• Marcus KrachtEmail author
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 89)


In this chapter, a second component is added to the grammars, that of meanings. A new notion of grammar appears on the scene, that of a bigrammar. Bigrammars interpret the modes by two functions, one for the formation of the expressions, another for the formation of the meanings. Various notions of independence of these two planes are being discussed. Autonomy of syntax means that expression formation proceeds independently of the meaning, and compositionality means that meaning formation proceeds independently of the expressions. The partiality of the composition functions allows to divide the explanatory burden between semantics and syntax in often arbitrary ways. Further, strong generative capacity is linked to the language as relation, while weak capacity only deals with the string language. It is shown that there exist weakly context free languages that are not strongly context free.


Interpreted Language Compositionality Autonomy of Syntax Bigrammar Generative Capacity 


  1. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In The View from Building 20: Essays in Honour Sylvain Bromberger, edited by K. Hale and S.J. Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Falk, Yehuda N. 2001. Lexical-Functional Grammar: An Introduction to Parallel Constraint-Based Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  3. Gärdenfors, Peter. 2004. Conceptual Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Harrison, Michael A. 1978. Introduction to Formal Language Theory. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Hodges, Wilfrid. 2001. “Formal Features of Compositionality.” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 10:7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Janssen, Theo. 1997. “Compositionality.” In Handbook of Logic and Language, edited by Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 417–73. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  7. Kac, Michael B., Alexis Manaster-Ramer, and William C. Rounds. 1987. “Simultaneous-Distributive Co-ordination and Context-Freeness.” Computational Linguistics 13:25–30.Google Scholar
  8. Keenan, Edward L., and Edward P. Stabler. 2001. Bare Grammar. Lectures on Linguistics Invariants. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  9. King, Jeffrey C. 2007. The Nature and Structure of Content. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kracht, Marcus. 2003. Mathematics of Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kracht, Marcus. 2006. “Partial Algebras, Meaning Categories and Algebraization.” Theoretical Computer Science 354:131–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kracht, Marcus. 2008. “Is Adjunction Compositional?” Research on Language and Computation 6:53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, Philip H. 1999. Strong Generative Capacity. The Semantics of Linguistic Formalisms. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
  14. Onions, C.T. 1973. The Shorter English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Pagin, Peter. 2003. Communication and Strong Compositionality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32:287–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pentus, Mati. 1997. “Product–Free Lambek–Calculus and Context–Free Grammars.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 62:648–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan Sag. 1994. Head–Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Radzinski, Daniel. 1990. “Unbounded Syntactic Copying in Mandarin Chinese.” Linguistics and Philosophy 13:113–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 2011. Course in General Linguistics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Scollon, Ron, and Suzie Wong Scollon. 2003. Discourses in Place. Language in the Material World. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zadrozny, Wlodek. 1994. “From Compositional Semantics to Systematic Semantics.” Linguistics and Philosophy 17:329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Barker, Chris, and Pauline Jacobson, eds. 2007. Direct Compositionality. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, vol. 14. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Szabó, Zoltán Gendler. 2000. “Compositionality as Supervenience.” Linguistics & Philosophy 23:475–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manaster-Ramer, Alexis. 1986. “Copying in Natural Languages, Context-Freeness and Queue Grammars.” In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 85–89. New York, NY: Stroudsburg, PA.Google Scholar
  25. Pullurn, Geoffrey, and Kyle Rawlins. 2007. “Argument or No argument?” Linguistics and Philosophy 30:277–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thue, Axel. 1914. Probleme über Veränderungen von Zeichenreihen nach gegebenen Regeln. (Problems Concerning Changing Strings According to Given Rules). Skrifter utgit av Videnskapsselkapet i Kristiania, I. Mathematisk-naturvidenskabelig klasse, 10.Google Scholar
  27. Manaster-Ramer, Alexis, M. AndrewMoshier, and R. Suzanne Zeitman. 1992. An Extension of Ogden’s Lemma. Manuscript. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University.Google Scholar
  28. Groenink, Annius. 1997. Surface Without Structure. Word Order and Tractability Issues in Natural Language Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  29. Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1993–2000. Cours de Morphologie Générale, vols. 1–5. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations