I 236
Chinese room: semantics is not intrinsic to the syntax. >
Syntax.
- - -
VI 205
Semantics/speech act theory/Searle: speech act theory is not an appendage, but encompasses everything that used to be called semantics and pragmatics. >
Pragmatics, >
speech act theory.
- - -
VII 100
Semantics/pragmatics/Searle: I have never found the distinction between pragmatics and semantics useful, as it requires a specific theory in the philosophy of language.
VII 102
Language/Searle: without a coherent general theory of syntax and semantics, we have no way of distinguishing between features of utterances that are derived from particular words and features that are derived from other facts, e.g. from speech or syntactic syntax.
VIII 419
Generative semantics/"Young Turks": thesis: according to this opinion (of Chomsky's students) there is no boundary between syntax and semantics and therefore no such entities as syntactic deep structures.
ChomskyVs: syntax should be studied separately from semantics. (This is the heritage of structuralism).
Searle: deep philosophical view: for Chomsky the human being is a syntactic living being, the brain is syntactically structured.
The semantic function does not determine the form of syntax.
Form is only casually related to function.
VIII 420
Generative semantics/"Young Turks"VsChomsky: one of the decisive factors in the formation of syntactic structures is semantics. Even terms like "grammatically correct" or "well-formed sentence" require the introduction of semantic terms! Example: "He called him a Republican and insulted him".
>
Generative grammar.
VIII 422
Young Turks: Ross, Postal, Lakoff, McCawley, Fillmore.
Thesis: grammar begins with a description of the meaning of a sentence.
Searle: if generative semantics is right and there are no syntactic deep structures, linguistics becomes even more interesting; we can then systematically investigate how form and function are connected. (Chomsky: there is no connection here!)
>
Young turks.