Advertisement

What is Logical Form?

  • Stephen Neale
Chapter
  • 148 Downloads
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 236)

Abstract

I want to motivate and develop a version of the idea that the level of syntactical representation called “LF’ in Chomskyan grammar should be construed as instantiating the properties that philosophers have traditionally ascribed to logical form and as such makes a substantial contribution to semantics.1

Keywords

Logical Form Formal Language Argument Position Surface Manifestation Truth Definition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach. E. [ 1968 ]. Nouns and Noun Phrases. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Reinhart, Winston, pp. 91–124.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J. [ 1989 ]. The Situation in Logic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Carlson, G. [ 1983 ]. Logical Form: Types of Evidence. Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 295–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N. [ 1975 ]. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. [1977]. Essays on Form and interpretation. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N. [ 1981 ]. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N. [ 1986 ]. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  8. Cooper, R. [ 1983 ]. Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson, D. [ 1967 ]. Truth and Meaning. Synthese 17, 304–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, D. [ 1975 ]. Semantics for Natural Languages. in D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), The Logic of Grammar. New York: Dickenson, pp. 18–24Google Scholar
  11. Etchemendy, J. [ 1983 ]. The Doctrine of Logic as Form. Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harman, G. [ 1972 ]. Deep Structure as Logical Form. In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harman, G. [ 1975 ]. Logical Form. In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.) The Logic of Grammar. New York: Dickenson, pp. 289–307.Google Scholar
  14. Higginbotham, J. [ 1980 ]. Pronouns and Bound Variables. Linguistic Inquiry 11, 679–708.Google Scholar
  15. Higginbotham, J. [ 1987 ]. On Semantics. In E. LePore (ed.) New Directions in Semantics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–54.Google Scholar
  16. Higginbotham, J., and R. May [ 1981 ] “Questions, Quantifiers, and Crossing,” Linguistic Review 1, 41–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hintikka, J. [ 1974 ]. Quantifiers and Quantification Theory. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 153–177.Google Scholar
  18. Hintikka, J. [ 1989 ]. Logical Form and Linguistic Theory. In A. George (ed.), Reflections on Chomsky, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
  19. Hintikka, J., and J. Kulas [1985]. Anaphora and Definite Descriptions. Dordrecht Reidel.Google Scholar
  20. Hintikka, J. and G. Sandu [ 1991 ]. The Methodology of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Hornstein, N. [ 1984 ]. Logic as Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Jackendoff, R. [ 1983 ]. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kripke, S. [1977]. Speaker Reference and Semantic Reference. In P. A. French, T. E. Uehling, Jr., and H. K. Wettstein, Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 6–27.Google Scholar
  24. Lakoff, G. [ 1971 ]. On Generative Semantics. In D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 232–296.Google Scholar
  25. Lakoff, G. [1972]. Linguistics and Natural Logic. In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 545–665.Google Scholar
  26. McCawley, J. [ 1968 ]. The Role of Semantics in Grammar. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Reinhart, Winston, pp. 125–170.Google Scholar
  27. McCawley, J. [ 1972 ]. A Program for Logic. In D. Davidson and G. Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 498–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. May, R. [ 1985 ]. Logical Form: its Structure and Derivation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Neale, S. [ 1990 ]. Descriptions, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Reinhart, T. [ 1978 ]. Syntactic Domains for Semantic Rules. In F. Guenthner and S. J. Schmidt (eds.), Formal Semantics and Pragmatics for Natural Languages. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinhart, T. [ 1983 ]. Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation. London: Croon Helm.Google Scholar
  32. Russell, B., and A. N. Whitehead [ 1927 ]. Principia Mathematica, vol. I, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wiggins, D. [ 1980 ]. “’Most’ and ‘All’: Some Comments on a Familiar Programme, and on the Logical Form of Quantified Sentences,” in M. Platts (ed.), Reference, Truth, and Reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 318–346.Google Scholar
  34. Williams, E. [ 1977 ]. Discourse and Logical Form. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101–138.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Neale
    • 1
  1. 1.University California at BerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations