Patrick Duffley

It is argued that the truth-conditional view of truth proposed is problematic, as it comes at the unacceptable price of cutting the human mind off from real being, making truth into something purely hypothetical. Arguments based on the nature of the subject-predicate relation are summoned in support of a return to the Aristotelian definition of truth as being “to say that what is is and that what is not is not.” It is demonstrated that this conception corresponds better both to the structure of natural language and to the nature of truth. The treatment of the predicate in some versions of Aristotelian-inspired term logic is criticized for reducing predication to mere sorting or classifying, and the fundamentally verbal nature of the predicate is argued to anchor the predication in a particular context involving a certain time and a particular set of circumstances, thus allowing its truth to be determined.

This article explores the tension between the antithetical philosophies of empiricism and innatism underlying Chomskyan linguistics. It first follows the trail of empiricism in North American linguistics, starting from the work of Leonard Bloomfield at the beginning of the Twentieth century, and its influence on the Chomskyan paradigm, after which the Kantian trail of innatism initiated by Chomsky himself is reconnoitered. It is argued that the Chomskyan approach to natural language represents a paradigmatic example of the unsavory consequences of the divorce between mind and matter instituted by Kant, in particular because human language involves an intimate relation between both types of reality. In Chomsky’s Generative Grammar, on the other hand, the material side of language is treated as completely autonomous from its mental correlate and analyzed in terms of a priori conceptual structures and computational operations; for its part, the mental side of language is treated as innate; the relation between the two is thus made utterly obscure and incomprehensible. The conclusion of the article argues in favour of a more balanced approach inspired by Aristotelianism and Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics.

This book steers a middle course between two opposing conceptions that currently dominate the field of semantics, the logical and cognitive approaches. Patrick Duffley brings to light the inadequacies of both of these frameworks, arguing that linguistic semantics must be based on the linguistic sign itself and on the meaning that it conveys across the full range of its uses. The book offers 12 case studies that demonstrate the explanatory power of a sign-based semantics, dealing with topics such as complementation with aspectual and causative verbs, control and raising, wh- words, full-verb inversion, and existential-there constructions. It calls for a radical revision of the semantics/pragmatics interface, proposing that the dividing line be drawn between content that is linguistically encoded and content that is not encoded but still communicated. While traditional linguistic analysis often places meaning at the level of the sentence or construction, this volume argues that meaning belongs at the lower level of linguistic items, where the linguistic sign is stored in a stable, permanent, and direct relation with its meaning outside of any particular context. Building linguistic analysis from the ground up in this way provides it with a more0solid foundation and increases its explanatory power.

In reply to the claim that syntax is not taken into account in Linguistic Meaning Meets Linguistic Form, I show that local syntactic analysis has been implemented in the treatment of aspectual verbs and verbs of positive and negative recall, where the syntactic function of the -ing form as direct object of the main verb is put into relation with the main verb’s meaning as the basis for the inferences drawn concerning the temporal relation between the main verb’s event and that expressed by the complement. I argue that I have also developed new tools of syntactic analysis for the to-infinitive, demonstrating that it is not the direct object of the main verb, but rather a goal- or result-specifier, and showing how this accounts for the fact that its event is always understood to be somehow subsequent to that of the main verb. Regarding the applicability of formal semantics to natural language, I argue that the absolute priority accorded to the truth-functional dimension of language by this type of semantics leads to the artificial separation of use-conditions from truth-conditions, with the former being treated as an additional interpretational function added on to the truth-functional one. Contra the autonomous syntax claim that our desire to express meaning is to a great extent independent of the means we use to express those meanings, it is argued that how we perceive the world in our experience is influenced by our system of linguistic representation.

Stern’s Columbia School Theory contribution on English self-pronouns provides a wonderful illustration of the explanatory power of an approach that refuses to be taken in by a priori grammatical categories like reflexivity, which have the unfortunate consequence of giving the analyst the impression that he or she already knows all about the semantics of the form under study before looking at real usage, and attempts rather to uncover the semantic content of the linguistic sign -self based on careful observation and deep reflection on what might explain the way this sign is used in English. Stern shows that a purely syntactic account is unable to account for the fact that self-pronouns occur not only in syntactically reflexive environments, but also in non-reflexive ones, and conversely that simple pronouns also appear in both types of contexts. A faint glimmer of the structuralist origins of Columbia School Theory shows through in one case however.

This paper addresses the use of noun-class markers in Tagbana from the perspective of a cognitively-inspired approach based on Langacker’s (2000. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter) semiological principle. Drawing on this basic tenet of Cognitive Grammar according to which the symbolic function of language consists in making speakers’ conceptualizations auditorily or visually perceptible, it demonstrates that in syntactic constructions composed of ‘noun-stem+noun-class marker’ and ‘noun-class marker+identifier’, noun-class markers fulfil the semantic function of making explicit the way the speaker conceives of the experiential entity referred to in the utterance.This view goes beyond form-centred functions such as referent-tracking to include the signifying of complex conceptualizations involving more than one noun-class marker with the same noun-stem, as well as the discourse functions of indicating topicality, insistence on a referent’s existence and contrastive focus.