one another),
  • places (locations or positions),
  • times (temporal references),
  • situations (conditions or states of affairs),
  • conditions (circumstances or modes of being),
  • actions (what things do), and
  • passions (what happens to things).

On the other hand, the concept of syntactic categories, also known as parts of speech or word classes (e.g., nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs etc.), is related to but separable from the categories of being in the study of Ancient Greek grammar. Dionysius Thrax's work "Art of Grammar" is one of the earliest systematic grammatical treatises in Western tradition. Thrax classified words into eight parts of speech:[11]

The substitution of one element with another of the same syntactic category is discussed in the general and rational grammar of Port-Royal (1660) and elaborated by Husserl in his Logical Investigation (1921), which introduces the commutation test (see also constituent test), which is based on such substitution. The identification of elements belonging to a category is based on their grammaticality. For example, the adjective white in the statement 'This paper is white' is substituted by another adjective such as green or careless. In Husserl's taxonomy, a statement like 'This paper is careless' has a structured meaning but is "nonsense". By contrast, the statement 'This careless is green' violates the laws of structured meaning and is therefore "senseless". In modern terminology, the first statement is grammatical but the second one is ungrammatical.[12]

From another angle, pure logical grammar builds up phrases, which represent a higher-level syntactic category, employing predication. The underlying logical proposition 'This paper is white' is transformed into the adjective phrase 'white paper'. The whole sentence is constituted according to the principle of predication; and phrases are identified by means of substitution.

This insight led to the development of categorial and type logical grammar.[13] Sentences, whether acquired via empirical or introspective inquiry, are analyzed and synthesized into different-level syntactic categories to build a formal grammar. When the acquired rewrite rules are employed in reverse (i.e. starting from the sentence level and proceeding to clauses, phrases, single elements and terminals), the grammar generates all the grammatical sentences of the language, and an unrestricted (or "infinite") number of sentences.[14]

Criticism

[edit]

In general linguistics, logical and rational grammar was supplanted by romanticism in the beginning of the 19th century. One prominent figure who critiqued Enlightenment grammar during the Romantic era was Friedrich Schlegel. In his work Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier ('On the Language and Wisdom of the Indians'), Schlegel advocated for a more flexible and organic approach to language. He argued that language should be seen as a living and evolving entity, rather than a fixed set of rules.[15]

Another key figure was Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg), who expressed the idea that language was a dynamic and creative force, and that it should reflect the richness of human experience and emotions. Novalis wrote about the importance of poetic language and the need for language to capture the depths of the soul. However, the most influential figure in linguistic romanticism was Wilhelm von Humboldt, who argued that all languages have their own logic, or 'inner form,' rather than all languages being based on universal logic.[16]

Romanticism followed a time period when language education became politicized as education became accessible to a larger democratic, and the standardization of language was influenced by nationalism. Discussing language and authority from a modern and historical viewpoint, James Milroy and Lesley Milroy argue that logical explanations (alongside mathematical, functional and aesthetic) of linguistic phenomena do not belong to descriptive linguistics, which has the purpose of helping linguists guide the education authorities in a way that is based on scientific research. According to Milroy and Milroy, more appropriate theories for the purpose include those proposed by Ferdinand de Saussure, Noam Chomsky, and David Crystal.[17]

Modern theorists including Chomsky and George Lakoff have counteracted against frameworks of logical explanation, namely the Montague grammar and formal semantics.[18]




[19]

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is a sentence composed by Noam Chomsky in his 1957 book Syntactic Structures as an example of a sentence that is grammatically well-formed, but semantically nonsensical. The sentence was originally used in his 1955 thesis The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory and in his 1956 paper "Three Models for the Description of Language".[20]: 116  There is no obvious understandable meaning that can be derived from it, which demonstrates the distinction between syntax and semantics, and the idea that a syntactically well-formed sentence is not guaranteed to be semantically well-formed as well. As an example of a category mistake, Chomsky used it to argue that


Husserl 78-79: This careless is green.

https://hiphilangsci.net/2022/03/21/colorless-green-ideas-and-the-others/

nonsense verse

  1. ^ Gamut, L. T. F. (1982). Logic, Language and Meaning. Volume II: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-28084-5.
  2. ^ Rieux, Jacques; Rollin, Bernard E. (1975). "Translators' introduction". In Rieux, Jacques; Rollin, Bernard E. (eds.). General and Rational grammar: The Port-Royal Grammar by Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot. Mouton. pp. 18–31. ISBN 90 279 3004 X.
  3. ^ Thomas, Margaret (2004). Universal Grammar in Second-language Acquistition: a History. Routledge. ISBN 9781134388547.
  4. ^ Hamlyn, D. W. (1981). "Aristotle on predication". Phronesis. 6 (2): 110–126. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
  5. ^ Seuren, Pieter A. M. (1998). Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20891-4.
  6. ^ Edie, James M. (1977). "Husserl's conception of "the grammatical" and contemporary linguistics". In Mohanty, J. N. (ed.). Readings on Edmund Husserl’s Logical Investigations. Martinus Nijhoff. pp. 137–161. ISBN 978-90-247-1928-0.
  7. ^ Wybraniec-Skardowska, Urszula; Rogalski, Andrzej K. (1998). "On universal grammar and its formalization". The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. 8: 153–172. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
  8. ^ Mann, Wolfgang-Rainer (2000). The discovery of things: Aristotle's Categories and their context. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691010205.
  9. ^ Mays, Wolfe (2002). "Edmund Husserl's grammar: 100 years on". Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology. 33 (3). doi:10.1080/00071773.2002.11007389.
  10. ^ Gamut, L. T. F. (1982). Logic, Language and Meaning. Volume II: Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-28084-5.
  11. ^ Seuren, Pieter A. M. (1998). Western linguistics: An historical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20891-4.
  12. ^ Edie, James M. (1977). "Husserl's conception of "the grammatical" and contemporary linguistics". In Mohanty, J. N. (ed.). Readings on Edmund Husserl’s Logical Investigations. Martinus Nijhoff. pp. 137–161. ISBN 978-90-247-1928-0.
  13. ^ Wybraniec-Skardowska, Urszula; Rogalski, Andrzej K. (1998). "On universal grammar and its formalization". The Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. 8: 153–172. Retrieved 2023-09-25.
  14. ^ Bianchin, Matteo (2018). "Husserl on Meaning, Grammar, and the Structure of Content" (PDF). Husserl Studies. 34: 101–121. Retrieved 2023-09-23.
  15. ^ Asko Nivala, The Romantic Idea of the Golden Age in Friedrich Schlegel's Philosophy of History, Routledge, 2017
  16. ^ Hiebel, Frederick (1947). "Novalis and the Problem of Romanticism". Monatshefte: 515–523.
  17. ^ Milroy, James; Milroy, Lesley (2012). LAuthority in Language: Investigating Standard English. Routledge. ISBN 9780415696838.
  18. ^ Partee, Barbara (2011). "Formal semantics: Origins, issues, early impact". The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication. 6. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.826.5720.
  19. ^ Fisher, Simon E.; Vernes, Sonja C. (January 2015). "Genetics and the Language Sciences". Annual Reviews. 1: 289–310. doi:10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125024.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  20. ^ Chomsky, Noam (September 1956). "Three Models for the Description of Language" (PDF). IRE Transactions on Information Theory. 2 (3): 113–124. doi:10.1109/TIT.1956.1056813. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-03-07.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Femke_01/sandbox&oldid=1177029317"