Semantics and syntax relationship


semantics and syntax relationship

The theory of the syntax-semantics interface has to explain which aspects of The syntax-semantics interface establishes a relationship between these two. PDF | There is yet much confusion over the relation between syntax and semantics. From the clear assertion that "grammar is autonomous and independent of. You can break validity down into two things: syntax and semantics. the various tokens and their relationships to determine semantic validity.

Second, there are several elements which express repetition again, re- anew ; this makes it possible to contrast the behavior of these elements. Third, repetitives allow us to explore the interaction of syntax and semantics in a way few elements in language do. One well-known property of again is that it allows for different interpretations in examples such as Fred closed the door again: Quantifiers expressions such as everyone, a door and information structure topic and focus also shed light on the interaction of syntax and semantics and they constitute areas of interest of our faculty.

"Syntax vs. Semantics" - Q&A

Faculty Edward Rubin My research focuses on syntax and its interfaces, especially Modifiers, Case, Functional Categories, Syntactic underpinning of morphological factors, the nature and role of syntactic features, etc. I often work with co-authors and welcome finding shared interests to work on with students Aniko Csirmaz I am mainly interested in issues related to syntax and its interfaces with semantics and the lexicon. My current work focuses on adverbial modification on the syntax-semantics side.

My research also addresses the interaction of phonology, semantics and syntax, as shown, for example, by the effect of phonology on quantifier scope interpretation. Aspect and countability Verbal structures show aspectual differences and nominal structures vary in whether they are countable or not. Aspect involves, among others, the issue of whether a certain eventuality is seen as one that has a natural endpoint or not.

What do "syntax" and "semantics" mean and how are they different?

In 1athe eventuality is understood to end when the song is over. The eventuality in 1bin contrast, has no natural endpoint; it can continue for an arbitrarily long time. As the examples show, adverbial modification identifies these two groups of eventuality descriptions.

Bill sang an Irish song in two minutes b. Bill sang Irish songs for an hour. Nominal structures can be countable or uncountable, as illustrated by the object in 2a and 2brespectively. Bill ate a doughnut b. Bill ate rice In connection with these properties, I am interested in a variety of questions. These include the following: How is aspect and countability determined?

semantics and syntax relationship

What is the lexical entry of the elements that play a role in determining aspect and countability? If there is variation in the aspectual properties of an eventuality description, then why does that variation arise?

What do "syntax" and "semantics" mean and how are they different?

What are the properties, including the syntactic positions, of the adverbials that identify aspect? What is the range of adverbials that identify aspect?

What is the range and what are the properties of classifiers, which can make an uncountable nominal countable? Prosody, structure and interpretation Prosody, structure and interpretation interact in several ways. Hungarian shows some examples of this interaction. First, focused elements which bear nuclear stress, indicated by underlining appear in the immediately preverbal position.

Second, some Hungarian sentences allow different interpretations, depending on whether certain constituents are stressed or not. Identificational Focus and Information Focus. The Syntax of Hungarian.

Such particles are sometimes referred to as Question particles or, perhaps more accurately, Quantifier particles. The distribution of such particles across a syntactically diverse set of contexts is seen clearly in languages like Japanese, and a number of languages of Sri Lanka and southern India including Sinhala and Malayalam; and appears as well in some Na-Dene languages of the American northwest like Tlingit and in Finno-Ugric languages like Hungarian.

Even English shows some limited patterns of a similar sort. Less robustly, particles involved in universal quantification also show up in the formation of conjunctions in some of the above languages.

Then it is possible to say that syntax does not need semantics, or that it is structure what determines meaning.

Whether that is interesting or helpful is up to the syntacticians who work under such view. As for semantics, it simply cannot be studied without reference to syntax, for any meaningful phrase or sentence is always a that, a phrase or a sentence, so it must have a certain structure.

If we want to study language in a more comprehensive way, I think the relation bewteen syntax and semantics must be one of interdependence, and thus it is more fruitful to study the way structures are built up and also the meaning that arises from such building operation.

Just as we have structure building from a syntactic perspective, we have function application from a semantic perspective. This is one of the several general descriptions of the relation between syntax and semantics, but again, the specific views depend on the theories of syntax and semantics which you are working with. Even if the view is that syntax and semantics are related in some way, there are approaches in which syntactic and semantic structures are generated independently, for instance 1 below.

There's also an interesting and recent article about the syntax-semantic interface that you might find useful, and that's 2.

semantics and syntax relationship

Another interesting presentation of the mutual influence of syntax and semantics can be found in 3 link to video. Jackendoff Foundations of language: Hackl The syntax-semantics interface.