Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-n7mkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-15T12:25:01.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Katz's Autonomous Semantics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ray Jackendoff
Ray Jackendoff*
Affiliation:
Brandeis University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper critically examines Jerrold Katz's position on meaning, in particular his view that a semantic theory can be constructed which is free of information derived from pragmatics and speakers' belief systems. It is shown that, if such a semantic theory exists, it either excludes many fundamental phenomena which are normally thought of as semantic, or else misses linguistically significant generalizations. It is then argued that, even if Katz's particular version of semantics is rejected, this does not render an intentionalist semantic theory impossible.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 425 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

* I wish to thank Jane Grimshaw, Morris Halle, Jorge Hankamer, Elise Jackendoff, D. T. Langendoen, Joan Maling, and Alan Prince for their important comments and suggestions about earlier versions of this paper.

References

Bolinger, Dwight. 1965. Forms of English: Accent, morpheme, order. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean, Fodor, Jerry A.; and Garrett, Merrill F. 1975. The psychological unreality of semantic representations. Linguistic Inquiry 6. 515–32.Google Scholar
Ioup, Georgette. 1975. Some universals for quantifier scope. Syntax and Semantics 4, ed. by Kimball, John, 37–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1969. An interpretive theory of negation. Foundations of Language 5. 218–41.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1976. Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 89–150.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1978. Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure. Linguistic theory and psychological reality, ed. by Halle, Morris et al., 201–28. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1972. Semantic theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1977. The real status of semantic representations. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 559–84.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1980. Chomsky on meaning. Lg. 56.11–41.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. ms. Language and other abstract objects. In press.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward. 1964. Negation in English. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, Jerry & Katz, Jerrold, 246–323. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. Presupposition and relative well-formedness. Semantics, ed. by Steinberg, Danny & Jakobovits, Leon, 231–96. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, George, and Johnson-Laird, Philip. 1976. Language and perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar