Cover not available
Part of
Essays on Linguistic Realism
Edited by Christina Behme and Martin Neef
[Studies in Language Companion Series 196] 2018
► pp. 1–6

Chapter 1
The ontology of natural language

| New York University
This chapter discusses natural language ontology, focusing on the nature of sentences. Two contrasting views about such elements are considered. First, the naturalistic view takes sentences to be elements of the physical world. There are two variants. One, which regards sentences as utterances, has few if any current advocates. The other, which views sentences as mental/biological things, is currently dominant, defining the position of Noam Chomsky. Second, there is the nonnaturalistic, Platonist view advocated intensively by Jerrold J. Katz, which takes sentences to be abstract objects. This view is consistent with the fact that sentences are timeless, locationless entities entering into no causal relations. Only the naturalistic view is inconsistent with actual linguistics, where sentences are uniformly treated in set-theoretical terms.
Keywords: sentence, ontology, Platonist view, biolinguistics, naturalistic imperative
Published online: 26 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.196.01pos
References (12)
References
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2002. On Nature and Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The Science of Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1981. Language and Other Abstract Objects. Totowa NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
1990. The Metaphysics of Meaning. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1996. The unfinished Chomskyan revolution. Mind and Language 11: 270–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Realistic Rationalism. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2004. Sense, Reference, and Philosophy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M.. 2004. Skeptical Linguistic Essays. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2009. The incoherence of Chomsky’s ‘biolinguistic’ ontology. Biolinguistics 3: 104–123.Google Scholar
. 2012. Chomsky’s foundational admission. lingbuzz/001569 <[URL]>.
Geoffrey K. Pullum & Huddleston, Rodney D. 2002. Preliminaries. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Rodney D. Huddleston & Geoffrey Pullum (eds), 1–42. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Swiggers, Pierre
2023. Review of Aarssen, Genis & van der Veken (2018–2020). Historiographia Linguistica 50:2-3 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 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.