The Logicality of Language: A new take on Triviality, "Ungrammaticality", and Logical Form*
The Logicality of Language: A new take on Triviality, "Ungrammaticality", and Logical Form*
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/nous.12235
复制
发表时间：
2019-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Del Pinal, Guillermo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Del Pinal, Guillermo
最近在形式语义学方面的研究表明，语言系统不仅包括一个标准假设的结构构建装置，而且还包括一个自然的演绎系统，它可以确定表达式何时具有微不足道的真条件（例如，逻辑上为真/假）并将其标记为不可接受。这一假设被称为“语言的逻辑性”，它解释了许多可接受模式，包括对量词分布的系统限制。为了处理由可接受的重言式和矛盾组成的明显反例，语言的逻辑性通常与一个额外的假设配对，根据这个假设，逻辑形式根本没有被明确：即，语言系统可以看到功能术语，但对开放类术语“视而不见”，以至于同一术语的不同符号被视为独立的。这种逻辑形式的概念有着深刻的含义：它暗示了语言模块化的一个极端版本，并且只能与非经典的——实际上是相当奇特的——演绎系统配对。本文的目的是表明，我们可以将语言的逻辑性与一种不同的、最终更传统的逻辑形式的描述配对。该框架解释了激发语言逻辑的基本可接受模式，可以解释为什么一些重言式和矛盾是可接受的，并在关键情况下做出更好的预测。因此，我们可以在框架中追求语言逻辑性的版本，与语言系统相对于其开放的类术语并不是根本模块化的观点相兼容，并采用了一个基本上是经典的演绎系统。
Recent work in formal semantics suggests that the language system includes not only a structure building device, as standardly assumed, but also a natural deductive system which can determine when expressions have trivial truth-conditions (e.g., are logically true/false) and mark them as unacceptable. This hypothesis, called the 'logicality of language', accounts for many acceptability patterns, including systematic restrictions on the distribution of quantifiers. To deal with apparent counter-examples consisting of acceptable tautologies and contradictions, the logicality of language is often paired with an additional assumption according to which logical forms are radically underspecified: i.e., the language system can see functional terms but is 'blind' to open class terms to the extent that different tokens of the same term are treated as if independent. This conception of logical form has profound implications: it suggests an extreme version of the modularity of language, and can only be paired with non-classical-indeed quite exotic-kinds of deductive systems. The aim of this paper is to show that we can pair the logicality of language with a different and ultimately more traditional account of logical form. This framework accounts for the basic acceptability patterns which motivated the logicality of language, can explain why some tautologies and contradictions are acceptable, and makes better predictions in key cases. As a result, we can pursue versions of the logicality of language in frameworks compatible with the view that the language system is not radically modular vis-a-vis its open class terms and employs a deductive system that is basically classical.