Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 26:2/3 (2019) ► pp.296–320

How linguistic meaning harmonizes with information through meaning conservation

| Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, India
This paper aims to characterize the relationship between information as defined in the information-theoretic approach and linguistic meaning by way of formulation of computations over the lexicon of a natural language. Information in its information theoretic sense is supposed not to be equivalent to linguistic meaning, whereas linguistic meaning has an intrinsic connection to information as far as the form and structure of the lexicon of a language (in a non-lexicological sense) is concerned. We argue that these two apparently conflicting aspects of the relationship between information and linguistic meaning can be unified by showing that information conserves linguistic meaning, only insofar as computations of a certain kind are defined on the symbolic elements of a lexicon. This has consequences not merely for the nature of lexical learning – natural or artificial or otherwise – but also for the conservation of information in axiomatic systems.
Keywords: lexicon, meaning, information, axiomatic systems, syntax
Article outline
  • 1.Introductory background
  • 2.Information, linguistic meaning and computation
  • 3.Why the lexicon?
  • 4.The principle of linguistic meaning conservation
  • 5.Implications
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18018.mon
References (37)
References
Barwise, Jon & Jerry Seligman. 1997. Information flow: The logic of distributed systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benthem, Johan van & Maricarmen Martinez. 2008. The stories of logic and information. In Pieter Adriaans & Johan van Benthem (eds.), Philosophy of information, vol. 81, 217–280. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Boland, Richard J. Jr. & Kalle Lyytinen. 2017. The limits to language in doing system design. European Journal of Information Systems 26(3). 248–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1988. The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In John Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 73–101. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bremer, Manuel E. 2003. Do logical truths carry information? Minds and Machines 13(4). 567–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf & Yehoshua Bar-Hillel. 1952. An outline of a theory of semantic information. Technical Report 247. Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT.Google Scholar
Clark, Stephen. 2015. Vector space models of lexical meaning. In Shalom Lappin & Chris Fox (eds.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 493–522. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 2003. Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2007. Information structure: The syntax-discourse interface. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech 280(1). 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francez, Nissim & Shuly Wintner. 2011. Unification grammars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gregory, Howard. 2015. Language and logics: An introduction to the logical foundations of language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hampton, James A. 2017. Compositionality and concepts. In James A. Hampton & Yoad Winter (eds.), Language, cognition, and mind: Vol. 3. Compositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology, 95–122. New York: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1991. A theory of language and information: A mathematical approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, Jaakko. 1973. Logic, language-games and information. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Martin Stokhof. 2008. Information in natural language. In Pieter Adriaans & Johan van Benthem (eds.), Philosophy of information, vol. 81, 49–111. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Information structure and sentence form: A theory of topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyytinen, Kalle. 1985. Implications of theories of language for information systems. MIS Quarterly 9(1). 61–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menzel, Christopher. 1999. The objective conception of contexts and its logic. Minds and Machines 9(1). 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondal, Prakash. 2012. Can internalism and externalism be reconciled in a biological epistemology of language? Biosemiotics 5(1). 61–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Lexicon, meaning relations and semantic networks. The 2nd Workshop on Natural Language for Artificial Intelligence (NL4AI 2018) 21. 40–52.Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa L., Daphne Bavelier & Helen J. Neville. 2002. Critical thinking about critical periods: Perspectives on a critical period for language acquisition. In Emmanuel Dupoux (ed.), Language, brain and cognitive development, 481–502. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis J. 2017. Compositionality and concepts – A perspective from formal semantics and philosophy of language. In James A. Hampton & Yoad Winter (eds.), Language, cognition, and mind, vol. 3: Compositionality and concepts in linguistics and psychology, 31–94. New York: Springer Nature. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2013. The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory. Mind and Language 28(4). 492–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The generative lexicon. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Type theory and lexical decomposition. In James Pustejovsky, Pierrette Bouillon, Hitoshi Isahara, Kyoko Kanzaki & Chungmin Lee (eds.), Advances in generative lexicon theory, 9–38. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 2013. From Whorf to Montague: Explorations in the theory of language. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. & Warren Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1992. Constraint-based grammar formalisms. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Turney, Peter D. & Patrick Pantel. 2010. From frequency to meaning: Vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 371. 141–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Reimer, Laura & Eva Smolka
2023. The wrong horse was bet on: the effects of argument structure versus argument adjacency on the processing of idiomatic sentences. Frontiers in Psychology 14 DOI logo
Zhou, Jiangping
2023. Meaning patterns of the NP de VP construction in modern Chinese: approaches of covarying collexeme analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 10:1 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.