Linguistics wars

Thelinguistics warswere extended disputes among Americantheoretical linguiststhat occurred mostly during the 1960s and 1970s, stemming from a disagreement betweenNoam Chomskyand several of his associates and students. The debates started in 1967 when linguistsPaul Postal,John R. Ross,George Lakoff,andJames D. McCawley—self-dubbed the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse"—proposed an alternative approach in which the relation betweensemanticsandsyntaxis viewed differently, which treateddeep structuresas meaning rather than syntactic objects. While Chomsky and othergenerative grammariansargued that meaning is driven by an underlying syntax, generative semanticists posited that syntax is shaped by an underlying meaning. This intellectual divergence led to two competing frameworks ingenerative semanticsand interpretive semantics.

Eventually, generative semantics spawned a different linguistic paradigm, known ascognitive linguistics,a linguistic theory that correlates learning of languages to other cognitive abilities such asmemorization,perception,and categorization, while descendants of interpretive semantics continue in the guise offormal semantics.

Background

In 1957,Noam Chomsky(b. 1928) publishedSyntactic Structures,his first influential work. The ideas inSyntactic Structureswere a significant departure from the dominant paradigm among linguists at the time, championed byLeonard Bloomfield(1887–1949).The Bloomfieldian approach focused on smaller linguistic units such asmorphemesandphones,and had little to say about how these units were organized into larger structures such asphrasesandsentences.By contrast, syntax was the central empirical concern ofSyntactic Structures,which modeled grammar as a sets of rules that procedurally generate all and only the sentences of a given language. This approach is referred to astransformational grammar.Moreover, Chomsky criticized Bloomfieldians as being "[t]axonomic linguists", mere collectors and cataloguers of language.Early work in generative grammar attempted to go beyond mere description of the data and identify the fundamental underlying principles of language.According to Chomsky, semantic components created the underlying structure of a given linguistic sequence, whereas phonological components formed its surface-level structure. This left the problem of ‘meaning’ in linguistic analysis unanswered.

Chomsky'sAspects of the Theory of Syntax(1965) developed his theory further by introducing the concepts ofdeep structure and surface structure,which were influenced by previous scholarship. First, Chomsky drew fromFerdinand de Saussure(1857–1913), specifically his dichotomy oflangue(the native knowledge of a language) versusparole(the actual use of language). Secondly,Louis Hjelmslev(1899–1965) later arguedparoleis observable and can be defined as the arrangement of speech, whereaslanguecomprises the systems within actual speech that underpin its lexicon and grammar.Aspects of the Theory of Syntaxalso addressed the issue of meaning by endorsing the Katz–Postal hypothesis, which holds that transformations do not affect meaning, and are therefore “semantically transparent”. This attempted to introduce notions of semantics to descriptions of syntax.Chomsky's endorsement resulted in further exploration of the relation between syntax and semantics, creating the environment for the emergence ofgenerative semantics.

Dispute

The divergence in the generative semantics andAspects'paradigms (Adapted from Harris, 2022)

The point of disagreement between generative semantics, known at the time asAbstract Syntax,and interpretive semantics was the degree of abstractness of deep structure. This refers to the distance between deep structures and the surface structure.Generative semantics views deep structure and transformations as necessary for connecting the surface structure with meaning. Whereas Chomsky’s paradigm considers the deep structure and transformation that link the deep structure to the surface structure essential for describing the structural composition of linguistic items—syntactic description—without explicitly addressing meaning.Notably, generative semanticists eventually abandoned deep structures altogether for the semantic representation.

Generative semantics approach

Generative semantics was inspired by the notions of Chomsky inAspects,in which he highlights two notions: deep structures determine the semantic representations, and selectional restrictions—rules that govern what follows and precedes words in a sentence—are stated in deep structures. These restrictions include the ‘semantic’ nature of the verbeatwhich necessitates that it should be followed by something edible.Generative semanticists initially misinterpreted Chomsky’s ideas about the relation between semantic representation and used the arguments of selectional restrictions to draw a direct and bilateral relation between meaning and surface structures, where semantic representations are mapped onto surface structures, thereby conflating the two levels of semantic representation and deep structures.

Generative semantics analysis evolved to favor an approach where deep structures reflect meaning directly through semantic features and relations—semantic representations. Thus, the formal characteristics of deep structures are considered insufficient and meaning drives the surface structures. The formal features of deep structures includecontext-freephrase-structuresgrammar and lexical insertion point—the point where words enter the derivation.Generative semantics view of the transformations and deep structures contrasted sharply with those of Chomsky's. Generative sematicist believed that deep structures are meaning representation and transformations apply to deep structures to create different surface structures while preserving meaning. Chomsky's model suggests that deep structure pertain the organization of linguistic items while transformations apply to and manipulate deep structure but sometimes alter the meaning.

Generative semantics' model:

deep structure:[AGENT] boy,[ACTION] hitting, [PATIENT]the ball

Transformation active: The boy hit the ball.

Chomsky's model:

deep structure: S ((NP the boy) (VP [hit]) (NP the ball))

Transformation passive: The ball was hit by the boy.

Generative semanticists used arguments such ascategory-changing transformations in which simple paraphrase clouds alter the syntactic categories yet the meaning is unchanged, solidifying the Katz-Postal hypothesis which postulates a transparent nature of transformations. These category-changing transformations exist in inchoative and causative clauses which share the same underlying structures similar to their stative clause as evident in the sentences below.

Inchoative: The door opened.

Causative: He opened the door.

The underlying structure is similar to the stative clause: The door is open.

Generative semanticists used this argument, first suggested by George Lakoff in his dissertation, to cement the idea that the underlying meaning (The door is OPEN) drives two different surface structures (Inchoative- causative), not the other way around.

Generative semantics and logical form

The level of semantic representation in the generative semantic analyses resembled the logical form, therefore, the derivation of a sentence is the direct mapping of semantics, meaning, and logic onto the surface structure, thus all aspects of meaning are represented inphrase-marker.Generative semanticists have claimed that the semantic deep structure is generated in a universal manner similar to those ofPredicate logic,thereby reducing the syntactic categories to just three: S (=proposition), NP (=argument), and V (=predicate). In this analysis adjectives, negatives, and auxiliaries are reduced to one category which is Verb, and the other forms are derived transformationally.

Lexical decomposition

Lexical decomposition was used to draw the syntactic stretch of sentences relaying the semantic implication inherent to words. In the wordkillthe analysis would reveal that it has atomic bits such as CAUSE and BECOME and NOT and ALIVE and work the semantic and syntactic relation between lexical items and their atomic parts.Generative semantics’ case for lexical decomposition in which lexical reading, and base but different lexical extensions in example such asdeadwhere the lexical base would be NOT ALIVE and the lexical extensions such askillordiebut similar readings such as the worddiecome from NOT ALIVE with the transformation inchoative it becomes (BECOME NOT ALIVE), andkillwith the same lexical base NOT ALIVE with transformation causative, it becomes (CAUSE TO BECOME NOT ALIVE). This simplified the projections rules necessary for transformations; rather than entering the wordkilldirectly in the deep structure, thereby creating a new ‘syntactic’ deep structure, it would be considered as sharing the same ‘semantic’ deep structure withdead,NOT ALIVE.Using this case of lexical decomposition, McCawley proposed a new rule—predicate raising—where lexical items can enter at any point of the derivation process rather than the deep structures.This argument by McCawley undermined deep structures as lexical insertion points; as evident in the generative semantics analysis, some transformations—predicate-raising—needed to be applied before the inserting the lexical items—lexical insertion point—in the derivation. Because predicate-raising collects the predicate parts –abstract verbs— into the meaning complexes, words.

These arguments were used to conclude that it made no theoretical sense to have syntactic deep structures as a separate level and that semantic representations, features, and relations should be mapped directly onto the surface structure.Additionally, generative semanticists have proclaimed that any level of structure that comes between the semantic representation and surface structure requires empirical justification.

Interpretivist critique of generative semantics

Chomsky and others conducted a number of arguments that are designed to demonstrate that generative semantics not only did not offer something new but was misconceived and misguided.In response to these challenges, Chomsky conducted a series of lectures and papers, known later asRemarks,which culminated in what was later known as the "interpretivist program". This program aimed to establish syntax as an independent level in the linguistic analysis—autonomous syntax—with independent rules, while the meaning of the syntactic structure follows from ‘interpretive’ rules applied to the syntactic structures.This approach retains the formal characteristics of deep structure as context-free phrase-structure grammar.Chomsky also criticized the Predicate-raising rule of McCawley for being an upside-down interpretive rule.

Lexicalism and deverbal nouns

The generative semanticist’s analysis—lexical decomposition—holds that wordsrefuseandrefusalwould belong to the same category refuse, but inRemarksChomsky argued for the limitation of transformations and the separation of lexical entries for semantically related words as some nominalizations have distinct meanings. Chomsky argued that words such as marry, marriage; revolve, revolution should not be treated as derived from their verb forms as revolution has braoder scope, so is marry. These nouns—which are known as deverbal nouns—should exist separately in the lexicon. This approach was later known aslexicalism.This posited also, that nominalization transformations should happen in the lexicon not in the deep structure thereby limiting the power of transformations.The wordsrefuseandrefusalwould belong to the same categoryREFUSEin the generative semantics framework, but inRemarksChomsky argued for the limitation of transformations and the separation of lexical entries for semantically related words.

For example:

a. John is eager to please.

b. John's eagerness to please.

c. John is easy to please.

d. *John's easiness to please.

The d. sentence shows some distributional differences not accounted for if the deverbal nouns are to be derived transformationally.Another point made by Chomsky against the generative semantics was the structural similarity deverbal nouns have with noun phrases, which suggests that it has its own independent internal structure,in the example, proofs functions like portraits a regular noun phrase.

a. Several of John's proofs of the theorem.

b. Several of John's portraits of the dean.

Remarkscontributed to what Chomsky terms the Extended Standard Theory, which he thought of as an extension toAspects.To many linguists, the relation between transformations and semantics in the Generative Semantics was the natural progression ofAspects.

Lexical decomposition

The interpretive semanticist,Jerry Fodor,also criticized generative semanticists’ approach to lexical decomposition in which the word kill is derived from CAUSE TO BECOME NOT ALIVE in the work of Foder in a sentence such as:

a Putin caused Litvinenko to die on Wednesday by having him poisoned three weeks earlier.

b * Putin killed Litvinenko on Wednesday by having him poisoned three weeks earlier.

In these sentences (a)killis derived from (b)caused to die,however, (a) is correct and causes no discrepancies but (b) which suggests a direct causal of killing contradicts the temporal qualifier “Wednesday by having him poisoned three weeks earlier” which suggests that lexical decomposition cloud fail to account for causal and temporal intricacies required for accurate semantic interpretation.

Cases for Formalism in Underlying Structures

Coreference

Under the generative semanticist coreference relations in a sentence such as “Harry thinks he should win the prize” are analyzed in the deep structure as “Harry thinks Harry should win the prize”, then transformations happen to replaceHarrywithhein the surface structure. But this approach was criticized for creating an infinite loop of embedding— withhe—in the deep structure “The man who shows he deserves it will get the prize he desires.”. Thus, the interpretivists consideredheas a base component, and finding the correct antecedents is achieved through interpretive rules.Further solidifying the existence of formal structures independent of semantics, which transformations apply to.

Transformations and meaning

Transformations are not fully accounted for in the Katz-Postal hypothesis which underlies the generative semantics paradigm.The Interpretivists argued that passive transformations do alter meaning in sentences with qualifiers such asevery.In the sentences

Everyone in the room knows two languages.

Two languages are known by everyone in the room.

Chomsky analyzed these two sentences as semantically different despite being only derivational pairs; he observed that the first sentence might imply that everyone knows twodifferentlanguages, while the second sentence implies that everyone in the room knows thesametwo languages.This argument was used to retain the formal characteristics of deep structures as transformation movements are not accounted for through semantic relations, but rather formal ones. The existence of an independent level of syntactic structure to which transformations apply is evidence of formalism.

Global rules of generative semantics

Generative semanticists accounted for such discrepancy resulted from passive transformations by claiming that the previous sentences do not share the same underlying structure, but rather two different structures; the first sentence has an underlying structure starting with “Everyone”, while the other sentence is with “Two” with the quantifier determining the scope of the meaning. Additionally, generative semanticists provided the “Quantifier lowering” rule where quantifiers are moved to the last position in the surface structures. In the previous sentences, in the sentence with “two” as an underlying structure, everyone is lowered highlighting that it is the same two languages are known by everyone, while in the sentence with “Everyone” as an underlying structure, the quantifier “two” is lowered maintaining that it is everyone knows two different languages.Thus, generative semanticist, Lakoff, has expressed that the two sentences are not semantically equivalent.George Lakoff proposed another rule which he termed the global derivational constraint in which sentence such as "Two languages..." would not be possible derivationally from an underlying structure with quantifier "Everyone" encompassing "Two".

Challenges in the paradigm

Generative semantics faced challenges in its empirical confirmation. Analyses in interpretive semantics involve phrase-structure rules and transformations that are innately codified according toAspects,drawing on Chomsky’s ideas of innate faculty in the human brain which process languages.By contrast, generative analyses contained hypotheses concerning factors like the intent of speakers and the denotation and entailment of sentences. Its lack of explicit rules, formulas, and underlying structures made its predictions difficult to compare and evaluate compared to those of interpretive semantics. Additionally, the generative framework was criticized for introducing irregularities without justification: the attempt to bridge syntax and semantics blurred the lines between these domains, with some arguing that the approach created more problems than it solved. These limitations led to the decline of generative semantics.

Aftermath

After the protracted debates and with the decline of generative semantics, its key figures pursued various paths. George Lakoff moved on to cognitive linguistics, which explores the cognitive domain and the relation between language and mental processes. Meanwhile, in the late 90s Chomsky switched his attention to a more universal program of generative grammar, theminimalist program,which does not claim to offer a comprehensive theory of language acquisition and use.Postal rejects the idea of generative semantics and embraces natural languages discarding aspects of cognition altogether and emphasizing grammaticality. Postal adopts a mathematical/ logical approach to studying ‘natural’ languages.John R. Rossventured to more literary-orientated endeavors such as poetry, though he maintained his transformationalist essence as his name existed in many of the Chomskyan works. As for McCawley, he continued following the tradition of Generative Semantics until his unfortunate death in 1999. He was known for his malleable approach to linguistic theory, employing both Extended Standard Theory and Generative Semantics elements.

Books

A first systematic description of the linguistics wars is the chapter with this title inFrederick Newmeyer's bookLinguistic Theory in America,which appeared in 1980.

The Linguistics Warsis the title of a 1993 book by Randy A. Harris that closely chronicles the dispute among Chomsky and other significant individuals (George LakoffandPaul Postal,among others) and also highlights how certain theories evolved and which of their important features have influenced modern-day linguistic theories.A second edition was published in 2022, in which Harris traces several important 21st century linguistic developments such asconstruction grammar,cognitive linguisticsandFrame semantics (linguistics),all emerging out ofgenerative semantics.The second edition also argues that Chomsky's minimalist program has significant homologies with early generative semantics.

Ideology and Linguistic Theory,byJohn A. Goldsmithand Geoffrey J. Huck,also explores that history, with detailed theoretical discussion and observed history of the times, including memoirs/interviews withRay Jackendoff,Lakoff, Postal, and Ross. The "What happened to Generative Semantics" chapter explores the aftermath of the dispute and the schools of thought or practice that could be seen as the successors to generative semantics.

See also

• Ray C. Dougherty
• Neurolinguistics
• Decoding Chomsky

Further reading

• Kempson, Ruth M. (1977).Semantic Theory.Cambridge University Press. p. 182.ISBN978-0-521-29209-2.