RT list: Logical Form

Dear All,

A further contribution on the very useful debate on Logical Form, following those of Ray Gibbs, Thorsten Fretheim and Stavros Assimakopoulos..

One of the problems with LF is that it seems to involve a processing circularity. How do you decide what LF to assign to an utterance (of, say, "On the top shelf")? It seems to me you need to make a guess as to the thought the speaker/writer intended to express by means of that utterance. But if that is how it is done, once that thought has been accessed, it is not clear what role is left for Logical Form (considered as level of linguistic representation) in interpretation. Accessing a Logical Form cannot be a step, let alone a necessary step, in the process of interpretation (i.e. the process of guessing the thought expressed).

If there are Logical Forms as such, I incline to Fodor's view: 'I think that LF is a level of description not of English, but of Mentalese...' (LOT2 (2008) page 78, Note 50).

Dan Wedgwood ('Semantic minimalism and Relevance theory' JL 43:3 (2007, page 679) wrote "Relevance theorists have tended to assume that RT can be used more or less as an adjunct to fairly conventional approaches to other parts of linguistic theory. It has sometimes been presented as a pragmatic framework to complement more or less independent work in syntax and semantics.... But...RT has more radical consequences, whether we like it or not. In effect, this constitutes a break from conventional perspectives on semantics." He suggests that relevance theorists should not be "afraid to see through the implications of this".
        RT's adoption of standard linguistic theory's notion of LF as a level of linguistic representation is a case in point, I believe; it is one very salient respect in which RT presents itself as a complementary adjunct to conventional linguistic theory. This is effectively what I argued in the paper that Thorsten Fretheim refers to (but see also my 2005 JL review of Robyn Carston's aptly entitled book, 'Thoughts and Utterances'). I agree with Ray Gibbs that RT has nothing to lose by dropping LF as a level of linguistic representation. In doing so, it would present itself more clearly and accurately, not as an adjunct, but as a challenge to conventional linguistic wisdom.

Best wishes - Noel.

Noel Burton-Roberts
Professor of English Language & Linguistics
Newcastle University UK
(44) (0)191 222 7753
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/elll/staff/profile/n.burton-roberts
Received on Thu Feb 17 09:33:11 2011